Talented or not?

[DrXparaMental]

What, and more exacting, who, do you consider great musical talent?

1) Do you find the striving or accomplished virtuoso that goes out of their way to practice 10 hours a day and study the best musical minds they can to be the one you consider the most talented, or does talented equate to a less concerned technical proficiency, yet far more artistically unique musician? It doesn't mean that you can't be both. If it's not too much trouble, please give an example of who you would nominate and why?

2)Name one word that does not necessarily have to be found in a dictionary meaning's context, that YOU feel best sums up talent. IE. Discipline, Artistic, Virtuosity, etc.

[gjm]

Me.

Potential.



Its all subjective.

[timothyallan]

1. A baby banging blocks together has musical and rhythmic talent, so did Beethoven... Is one 'better' than the other? How would you define 'better'? Humanity has concocted the idea that being able to play an instrument or in a band makes you musically 'talented'. It's all subjective.

2. Alive

[DrXparaMental]

Me.

Potential.



Its all subjective.

As it should be gjm, as it should be.

I was actually hoping for a bit more personally projected insight though.

Naturally it's all subjective, that's what the query is all about. I would just like to know who and why.

It's not like there could be any wrong answers, just fascinating reasons why you feel this way.

For me it's all about uniqueness and really has nothing to do with technical prowess.

Technical prowess is great as long as the musician is seasoned enough to express themselves without getting in his/her own way.

Stanley Clarke did a wonderful job of this once he made it past his self inflicted torture days. His middle period solo stuff was unreal and will forever be some of the most unique and amazing music ever written. Same with cats like Frank Gambale, Stuart Ham or Victor Wooten. These musicians are able to actually play with great uninhibited artistic expression AND do it with killer chops. That's rare.

However, for me anyhow, NOTHING compares to what one word can sum up. Inspiration.

I measure the full developed potential of talent in the ability for that musician to be as inspirational as is possible.


Trent Reznor
Geezer Butler
Jimi Hendrix
Tom Jenkinson
Les Claypool
Beck
Tony Iommi
Larry Graham
Jaun Atkins
Chuck Berry
Chis Ballew
Eddie Van Halen

These are some of the types of musicians I consider the most abundent in talent. They made their dreams into music, their dreams in music became reality and that reality birthed via inspiration countless other dreams that became reality. To me, that's talent's best.

[elxicano]

Talent has nothing to do with anything you mentioned.

Talent is a natural ability... check your dictionary. This is what it means.

[elxicano]

From dictionary.com...

tal?ent? ?[tal-uhnt]
–noun
1. a special natural ability or aptitude

[elxicano]

Now what people do with their talent, relates to the things you mentioned.

If this were not true, then there would be no need for sayings, like 'Raw-talent' or 'waisted talent'.

[aisling]

........Tony Iommi

These are some of the types of musicians I consider the most abundent in talent. They made their dreams into music, their dreams in music became reality and that reality birthed via inspiration countless other dreams that became reality. To me, that's talent's best.

That was really a cool way of putting things.......not to mention sabbath rules ( I hear kudos over the new dio line up......always loved heaven and hell)

[starving student]

imho this is talent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9NIeeP8Ook

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdRP3dQ9 ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcJ63EpB ... re=channel



and this is not


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwRG0Ki7 ... re=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF1ywfja ... re=channel

[fingerprince]

Talent
Mainly about opinion - not useful

Listen to or look at something
Decide whether you like it or not
If you like it , maybe do it again, maybe once was enough
Simple but useful

[gjm]

Me.
Potential.
Its all subjective.

As it should be gjm, as it should be.
I was actually hoping for a bit more personally projected insight though.

Sorry, I was in a bit of a rush.

This is all simply my opinion. Its just my current view of this subject. It's subjective.

Starting with the alternative word, I chose 'Potential.' In a sense I agree with some of the sentiments you expressed in the 10K thread. Some people are just born with better fine and gross motor skills as well as cognitive skills that suit various musical languages. How do I know this, well I can play every musical instrument I have tried. This includes stringed instruments, reed instruments, percussion instruments, keyboards, and wind instruments. I have never tried Brass. But I reckon I could play them. The more mechanical the better. I had about a dozen instrument lessons when I was a teen, and a couple vocal lessons in my mid 20's. Most instruments take about 15-30 mins to figure out, and then I am away.

Now my brother can't play a single thing, and yes he did try. My theory is that in the same way I was not born with a physical body that allowed me to play rugby (at any level) which my brother does have, I was born with a 'system' that allowed me to play musical instruments.

In terms of reading music, I just taught myself. I bought a book and just figured it out. Its not hard for me.

So I figure I have 'Talent' in the musical ability area, and that I was just born with it. What I have done with those skills or 'Talent' is another story. Any 'exceptionally skilled' person will only go so far before they need to put some work into themselves, essentially training of some sort. This involves correcting technique, building muscle memory and endurance, reinforcing hand-eye coordination etc. This type of training is usually done to fit into a system of some sort where people can quantify achievement. This can often lead to fame or financial reward. Again this is done in degrees, but this training helps uncover and improve upon the natural potential that was already there.

Now, the reason why I chose 'Potential' as my alternative word choice, is because EVERYONE has a set of musical abilities in degrees. Some less than me, some more than me. With or without training, there will come a point where a person reaches the limit of their natural potential. There is a ceiling for everyone based on their natural born 'Talents.' Bodies grow old, grey matter dies. But the question remains, what is a persons potential based on their individual makeup?

Creativity (of which I don't believe exists as an entity) is another matter all together. So is success based on your talent or lack thereof. There are so many combination's that could come together that dictate an outcome. So I don't want to go there. It should not be a part of the conversation.

For me, I approach all of my students from this 'Potential' point of view. Its all about what they can grow into. For me, a truly talented person is one who can maximize ALL of their abilities through dedicated training to reach their potential. It does not matter that they do not change the world, only that they change themselves.

My 2c.

[LeifonMars]

Whether the artist possesses great talent or not interests me not a bit. All that matters to me if his/hers performance or work stimulates/inspires me. I'm a storyteller, I enjoy moments when a piece of art or just about anything starts to tell me a story or stimulates me into a condition where I start to tell a story to myself. But the discussion about talent and especially definitions of talent always make me think about sports, and sports I mainly dislike.

I was a teacher of theatre/dance course once. We had actors who wanted to learn dance and dancers who wanted to learn act. There was this one actor, male about 35 years old, he had no sense of rhythm. I mean he was completely and utterly missing the beat, in a ways that no one could replicate, because the logic of his moves was so irrational. Therefore one could say that he had no talent at all for dancing. But yet, his dancing was absolutely fascinating, far more interesting than the performances we got from the professional dancers participating our course. It was a strangely profound combination of complete farce and touching, pure, brave dedication to his performance.

One might argue though, that he was very talented performance artist.

[Grappadura]

I think it makes no sense to ponder about the own talent. Its almost impossible to judge yourself correctly. You always need an observer from outside.

[DrXparaMental]

Talent has nothing to do with anything you mentioned.

Talent is a natural ability... check your dictionary. This is what it means.

Yes my "sun", you are correct. However I was not defining talent but rather a personal interpretation or synonymy of talent.

This is, as is ALL forum posts, an IMO perspective.

The following is an IMO editorial:

The bottom line is that talent is an inherent gift. I just believe that the ultimate observation that the side line analyst perceives with respect to talent's artistic accomplishment is unique impression and it's subsequent inspiration. That's all.

Carry on "my sun"

[DrXparaMental]

Whether the artist possesses great talent or not interests me not a bit. All that matters to me if his/hers performance or work stimulates/inspires me. I'm a storyteller, I enjoy moments when a piece of art or just about anything starts to tell me a story or stimulates me into a condition where I start to tell a story to myself. But the discussion about talent and especially definitions of talent always make me think about sports, and sports I mainly dislike.

I was a teacher of theatre/dance course once. We had actors who wanted to learn dance and dancers who wanted to learn act. There was this one actor, male about 35 years old, he had no sense of rhythm. I mean he was completely and utterly missing the beat, in a ways that no one could replicate, because the logic of his moves was so irrational. Therefore one could say that he had no talent at all for dancing. But yet, his dancing was absolutely fascinating, far more interesting than the performances we got from the professional dancers participating our course. It was a strangely profound combination of complete farce and touching, pure, brave dedication to his performance.

One might argue though, that he was very talented performance artist.

This post IMO is EXTREMELY important. One could quickly dismiss it's observations and content as quirky, freakish or whatever, but it contains an absolute truth that is so complex and yet absolute, that it would require a full dedicated volume of research to explore fully.

In short, "talent" is in no way synonymous with skill. It's simply not. Yes, people can be incredibly talented
with respect to perfect pitch and a polyphony of rhythm more complex than a swiss watch, however, that's not an absolute summation of talent. What this poster has done is to bring to light an anomaly of talent that is utterly priceless in value. Inter, the outsider.

Whether one chooses to focus on a talent anomaly like "Blind Tom" an autistic slave child from back in the 1800s, who could after hearing ANY selection of piano rendered music play it note for note on any piano without one lesson or tutelage of any sort, or whether one chooses the incredible life and accomplishments of one Henry Darger (please look him up), we can really only be left to ponder the mysterious depths of the human mind.

There is no question that determination, conviction, vision, etc. are essential ingredients within the complex make up that comprises talent's big picture, but at times we find an extreme imbalanced composition of talent that results in anomalous talented accomplishment, yet almost always results in an unfortunate dysfunctional reality for those responsible for the accomplishments.

Remember "Blind Tom"? (who can be read about along with a slew of other incredible anomalous performers in a book written by one of the most talented men on Earth, Ricky Jay, entitled "Learned Pigs & Fireproof Women") Blind Tom died because of an extreme aversion to personal hygiene. He refused to take a bath and as a result died of subsequent infection.