Is talent born or created with hard work and practice

[Michael L]

The only thing by which talent can be determined is someone else's opinion.

Also, you intentionally misquoted me?

No, I simplified because you continually move goalposts among the talent of an artist, the aesthetics of an artist's work, and your or 'someone else's' opinions.

They are all four entirely different words and meanings.

This thread is about the talent and hard work of a musician, not the aesthetics of her music, not your or 'someone else's' personal opinion-- which may not be based on aesthetics at all (eg Dixie Chicks).

Of course, this is just a blog so we are free to argue whatever way we want to !!

[harryupbabble]

some talents might not be based on opinions and judgements?

for example, bobby fischer's chess talent is proved by
beating the russians at the world chess tournament?
no american has done that before him?

[Dirtgrain]

The only thing by which talent can be determined is someone else's opinion.

Also, you intentionally misquoted me?

No, I simplified because you continually move goalposts among the talent of an artist, the aesthetics of an artist's work, and your or 'someone else's' opinions.

You say no, but you then say it was intentional. It's specious, but I'll agree not to fuss over it.

There's no goal post moving. All I did was point out that there are different types of talent (the focus ever on the issue of talent), some of which are at least in some part innate--which goes directly to the point of the thread--and one of which is purely in the eye of the beholder and that I can't say is innate to the creator.

They are all four entirely different words and meanings.

This thread is about the talent and hard work of a musician, not the aesthetics of her music, not your or 'someone else's' personal opinion-- which may not be based on aesthetics at all (eg Dixie Chicks).

All words have meanings. Putting words together makes meaning.

If it is your goal to say that aesthetic value, as determined by individuals, has nothing to do with identifying someone as talented, then I don't see it that way at all--it seems inherent (pun?) to the argument. Maybe it's a point we can't negotiate. If so, then so be it.

Of course, this is just a blog so we are free to argue whatever way we want to !!

I don't intend to control anybody, but I don't mind people addressing what others write and how they write it.

[Michael L]

I don't intend to control anybody

True. You remix words with other definitions and want everyone to have that same freedom-- which is entirely in the spirit of the kvr blog !!

[Dirtgrain]

If there is a slight in there, I'll take it. I'm a word remixer, an intended meaning fixer, a discombobulating poet, and a rapper full of shit, sir.

[Michael L]

If there is a slight in there, I'll take it. I'm a word remixer, an intended meaning fixer, a discombobulating poet, and a rapper full of shit, sir.

Is your talent born or created with hard work and practice?
-
Upon whose opinions does the existence of your talent depend?

[Dirtgrain]

If there is a slight in there, I'll take it. I'm a word remixer, an intended meaning fixer, a discombobulating poet, and a rapper full of shit, sir.

Is your talent born or created with hard work and practice?
-
Upon whose opinions does the existence of your talent depend?

My mom likes my rhymes--that's all that matters.

[Michael L]

If there is a slight in there, I'll take it. I'm a word remixer, an intended meaning fixer, a discombobulating poet, and a rapper full of shit, sir.

Is your talent born or created with hard work and practice?
-
Upon whose opinions does the existence of your talent depend?

My mom likes my rhymes--that's all that matters.

Moms say, talent is born
-
Hard work and practice, also born

[RunBeerRun]

Moms says hard talent is work and born in a manger.

[jancivil]

"Aesthetically, talent is just when someone else likes your stuff."
"Someone else" may have nothing at all by which to base what talent is.

The only thing by which talent, aesthetically, can be determined is someone else's opinion. If they like a piece and think it good, aesthetically, they think or say, "Oh, I like that. That artist is [aesthetically] talented." There is no other way to determine if something aesthetically shows talent. You can't show me one. And everyone has all they need for a basis of such determination, to their own preference and liking. You saying that they might not is an unsupported claim that leads nowhere, even if you squint your eyes and look hard.

People liking something as an argument is going to fail logically once it's amplified to 'this many people like it/that many people hate it' as the informal fallacy 'argumentum ad populum'.

This is an improper application of the concept of argumentum ad populum. It should only be applied to a logical fallacy in an argument about something that can be factually true. One person saying, "Mike is talented [aesthetically], and another person saying, "Mike is not talented," is not an argument--it is only the stating of opinions, which is all there is when it comes deciding if someone is talented aesthetically. There is nothing else to it--it has not been shown in this thread.

" Regarding the assertion "someone's" enjoyment is our rule of thumb, that assessment may be hard to defend or just mistaken. Perhaps someone has performed something our arbiter of talent is just entirely familiar with, showing a comfort in familiarity and upon examination we find nothing more as an argument for it.

There is no defending opinion on what someone likes or does not like and it can't be mistaken--only possibly changed from moment to moment.

Conversely, we immediately saw a funny sort of agreement: someone doesn't like "gangsta rap" so it must be that those people cannot be talented. No, liking something or not does not determine anything about talent

I addressed that earlier in this post.

if we start respecting that as a truism we may as well not talk about it, everything is subjective now, and we're never going to have a definition.

I've given a definition; it's just that there isn't any other one. It is subjective. If you dare try to bring some "objective" criteria as to what makes something reveal talent, aesthetically, apart from other types of talent as I described in my post before (physical skill, intellectual skill, ability), then I will dare to point out that all of the criteria, when it comes to aesthetics, are based on individual, subjective likes and dislikes. Two or more may find they have the same criteria and state that they have identified standards, but that changes nothing.

The level of accomplishment,

As determined by?

as proceeding from the ease of and/or the aptitude for the work that makes accomplishment a thing are our signs of talent.

This goes to the other types of talent I mentioned.

If a child does something we didn't expect to happen so early we'll say 'talented'. We may not be able to see it for some years, with some it may be rather latent...

The unexpected in a musical piece or performance no doubt has led some people to declare talent in some cases.

"that unarguable point" - inarguable
I just argued it. Here's another form of that argument:

"But what will the general public think about it?"
"The 'general public' voted for Hitler and likes Coldplay."

You made an unsupported claim and misapplied a label of a logical fallacy. Look at you now.

You're a total f**king poseur and this desperate utter bullshitting and gaslighting in no way warrants a further expenditure of time than this. If you took the meanings of words as seriously as you take your fraudulent fatuous self this would be a very different experience, this thread. FO.

[jancivil]

You're perfectly built for a world based on like and subscribe, nameless gormless wonder, dirt.
The clearest sign of your intellectual weight-class here is 'unarguable'. You're essentially functionally illiterate.

[jancivil]

as to my calling the fallacy ad populum, try to read something up to the full stop of a sentence, genius. I said if you amplify <someone likes a thing it must mean they're experiencing talent> to the point of this many people vs that many you are doing argument to popularity. So the your desperation to disrespect me in retaliation for my criticisms stinks to high heaven.

Throwing shit at the wall to see how many people notice its stench vs are cowed by the verbosity and incoherence of it all is not the winning rhetorical strategy you believe it must be.

[jancivil]

it's the same quality of fallacy. the point itself is not very challenging but of course the thing to do when you're losing so badly is to snip the thing, making it appear to mean something suiting your diss. This kind of makes you look like you can't stop yourself from making a fool out of yourself in your enthusiasm for the source of your insight: your anus.

"The only thing by which talent can be determined is someone else's opinion."
"you intentionally misquoted me?"
That is the very essence of your idiotic argument.
'You're trying to disguise the shit you took here by saying this was not a precise quote?
That is just so pathetic. Your failure of self awareness is impressive, even given your competition here.

Not going to post another but I'm still bugging because of the unmitigated gall of that bullshit.
If you'd ever have had real proximity to an accomplished musician or even a goal of being a musician of any worth, you would have a sense of reality and know what it is talent. This is someone making a grandiose, somehow to themselves really brilliant looking, self-involved but hiding from their real self so they don't know it, EXCUSE for what you can't do.
You actually had the gall to state the word accomplishment - not in context or behind any nuance - cannot have meaning. If you have learned to tie your shoes, that's an accomplishment FFS. Arguing it will be based on two facts: 1) before you could not 2) now you can. You have asserted you can't argue it.

It truly defies all belief to see someone (that can form seemingly good sentences and be as verbose as all that) be consistently as stupid as that whole trip was, and having lied about what they're preening about, as though having "won an argument".
The "claim" I made was 'talent has no meaning because there is nothing that isn't subjective to the individual' is fallacious. "unsupported" - bullshit, I made the argument from more than one angle.
It's not real different than argument to popularity. If we take a few seconds to consider ramifications, no one can be talented as no one can be untalented. So since you cannot be untalented, JS Bach cannot have been talented. The weight of history vanishes by the magic of the notion 'there can be nothing objective about music, it's nowt but opinion'. And so, all opinions have equal weight per se. One could be a literal moron who thinks their imitation of a fart noise is genius and you have to grant that's as good as saying 'Miles Davis was an innovative musician.' You have left yourself no choice with that rhetoric.

Another angle, just for fun: if I said I know you ain't learned to tie your shoes yet, and you in fact have, you can claim no basis in fact to argue that because my opinion of you changed reality to suit me.
(are you profoundly stupid or totally batshit)

I didn't like you to begin with, now I see you.

[Dirtgrain]

Uh, your mama?

[VOODOO U]

Really? You have to bring someone's mom into this? Thanks for locking this thread you dick