Is talent born or created with hard work and practice
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
in fact, this talent is but one's opinion concept can be tested.
Unless we grant that no meaning may apply to a word.
There are recordings out there where whomever was responsible for the drum track has failed in numerous ways, it doesn't track, the syncopation is like bad guesses, basic cues missed or someone has lost the time, the producer doesn't know any better or had better things to do. Not kidding (here's where you gaslight me on my own experience).
And evidently this is in release, which means there is a market this is good for. Talent gets it right; real talent gets it right all the time day after day. So the whole argument first of all seeks to vacate talent in favor of some inchoate thing no one can define - how is this not self-evident? What's really happening, why the ruse? It's ok if you aren't. It really is, it's first of all inherited. The accomplishment part can only partly be innate.
This is what's galling (and so psychological projection-y), to try and deny that the word accomplishment can have meaning at all; but do tell us more about yourself.
and it's obvious or your outlook wouldn't be this kind of perverse negation.
(criminy, do you even read that crap back to yourself? <it's all subjective to an individual, "even if there are two or more in agreement... it's meaningless"'> yeah, the weight of history also can never happen either.
because here are meanings inconvenient to your personal excuse to yourself. How empty, how bleak, this is hard to witness.)
Unless we grant that no meaning may apply to a word.
There are recordings out there where whomever was responsible for the drum track has failed in numerous ways, it doesn't track, the syncopation is like bad guesses, basic cues missed or someone has lost the time, the producer doesn't know any better or had better things to do. Not kidding (here's where you gaslight me on my own experience).
And evidently this is in release, which means there is a market this is good for. Talent gets it right; real talent gets it right all the time day after day. So the whole argument first of all seeks to vacate talent in favor of some inchoate thing no one can define - how is this not self-evident? What's really happening, why the ruse? It's ok if you aren't. It really is, it's first of all inherited. The accomplishment part can only partly be innate.
This is what's galling (and so psychological projection-y), to try and deny that the word accomplishment can have meaning at all; but do tell us more about yourself.
and it's obvious or your outlook wouldn't be this kind of perverse negation.
(criminy, do you even read that crap back to yourself? <it's all subjective to an individual, "even if there are two or more in agreement... it's meaningless"'> yeah, the weight of history also can never happen either.
because here are meanings inconvenient to your personal excuse to yourself. How empty, how bleak, this is hard to witness.)
-
- KVRAF
- 5200 posts since 17 Aug, 2004
He meant generally. Shocking ?
Besides that, explain to me how typing on an internet public forum is exactly music making, or if typing on a forum is not music making, how is this not a distraction to music making?
Einstein
-
- KVRist
- 433 posts since 28 Dec, 2017
That is talent. The ability to learn faster and reach higher levels than others. In musical terms it is clear to me that some easily learns how to aquire acute hearing to pick out notes accurately when listening to music. Others can learn it to some degree over many years, but never really perfected. Same goes for keeping pace, singing in tune. Some get it faster and learn it better others have to struggle and still may will not get so good. For me talent is like starting a race a bit ahead of the others and also having a little bit better engine, a little more gas and a little bit better tires. Unless that driver stops makes mistakes he will extend his lead.pekbro wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 3:24 am I believe some folks can accomplish stuff with much less effort than others, I don't know if I would call that talent.
-
- KVRAF
- 4554 posts since 12 Jan, 2019
Decades ago, a guitar teacher of mine worked with Stevie Wonder. At one point, he got to see a storage room filled with shelves and shelves of tapes of songs by Stevie Wonder that will likely never be heard by us. Where is the talent on those tracks?
We don't even have to go that far. I have many albums where I like only one or two songs. The rest of the songs are meh and forgettable and seemingly filler material. Where is the talent on those songs?
What about Led Zeppelin? Albums I, II, III, and IV were packed with great stuff. I'd have to go back an run through them all to figure out if there are any sub-par songs on them. But then Physical Graffiti has some sub-par songs and not many memorable ones.
Where is the talent in that song? Well, somebody may come along and say they like "Black Country Woman" or even that it is their favorite song.
I loved some of the Rolling Stones' earlier albums. I bought Tattoo You when it came out, all excited. What a disappointment. I was just a kid, but man was I let down. Where is the talent on that album? Well, "Start Me Up" got radio play--and maybe another song from that album, but they were all tainted by the collective mess of that album for me.
That innate talent that GearNostalgia writes about is all about physical talents and intellectual talents. I agree with it all. But I still insist there is another aspect talent--the ability to make something that is aesthetically pleasing to others. There are studio musicians far and wide with all sorts of physical and intellectual talent for music--but they never made it big. I don't mean to demean them, as they are so good, and they do their part for sure. But what stopped them?
What about Green Day? They have made songs that I like a lot. But I've always thought their guitarists were mediocre, technically. I'm pretty sure there are tons of studio musicians who are way more technically and intellectually talented than they are. I'm not sure about their drummer. Their singer has a distinct voice that connects with a lot of people--I like it; my son hates it. I don't think their singer has huge technical skill as a vocalist. There is at least one person in the band with aesthetic talent who says at some point, "That's it--that's the sound that will work for us."
DeadMau5 is a good example for this discussion. He is not an accomplished instrumentalist. He didn't have a ton of formal music theory training. A lot of his music is composed by drawing in notes in a DAW. Is he talented? If he is, then what is his talent? It's in creating something pleasing to other people--aesthetic talent.
If at least one person likes what you have created, based solely on the creation, then they see you as aesthetically talented, at least. The more you can please, then the more will praise you as "talented."
We don't even have to go that far. I have many albums where I like only one or two songs. The rest of the songs are meh and forgettable and seemingly filler material. Where is the talent on those songs?
What about Led Zeppelin? Albums I, II, III, and IV were packed with great stuff. I'd have to go back an run through them all to figure out if there are any sub-par songs on them. But then Physical Graffiti has some sub-par songs and not many memorable ones.
Where is the talent in that song? Well, somebody may come along and say they like "Black Country Woman" or even that it is their favorite song.
I loved some of the Rolling Stones' earlier albums. I bought Tattoo You when it came out, all excited. What a disappointment. I was just a kid, but man was I let down. Where is the talent on that album? Well, "Start Me Up" got radio play--and maybe another song from that album, but they were all tainted by the collective mess of that album for me.
That innate talent that GearNostalgia writes about is all about physical talents and intellectual talents. I agree with it all. But I still insist there is another aspect talent--the ability to make something that is aesthetically pleasing to others. There are studio musicians far and wide with all sorts of physical and intellectual talent for music--but they never made it big. I don't mean to demean them, as they are so good, and they do their part for sure. But what stopped them?
What about Green Day? They have made songs that I like a lot. But I've always thought their guitarists were mediocre, technically. I'm pretty sure there are tons of studio musicians who are way more technically and intellectually talented than they are. I'm not sure about their drummer. Their singer has a distinct voice that connects with a lot of people--I like it; my son hates it. I don't think their singer has huge technical skill as a vocalist. There is at least one person in the band with aesthetic talent who says at some point, "That's it--that's the sound that will work for us."
DeadMau5 is a good example for this discussion. He is not an accomplished instrumentalist. He didn't have a ton of formal music theory training. A lot of his music is composed by drawing in notes in a DAW. Is he talented? If he is, then what is his talent? It's in creating something pleasing to other people--aesthetic talent.
If at least one person likes what you have created, based solely on the creation, then they see you as aesthetically talented, at least. The more you can please, then the more will praise you as "talented."
Doing nothing is only fun when you have something you are supposed to do.
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
what set me off was "look at you now, you made an unsupported claim...." You can kiss my ass.
No, you flatly lied about that because you're flailing in trying to vacate all meaning. You can't manage an argument at any level at all. Big fraud posturing like you're winning. There was no call for that much tone. Anyone with decent self-awareness would be ashamed of themselves. I won't even take calling you illiterate back, because you may as well be said to know nothing about any of what you sharted forth.
No, you flatly lied about that because you're flailing in trying to vacate all meaning. You can't manage an argument at any level at all. Big fraud posturing like you're winning. There was no call for that much tone. Anyone with decent self-awareness would be ashamed of themselves. I won't even take calling you illiterate back, because you may as well be said to know nothing about any of what you sharted forth.
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
I'd decided strongly against point-by-point, but look:
"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
has to acknowledged for what it is: nihilism.
Let's do another test of concept: I have played basketball with varsity players. I'm fairly coordinated and could shoot. I wasn't born with any gift or ability that would ever be competitive with these men; none of them were Michael Jordan by the same token. There was no hope for me to get there. I wasn't any Julian Bream on guitar, either. These are facts. This looks like an ego structure that's shot full of holes, to utterly fail to recognize really obvious differences in this world.
Talented aesthetically? Is mike's talent hairdressing or like makeup makeovers? ie., works as an aesthetician...
Because that's the only way that construct makes sense. Get_a_dictionary.
"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
has to acknowledged for what it is: nihilism.
Let's do another test of concept: I have played basketball with varsity players. I'm fairly coordinated and could shoot. I wasn't born with any gift or ability that would ever be competitive with these men; none of them were Michael Jordan by the same token. There was no hope for me to get there. I wasn't any Julian Bream on guitar, either. These are facts. This looks like an ego structure that's shot full of holes, to utterly fail to recognize really obvious differences in this world.
Talented aesthetically? Is mike's talent hairdressing or like makeup makeovers? ie., works as an aesthetician...
Because that's the only way that construct makes sense. Get_a_dictionary.
Last edited by jancivil on Fri Jan 05, 2024 5:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- KVRian
- 1075 posts since 26 Nov, 2007
talent is a gift you are born with. skill is not talent. skill can in fact be earned through practice and hard work but put side by side one will always note talent over skill.
"two fools dancing on the hands of time... yeah the fool and me"
Knot Hardly Productions
Knot Hardly Productions
-
- KVRAF
- 4554 posts since 12 Jan, 2019
If only . . .jancivil wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2024 5:56 pm . . . in no way warrants a further expenditure of time than this.
Doing nothing is only fun when you have something you are supposed to do.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 111288 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
all i could do then was eat, sleep, cry and shit.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 111288 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
i don't cry so much these days, so things have changed
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
another test of concept: in the second grade there was one slot with two applicants for an advanced kind of school in my hometown elementary school.
I got beat by a girl with better math aptitude. This is a fact. My aptitude test at the time (not that all such are flawless, but this one tracks) showed me as in the top 15 percentile, ie., a score of 85 on the mathematics portion of the test. I could work at it with all the energy and dedication in the world but hit a ceiling in what I can actually the f**k accomplish in that area. This kind of thing cannot be dismissed. I did score 98 on verbal reasoning. which also tracks.
OTOH I was able to kind of hold my own with seasoned jazz pros at 14 on drums. I was however not going to become Bill Cobham or Peter Erskine (who I saw when he was almost 19 and I was 17. Nope.). After I got my diploma I had to do something, so in <3 years I got myself into conservatory. I KNOW FROM comparison in talent, I saw the difference every day.
I have to recognize reality, which means my weaknesses to work on them and my strengths. I could have a f**ked-up ego structure that took all the praise and amazement at what I could do with relative ease and decide I really am something.
That isn't real, and that is not how you f**king accomplish the thing. Pro tip: 1) don't bullshit and 2) you may want to grow up some unless you're like 14. Albeit I wasn't kidding myself at that age either. FU.
I got beat by a girl with better math aptitude. This is a fact. My aptitude test at the time (not that all such are flawless, but this one tracks) showed me as in the top 15 percentile, ie., a score of 85 on the mathematics portion of the test. I could work at it with all the energy and dedication in the world but hit a ceiling in what I can actually the f**k accomplish in that area. This kind of thing cannot be dismissed. I did score 98 on verbal reasoning. which also tracks.
OTOH I was able to kind of hold my own with seasoned jazz pros at 14 on drums. I was however not going to become Bill Cobham or Peter Erskine (who I saw when he was almost 19 and I was 17. Nope.). After I got my diploma I had to do something, so in <3 years I got myself into conservatory. I KNOW FROM comparison in talent, I saw the difference every day.
I have to recognize reality, which means my weaknesses to work on them and my strengths. I could have a f**ked-up ego structure that took all the praise and amazement at what I could do with relative ease and decide I really am something.
That isn't real, and that is not how you f**king accomplish the thing. Pro tip: 1) don't bullshit and 2) you may want to grow up some unless you're like 14. Albeit I wasn't kidding myself at that age either. FU.
Last edited by jancivil on Fri Jan 05, 2024 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 7206 posts since 23 Nov, 2016 from a small city
You don't drink or wee? That's quite a, um, talent