Regarding talent, we are all born stupid. Everything we know, everything we can do, was learned.
I see 'talent' as interest. A person who is interested (and dedicated) will practice that piano until they excel at it. Or Tuba. Or chainsaw. Their 'talent' is that they practice.
Still, there are some who take excellence to new heights. That might be called 'vision'.
I regard "talent" as "aptitude" -- meaning that you both have a large capacity for something, and the ability to get interested enough in it to be willing to practice it, and for the practice to remain enjoyable rather than arduous over the long term.
So, with musical talent, it requires both the biological capacity (some of which is inborn, some of which is acquired in the first couple years of life) to hear musical pitch and structure better than the average bear, and to gain a great deal of pleasure out of being inside the music (rather than just getting pleasure from being in the presence of music, which is the human norm). You can be born with the best ears in the world, but without the enthusiasm, the capacity is a waste. Likewise you can have loads of enthusiasm and only an average ear, but your enthusiasm will push you to great proficiency. If you're born with both, you bet a Bach or a Mozart or a Jimmi Hendrix--the 1% of the 1%.
But, like I said in the article, the issue is rarely relevant to most people, because almost nobody operates at the limits of their capacity, so they don't get the chance to discover their talents or capabilities.
I think we mostly agree. But I'm dubious of the word 'aptitude'. Or of 'talent', for that matter. I've become a pretty good singer/songwriter. But i never would have picked up a guitar except that I became infatuated with Duane Eddy, AND a friend had an electric guitar he was willing to sell.
Regarding talent, we are all born stupid. Everything we know, everything we can do, was learned.
I see 'talent' as interest. A person who is interested (and dedicated) will practice that piano until they excel at it. Or Tuba. Or chainsaw. Their 'talent' is that they practice.
Still, there are some who take excellence to new heights. That might be called 'vision'.
I regard "talent" as "aptitude" -- meaning that you both have a large capacity for something, and the ability to get interested enough in it to be willing to practice it, and for the practice to remain enjoyable rather than arduous over the long term.
So, with musical talent, it requires both the biological capacity (some of which is inborn, some of which is acquired in the first couple years of life) to hear musical pitch and structure better than the average bear, and to gain a great deal of pleasure out of being inside the music (rather than just getting pleasure from being in the presence of music, which is the human norm). You can be born with the best ears in the world, but without the enthusiasm, the capacity is a waste. Likewise you can have loads of enthusiasm and only an average ear, but your enthusiasm will push you to great proficiency. If you're born with both, you bet a Bach or a Mozart or a Jimmi Hendrix--the 1% of the 1%.
But, like I said in the article, the issue is rarely relevant to most people, because almost nobody operates at the limits of their capacity, so they don't get the chance to discover their talents or capabilities.
I think we mostly agree. But I'm dubious of the word 'aptitude'. Or of 'talent', for that matter. I've become a pretty good singer/songwriter. But i never would have picked up a guitar except that I became infatuated with Duane Eddy, AND a friend had an electric guitar he was willing to sell.