Ro3b wrote:I think as far as learning music goes, talent is irrelevant. As a teacher, I understand "I have no talent" to mean "I'm too unmotivated/conflicted/lazy to practice."
I wouldn't say that talent is <i>totally</i> irrelevant to learning. Talent is what will influence the speed at which the pupil is able to learn and pick up new tricks. No one is truly born with the ability to play flute (or do anything else, for that matter) but some folks do pick it up much quicker than others do, with less need to practice. And there are some folks who, no matter how hard they practice or how long they live, will never make it beyond a certain level. Talent is not a yes-you-have-it-or-no-you-don't thing, it's a continuum. Some people do have more talent than others, which helps them learn quicker and sometimes with no apparent effort at all. But the effort is there, apparent or not.Ro3b wrote:I think as far as learning music goes, talent is irrelevant. As a teacher, I understand "I have no talent" to mean "I'm too unmotivated/conflicted/lazy to practice."
A natural inherent ability to perform some activity. Those who are said to be "talented" typically perform a given activity better than the "average" person given that both have been given the same instruction/training.Ro3b wrote:Define talent.
Or breath. We all are pretty much born with that ability.Denny wrote:ahem,johnkerr wrote:No one is truly born with the ability to play flute (or do anything else, for that matter) but some folks do pick it up much quicker than others do, with less need to practice.
mammals
they all know how to suck
we're a bit slower at learning how to walk than most of the rest
Sounds good as a definition, in theory, however 25+ years of teaching people physical skills (professionally) has proven to me that in reality, that definition doesn't hold: The people who start off appearing to have the most "talent", that is to say those who initially pick things up quickly, often are not the one's who become the best over longer periods of time.kennychaffin wrote:A natural inherent ability to perform some activity. Those who are said to be "talented" typically perform a given activity better than the "average" person given that both have been given the same instruction/training.Ro3b wrote:Define talent.
KAC
Agreed. I was simply attempting to define talent (per the request) in my own words. There are many other factors that play into "success" or prominence or whatever you want to call the end/final result.Loren wrote:Sounds good as a definition, in theory, however 25+ years of teaching people physical skills (professionally) has proven to me that in reality, that definition doesn't hold: The people who start off appearing to have the most "talent", that is to say those who initially pick things up quickly, often are not the one's who become the best over longer periods of time.kennychaffin wrote:A natural inherent ability to perform some activity. Those who are said to be "talented" typically perform a given activity better than the "average" person given that both have been given the same instruction/training.Ro3b wrote:Define talent.
KAC
I don't think talent is a useful term, as it is typically used to describe someone who has unusual physical attributes (Speed, strength, flexibility, endurance, IQ, dexterity, etc.), however those attributes alone do not lead someone to unusual success, in most cases. The additional attributes of mental toughness, self disciple, work ethic, durability, and such, along with good coaching/instruction...... things that aren't so clear always initially in terms of results, often have more bearing on what people see as talent, than an initial ability to pick things up quickly due to a better physical make up.
Loren
Nope, sorry, I disagree. Unless (and I just thought of this) we define talent as what you have when you make a committment to working hard at learning, keep at it for a few years, and improve to the point where people start saying "Oooh, you're so talented!"johnkerr wrote:I wouldn't say that talent is <i>totally</i> irrelevant to learning. Talent is what will influence the speed at which the pupil is able to learn and pick up new tricks.
You don't think a person with more natural talent who works hard at learning will make more progress in a given amount of time than a person with less natural talent who works just as hard at learning would make in that same time? That's all I'm saying. And I can even think of a certain guy who borrows my flutes a lot who's definitely made more progress over just the past few years than I have in my entire playing career, even though I've probably spent many more hours in my time at working hard and learning than he has in his time. Why? Because he's more talented than I am.Ro3b wrote:Nope, sorry, I disagree. Unless (and I just thought of this) we define talent as what you have when you make a committment to working hard at learning, keep at it for a few years, and improve to the point where people start saying "Oooh, you're so talented!"johnkerr wrote:I wouldn't say that talent is <i>totally</i> irrelevant to learning. Talent is what will influence the speed at which the pupil is able to learn and pick up new tricks.
