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

  • Thread starter Thread starter itullian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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).

🤷
Because one has talent in ANYTHING, does mean that the amount of talent that they have is enough to be the greatest at anything or talented enough to be successful in a business manner to support herself/himself. Her talent very well may be enough to entertain and bring great joy to others. One can reach their FULL potential but still not have enough talent to make that talent life supporting—but it can be enough to many other great things. Because somebody has less potential does not mean that they aren’t talented–the two are not even necessarily related.
 
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.
The problem with your diagram is that it assumes that talent begins at a definable point–which, it appears from this discussion, few are in agreement. Therefore, at least to me, the diagram is as meaningless as the pyramid.
 
The problem with your diagram is that it assumes that talent begins at a definable point–which, it appears from this discussion, few are in agreement. Therefore, at least to me, the diagram is as meaningless as the pyramid.
It fits the definition I quoted.

Where is a diagram that fits your definition?
 
You have significant talent for drawing diagrams—I don’t. Talent can’t be confined by lines and numbers anyway.
Why not? Students are given grades in school. Why must everything be a matter of someone’s subjective opinion? So we can be all-inclusive and say “everyone has talent”? I reject that.
 
Why not what? Why don’t I have significant talent to draw diagrams? I don’t know. I have some talent at this craft but not significant enough talent to transfer them to a computer.

Talent is not a mathematical equation and can’t be defined as such (as you’re surely well aware). It is also not scientific. And, as you have clearly shown, others have opinions as to what it is. You have shown immense talent in this discussion (as have others). This has nothing to do with grades in school.

We KNOW that you reject the words “everyone has talent” or “everyone has a talent”—that’s your prerogative. Fine. It still doesn’t show that there is a person anywhere that doesn’t have talent (which they do).

I’ve been looking for days for someone with no talent—can’t find anybody anywhere that deprived. I’m sure I’ll never find one. If you’ve found somebody with that problem, please point them out. I’d love to see them and have them evaluated (obviously, they’d have no pulse).
 
Why not what? …
Why can’t talent be confined to lines and numbers?
Talent is not a mathematical equation and can’t be defined as such (as you’re surely well aware). It is also not scientific. And, as you have clearly shown, others have opinions as to what it is. …
Then you can’t say, “everyone has talent” if you can’t define it.
I’ve been looking for days for someone with no talent—can’t find anybody anywhere that deprived.
That’s because every ability is talent to you, and someone without talent would be “deprived” because he had only average abilities. I see them every day, and there is nothing wrong with them; they certainly aren’t “deprived”.
 
Why can’t talent be confined to lines and numbers?

Then you can’t say, “everyone has talent” if you can’t define it.

That’s because every ability is talent to you, and someone without talent would be “deprived” because he had only average abilities. I see them every day, and there is nothing wrong with them; they certainly aren’t “deprived”.
We have defined it here on this thread—MANY TIMES!!! We’ve even laid out sources for you. I’m not sure why you’ve missed that.

Are you saying that only things definable by mathematical equations, diagrams, pyramids, and scientific experiments are real? On a Catholic forum? If that be the case, completely define God using only those methods.

Again, show me someone who has no talent. They don’t exist. And indeed, they aren’t deprived–because they have talent. You just may not know them all and some have them to lesser degrees. If they people are so abundant in your life, I’m sure you’ll be happy in showing them to us all—give us their story. We’ll point out their talents.
 
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.
Oh, yes, most certainly. Neither I or my teacher who quoted that would disagree. Both of my main teachers had international careers in opera, performing major roles in such houses as Covent Garden, Metropolitan Opera, Santa Fe, San Francisco Opera, Munich Stattsoper, Carnegie Hall, etc. opposite some of the greatest singers like Placido Domingo, Kiri Te Kanewa, Jennie Tourel, Sherril Milnes, Frederica von Stade, Samuel Ramey and for conductors like Boulez, Sawallisch, Tilson-Thomas, Solti, Von Karajan, etc. They didn’t have the time to teach while they were busy performing around the world, but once they slowed down their engagements and eventually retired all together, they began to teach. Both of my teachers are now in their 70s. They still have their voices and although I have heard their voices in their prime on professional recordings, I still think the voices are beautiful. But they are honest with themselves and know their voices are not what they were in their prime. They are still masters in terms of knowing what is good and what is not and they know their techniques inside and out, but now can only teach since they are no longer at their personal level of vocal perfection . They “can’t” now, so they “teach”. When they “could”, they would “do”.

Some people who are performing have time to teach. I’m still a young singer and I don’t know if I’ll ever have a really busy international career like my teachers. I don’t really have the ambition to be an international singer anymore because I now have a family and I know what it takes to do that. There was a point early on where I was at a crossroads to either give myself completely to music and not be married or have a family, or to have a family and have a more modest career. I knew myself well enough to know I couldn’t have both. I chose the latter. It was a choice I don’t regret. I will go overseas once in a while, but not like I wanted to in the past. I don’t want to be away from my young children too much and would rather have a regional/local career. If God wants me to have more, I will accept it. He led me to this path, as much as I tried to fight it in the beginning. Singing was definitely a spiritual calling for me.

So, I do have a little time on my hands to take a couple students. Not many as I don’t want to take away from my performing opportunities, but teaching actually helps me understand my technique better as well. It’s a win-win. 🙂
 

Again, show me someone who has no talent. They don’t exist. …
Yes, they do. I know because I’m one of them. All I have are average abilities in some areas. None in others. You want to see talent? I’ll give you what talent really is. Click on the image below.
 
Yep she’s got talent.
You are talented at drawing diagrams–far more talented than I am at that.
We also know, from this discussion, that you have photography talents. Looks like you’re multi-talented. Next we will be arguing that folks have too many talents.
 
Yep she’s got talent.
You are talented at drawing diagrams–far more talented than I am at that.
We also know, from this discussion, that you have photography talents. Looks like you’re multi-talented. Next we will be arguing that folks have too many talents.
lol!!!

I might be wrong, but I think because sedonaman does not believe he is a “master” at his ability, it means he does not have any talent. “Jack of all trades. Master of none” philosophy. Art photography, like a lot of art, is really subjective, though, so it can be difficult to see what one person believes is truly talent and what isn’t. One person might think he is a genius, while another may think he is a hack even if he may think he is above average. (Although, I believe anyone who is above average in anything would be talented, but that’s my opinion.) His standard of what makes someone talented is very high compared to most people’s standards. It really is an arbitrary moveable line due to the fact that so many people have a different idea of where that line begins. This discussion, alone, demonstrates that.
 
Of course, by definition,
And what does ‘unusually high’’ mean? For some, if the quality is better than 51% of people out there could produce, that is unusually high, as more people than not have a lower quality, and something that is not possessed by half or more than half of all people is by definition at least very slightly unusual.

Where is that line for you? Better than 75%? 85%? 99.9%? More importantly, WHY is your cutoff line where it is and neither higher nor lower? What is your reasoning behind classifying, say, your son who wins competitions as talented when you (who can certainly be said to have an unusually high level of ability in photography if your pictures are getting published where the majority of people would not) are apparently not?

That’s all it’s about really. You’re here saying that you must be in the top x% and we, with equal justification, are saying ‘well, x is too small a number’.
 
And what does ‘unusually high’’ mean? For some, if the quality is better than 51% of people out there could produce, that is unusually high, as more people than not have a lower quality, and something that is not possessed by half or more than half of all people is by definition at least very slightly unusual.

Where is that line for you? Better than 75%? 85%? 99.9%? More importantly, WHY is your cutoff line where it is and neither higher nor lower? …
I set it at the +2 standard deviations only for illustrative and discussion purposes. I imagine the experts in a given discipline would draw the line somewhere near it. I had a math teacher in high school who drew the cut-offs higher than what we were accustomed to, such that an 88% on a test was a C.
That’s all it’s about really. You’re here saying that you must be in the top x% and we, with equal justification, are saying ‘well, x is too small a number’.
I didn’t see any justification for it being lower and still be considered “unusually high.” 51% certainly is not unusual nor high.
 
However, that’s all using his definition—and, as has been shown here many times here, there is another well accepted definition. Any degree of a talent IS a talent. It may be less than some but it exists (in all).
 
… Any degree of a talent IS a talent. …
I would agree if “talent” was defined as “an ability of unusually high quality,” above the +2 SDs for example; but according to you, it is any ability; therefore simply opening your eyes in the morning is a “talent”. :dts: Can’t you see how ridiculous it is?
 
I would agree if “talent” was defined as “an ability of unusually high quality,” above the +2 SDs for example; but according to you, it is any ability; therefore simply opening your eyes in the morning is a “talent”. :dts: Can’t you see how ridiculous it is?
Sorry, it isn’t ridiculous at all. And the definition isn’t just “mine”—it is from several sources (as has already been demonstrated).

Still waiting to see how you define God using mathematical and scientific diagrams only.
It’s going to take an extraordinary amount of your many talents to come up with that one.
 
Oh, yes, most certainly. Neither I or my teacher who quoted that would disagree. Both of my main teachers had international careers in opera, performing major roles in such houses as Covent Garden, Metropolitan Opera, Santa Fe, San Francisco Opera, Munich Stattsoper, Carnegie Hall, etc. opposite some of the greatest singers like Placido Domingo, Kiri Te Kanewa, Jennie Tourel, Sherril Milnes, Frederica von Stade, Samuel Ramey and for conductors like Boulez, Sawallisch, Tilson-Thomas, Solti, Von Karajan, etc. They didn’t have the time to teach while they were busy performing around the world, but once they slowed down their engagements and eventually retired all together, they began to teach. Both of my teachers are now in their 70s. They still have their voices and although I have heard their voices in their prime on professional recordings, I still think the voices are beautiful. But they are honest with themselves and know their voices are not what they were in their prime. They are still masters in terms of knowing what is good and what is not and they know their techniques inside and out, but now can only teach since they are no longer at their personal level of vocal perfection . They “can’t” now, so they “teach”. When they “could”, they would “do”.

Some people who are performing have time to teach. I’m still a young singer and I don’t know if I’ll ever have a really busy international career like my teachers. I don’t really have the ambition to be an international singer anymore because I now have a family and I know what it takes to do that. There was a point early on where I was at a crossroads to either give myself completely to music and not be married or have a family, or to have a family and have a more modest career. I knew myself well enough to know I couldn’t have both. I chose the latter. It was a choice I don’t regret. I will go overseas once in a while, but not like I wanted to in the past. I don’t want to be away from my young children too much and would rather have a regional/local career. If God wants me to have more, I will accept it. He led me to this path, as much as I tried to fight it in the beginning. Singing was definitely a spiritual calling for me.

So, I do have a little time on my hands to take a couple students. Not many as I don’t want to take away from my performing opportunities, but teaching actually helps me understand my technique better as well. It’s a win-win. 🙂
Yeah, I think that’s the other side of the coin is that many great talents decide to not pursue international careers because of time involvement. Success isn’t necessarily a measure of a person’s talent. I’m clarinet myself. I enjoy taking professional gigs, but feel that in the long term having a stable music job in one spot works better for my life. I decided to teach not because I couldn’t do anymore, but because of other priorities too.
 
I would agree if “talent” was defined as “an ability of unusually high quality,” above the +2 SDs for example; but according to you, it is any ability; therefore simply opening your eyes in the morning is a “talent”. :dts: Can’t you see how ridiculous it is?
Sedonaman, you have an amazing talent for continuing to stand up for what you believe, even when you are standing alone. 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top