Mozart, Bach, Beethoven,etc........Lucky or Blessed?

[Sarabande]

This is my line which constitutes talent/ability… If a person does not have the potential of competency in a certain area, then the person does not have talent/ability in that particular area. There are different levels of competency or ability within that, but if you do not have that potential, then you were not gifted with that talent/ability in the first place.

Ok, now I really have to go. I’ve got an opera to memorize before tonight’s rehearsal and a toddler wanting my attention.

 

[Hunter24]

is their talent God intended,

or just the luck of the draw?

thoughts?

A combination of their genetic material and life experiences.

 

[Operalan]

Many are now positing pretty much the same thing.
Talent is indeed “as common as dirt”. Mastery of a talent, is not.
People all have talent–we just have talent in different degrees in different things.
There is no such thing as negative talent.

 

[sedonaman]

… I don’t believe anyone is saying that everyone has talent in solely one area or just a few areas.

For a person with talent, there can be only two possibilities: 1) talent in one area, 2) talent in more than one area. So, what are they saying?
…

As it has been mentioned many times, most people in different areas of expertise will use “talent” and “ability” synonymously and everyone will know what they are talking about.

On the contrary, I don’t think they know what they are talking about. A couple of examples:

• “Discrimination is bad.” [Oh, really? Even when your boss discriminates between your outstanding performance and another employee’s poor performance?]
• “Government has the right to …” [Oh, really? I thought only people have rights whereas government has *authority.]

Also, if "everyone has talent” were true then everyone would be an expert in something [not that everyone must be one in the same thing]. This is clearly not true. Out of all the people I know, only a couple of them are experts in something.

We would also have no word that describes an “ability of unusually high quality”.

---

“The English language becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” – George Orwell, 1946 Essay, “Politics and the English Language”

 

[WingsOfEagles]

As discussed, not everyone’s talent is trained/discovered, so not everyone becomes an expert at what they have a natural ability for.

 

[sedonaman]

As discussed, not everyone’s talent is trained/discovered, so not everyone becomes an expert at what they have a natural ability for.

Then they don’t have talent.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Then they don’t have talent.

Incorrect, talent is the natural ability for something, not how well that natural ability is harnessed.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

i.e. Sally has raw talent for singing opera. It’s too bad that her parents never paid for singing lessons.

 

[sedonaman]

i.e. Sally has raw talent for singing opera. It’s too bad that her parents never paid for singing lessons.

:dts: If she had talent, she wouldn’t need lessons; she would be giving them.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

:dts: If she had talent, she wouldn’t need lessons; she would be giving them.

By your definition, not one classical musician has talent. I understand you’re not a classical musician, but nobody in the classical world who makes it has literally no training. Some can get by on less practice than others, yes, but everyone has to train.

 

[Operalan]

It’s VERY possible (and probable) that people have talent in more than one area. For an opera singer, to be succesful, they must be a very talented singer, a talented actor/actress, a talented business person, talented at p.r., and many other things. The most talented succeed for the most part (excluding those who succeed for other reasons where their talents come to the fore–that’s another story).

Without having a multiple talents, an opera singer isn’t going to get far.

But I wish we’d get off discussing talent in just the music realm (or athletic)–and I’m an opera singer too. Talent exists in so many forms. I am a talented singer, pianist, basketball player, speech giver, writer, story teller and many other things. I have received praise in all these. Am I equally talented in all these things—hardly. But still, I am (or was as I don’t pursue all of the activities any more) talented in several things.

All people have some kind of talent.

 

[sedonaman]

By your definition, not one classical musician has talent.

This is a non-sequitur. How does it follow?

I understand you’re not a classical musician, but nobody in the classical world who makes it has literally no training. Some can get by on less practice than others, yes, but everyone has to train.

So? Once they get training, they have talent.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

This is a non-sequitur. How does it follow?
You have backpedaled. I gave the example of Sally being a raw talent and that it was too bad that she never received voice lessons. You responded with “If she had talent, she wouldn’t need lessons. She would be giving them.”

So? Once they get training, they have talent. Talent is the natural ability/potential to be able to do something. Training does not talent make :dts:. Training harnesses talent to perfection at that higher level.

 

[Operalan]

WingsOfEagles:
Many singers actually have more talent than their teachers. But they both have it.

 

[sedonaman]

WingsOfEagles:
A person either has talent or he doesn’t. I don’t see potential as talent. :dts:

 

[Sarabande]

Many singers actually have more talent than their teachers. But they both have it.

Very true. There is an old saying my first voice teacher used to say either of singers like herself who had careers, but no longer perform or teachers who never really had “careers” (in terms of an international or even a regional/local career), but were excellent at teaching vocal technique: “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.”

I don’t know how true it is in other practices, but I know as a fellow opera singer like yourself, the above saying is certainly true.

I just saw this sentence example in the Merriam Webster thesaurus describing what talent was.

"a special and usually **inborn **ability <Liza’s musical talent was already apparent by the time she was five> "

I think this describes what people have been saying in regards to people having to be born with talent. I’m sticking with music because it is what I know best and because the original subject of the thread focused on musical geniuses.

Mostly everyone is aware that with musical talent, it is inborn. You either have the ability or you don’t, BUT you need training. That doesn’t mean that a brand new student or a more seasoned student have no talent just because they aren’t masters yet. A teacher or parent recognises this “raw talent” and then hones it in. Mozart’s father, for example, obviously saw this in his son when he first began teaching him. I don’t think one has to be a classical musician to understand what is natural, raw talent. No one would expect a raw talent to be a “master” yet. And, no, a person with raw talent would not be teaching. Even some masters in the musical field can’t even teach. Teaching music is a completely different kind of talent.

Artistry in music isn’t something that can actually be learned or even trained. That is one kind of talent which I believe is completely innate. It can grow and deepen as the musician matures, but it isn’t something that can be taught with a technique like in music. For example, there are musicians who are technically perfect, but they don’t have the talent to artistically and sensitively interpret the music. The listener might be impressed with the technical prowess, but would be left cold by the lack of artistry.

I went off on a little tangent there in regards to talent in artistry, but wanted to show that not all kinds of talent needs to be “trained” or “honed”.

 

[Operalan]

A person either has talent or he doesn’t. I don’t see potential as talent. :dts:

I don’t see potential as talent either—at least we are in agreement on something.
Talent is talent—and all have talent in something. They just may not have as much as someone else.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I don’t see potential as talent either—at least we are in agreement on something.
Talent is talent—and all have talent in something. They just may not have as much as someone else.

Why not?

She has the talent to be successful in that field of study.
She has the potential to be successful in that field of study. (If you don’t have the talent, then you won’t have the potential).

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Very true. There is an old saying my first voice teacher used to say either of singers like herself who had careers, but no longer perform or teachers who never really had “careers” (in terms of an international or even a regional/local career), but were excellent at teaching vocal technique: “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.”

I don’t know how true it is in other practices, but I know as a fellow opera singer like yourself, the above saying is certainly true.

I just saw this sentence example in the Merriam Webster thesaurus describing what talent was.

"a special and usually **inborn **ability <Liza’s musical talent was already apparent by the time she was five> "

I think this describes what people have been saying in regards to people having to be born with talent. I’m sticking with music because it is what I know best and because the original subject of the thread focused on musical geniuses.
**
Mostly everyone is aware that with musical talent, it is inborn. You either have the ability or you don’t, BUT you need training. That doesn’t mean that a brand new student or a more seasoned student have no talent just because they aren’t masters yet. A teacher or parent recognises this “raw talent” and then hones it in. Mozart’s father, for example, obviously saw this in his son when he first began teaching him. I don’t think one has to be a classical musician to understand what is natural, raw talent. No one would expect a raw talent to be a “master” yet. And, no, a person with raw talent would not be teaching. Even some masters in the musical field can’t even teach. Teaching music is a completely different kind of talent.
**
Artistry in music isn’t something that can actually be learned or even trained. That is one kind of talent which I believe is completely innate. It can grow and deepen as the musician matures, but it isn’t something that can be taught with a technique like in music. For example, there are musicians who are technically perfect, but they don’t have the talent to artistically and sensitively interpret the music. The listener might be impressed with the technical prowess, but would be left cold by the lack of artistry.

I went off on a little tangent there in regards to talent in artistry, but wanted to show that not all kinds of talent needs to be “trained” or “honed”.

Yes, to the bold. As far as the, those who can’t teach. This is not always the case. There are many music teachers/professors with professional careers in performance.

 

[sedonaman]

Talent: an ability of unusually high quality.

Perhaps a picture worth a thousand words will succeed where words failed. See bell curve below. Note that the curve is a continuum, not just one point at each end.