Do i need "Talent" to be a good composer?

I think you're avoiding the term talent, while admitting its existence. Talent isn't a matter of instilling elites without base, its just that people learn in different ways. One who does better in a class, given the same amount of study and work, is said to have more talent.

There are some who will never "get" composition - just as there are some who will never get a given aspect of science, or a given video game, or what have you.

Talent isn't a construction - its a general term of explanation of variance from a norm.

I think you're avoiding the term talent, while admitting its existence. Talent isn't a matter of instilling elites without base, its just that people learn in different ways. One who does better in a class, given the same amount of study and work, is said to have more talent.

There are some who will never "get" composition - just as there are some who will never get a given aspect of science, or a given video game, or what have you.

Talent isn't a construction - its a general term of explanation of variance from a norm.

It depends how we define talent and how others understand it. Personally, I think there much more objective ways to approach something like someone who is faster at learning something, etc etc.

If you want to learn something, work hard. If you think you're good at it, work twice as hard.

The problem is a psychological one. People who think they are talented tend to forget it doesn't mean they're absolutely great with no effort. Specially depending on the field and context. Likewise, people who find it difficult to learn something even if they are working hard, and can't "get" certain things, will cling to the notion that they're untalented.

But can we say it's really their problem and not the didactic method used?

It makes all the difference in the world, and indeed it's easy to find examples of people being labeled "untalented" only because the methods were not effective. This is precisely why the term "talent" is absurd, because it implies that we can judge objectively based on a single didactic method.

It's like this:

If we have 1 didactic method and apply it to a group of people, obviously some will fare better at it than others since everyone IS different, psychologically and physiologically. This is not because certain people are more "talented", it's simply the offshoot of the didactic system employed. Some will respond better than others.

Now if you were to focus on each individual and tailor the pedagogic/didactic approach to each, the results would be drastically different.

It has nothing to do with talent, it has to do with thinking we have a "good enough" didactic system in place to make the distinction between someone who is REALLY "talented" and someone who is just responding better to the system while others aren't. In light of this, it's really, REALLY, questionable to even use the word "Talented" since we have to first eliminate the possibility of the system being used simply playing this role.

But alas, we can't. "Talent" depends on comparison with other people. So, really, completely and utterly pointless.

I hope my stance is clearer now.

I don't like how you seem to suggest that because we cannot apply a number to something, it doesn't exist.

Additionally, you back this up by claiming it gives people either an excuse or an inferiority complex. You can't use the inevitable misuse of ANYTHING by the human race to justify your viewpoint.

You're stating everything from a pedagogical point of view. I agree that one should not say to their students "You are/aren't as talented as this person". But to refuse to acknowledge talent is not the answer.

Talent is one factor to personal success. It's not the only one, it's not usually the determining one, but it's still a factor. Talent is easy to explain: inherent ability. Some people have more inherent ability than others, regardless of how they're being taught. This is most obvious in instrumental skills, but exists in composition as well. If you disagree, then you are attempting to prove false events I have seen with my very own eyes.

I don't think talent should be the focus. I don't think talent is the most important thing in the world. I think it's great if you have it, but not the end of the world if you don't. The thing one needs most is desire and drive, followed by a strong work ethic, and if there's talent in there as well, then all the better.

I don't like how you seem to suggest that because we cannot apply a number to something, it doesn't exist.

Additionally, you back this up by claiming it gives people either an excuse or an inferiority complex. You can't use the inevitable misuse of ANYTHING by the human race to justify your viewpoint.

You're stating everything from a pedagogical point of view. I agree that one should not say to their students "You are/aren't as talented as this person". But to refuse to acknowledge talent is not the answer.

Acknowledge WHAT?

Do you realize that to actually get to what "talent" should be, we have to completely discard problems with we are using to measure talent at all? It implies the systems and measures we're using are absolute and correct, so that we can really separate and identify "talent" from just plain luck or just as well better reaction to any given didactic method.

There's nothing to acknowledge, just the fact that some people react differently to different systems of teaching and information. "Inherent ability" is bullshit, as it implies that IN SPITE of systems, outside influences, etc etc, this so called "inherent ability" can be observed.

But really, you can only know "inherent ability" when you see others LACK it. So in the end, you'll still be doing comparisons and because of that it's very subjective and not grounded in the actual fact that there could be a million reasons that have nothing to do with "inherent ability" or "talent" or such for someone's better reactions to any given thing, or someone's not-as good reactions. This is comparing statistics, not talking about human development!

Anyways, I'm done. The evidence is right there, because unless you can somehow prove that we can establish objectively that "talent" is something outside of the circle of influence and observation of the millions of things involved in the process of teaching and so on, it's simply useless to talk about it or consider it.

You can keep believing in it if it makes you happy, but it's absolutely pointless to me and it makes no difference what so ever.

Acknowledge WHAT?

Do you realize that to actually get to what "talent" should be, we have to completely discard problems with we are using to measure talent at all? It implies the systems and measures we're using are absolute and correct, so that we can really separate and identify "talent" from just plain luck or just as well better reaction to any given didactic method.

There's nothing to acknowledge, just the fact that some people react differently to different systems of teaching and information. "Inherent ability" is bullshit, as it implies that IN SPITE of systems, outside influences, etc etc, this so called "inherent ability" can be observed.

But really, you can only know "inherent ability" when you see others LACK it. So in the end, you'll still be doing comparisons and because of that it's very subjective and not grounded in the actual fact that there could be a million reasons that have nothing to do with "inherent ability" or "talent" or such for someone's better reactions to any given thing, or someone's not-as good reactions. This is comparing statistics, not talking about human development!

Anyways, I'm done. The evidence is right there, because unless you can somehow prove that we can establish objectively that "talent" is something outside of the circle of influence and observation of the millions of things involved in the process of teaching and so on, it's simply useless to talk about it or consider it.

You can keep believing in it if it makes you happy, but it's absolutely pointless to me and it makes no difference what so ever.

Another "objective and absolute scientifitc evidence or nothing" person. What is the world coming to? It's impossible to measure someone's musical ability objectively. Talent or no talent.

Another "objective and absolute scientifitc evidence or nothing" person. What is the world coming to? It's impossible to measure someone's musical ability objectively. Talent or no talent.

I never said anything about that.

Besides, music ability (specifically, playing an instrument) CAN be quantifiable if we understand how the brain works, etc etc. We can already understand how the motor skills to play an instrument work in the brain more or less to estimate how good a person is when playing.

But subjective stuff is subjective, like composition. There's no "talent" in composition and there's no "skill" in composition at all, because whatever you can label as "skill" and "ability" boil down to logic skills, information handling etc etc, it has nothing to do with what music means, just the means to produce it.

Sheesh.

I never said anything about that.

Besides, music ability (specifically, playing an instrument) CAN be quantifiable if we understand how the brain works, etc etc. We can already understand how the motor skills to play an instrument work in the brain more or less to estimate how good a person is when playing.

But subjective stuff is subjective, like composition. There's no "talent" in composition and there's no "skill" in composition at all, because whatever you can label as "skill" and "ability" boil down to logic skills, information handling etc etc, it has nothing to do with what music means, just the means to produce it.

Sheesh.

Music transcends logic, and if you disagree with that, then you have some serious issues.

Music transcends logic, and if you disagree with that, then you have some serious issues.

Music does not equal magic, music doesn't NEED magic. It's freaking amazing as is.

Methinks YOU might have some serious issues.

Music transcends logic, and if you disagree with that, then you have some serious issues.

NOTHING transcends logic.

If I have "issues" for trying to figure out the truth through science and its disciplines, then so be it~

NOTHING transcends logic.

If I have "issues" for trying to figure out the truth through science and its disciplines, then so be it~

A great deal trancends logic. There are countless subjects where logic just doesn't make sense. The creaton of music is one.

Logic is just man's way of trying to explain something that they can't understand and probably will never understand. Things like God, why life exists, and why music is so powerful. You can't measure them with strings of numbers.

Well, metaphysics do transcend logic, of some sort. (Not discussing metaphysics of course.) In any case, since all methods of examining the nature of logic depend on logic itself, it is a closed system about which we can't say with certainty whether it applies independantly of human consciousness, and to what.

But regardless of whether it's a construct or an universal axiom, it is a very practical model, and the most fundamental tenet of human communication, pretty much regardless of culture. Any argument that wants to avoid it is pretty much futile, IMO, and not much more than a statement of impressions. (Which, of course, isn't wrong at all, just not very effective at convincing others of your point ;))

Sorry for that foray.

A great deal trancends logic. There are countless subjects where logic just doesn't make sense. The creaton of music is one.

Logic is just man's way of trying to explain something that they can't understand and probably will never understand. Things like God, why life exists, and why music is so powerful. You can't measure them with strings of numbers.

Yet. ;P

Oh. PS; I'd say metaphysics are BASED on logic, or should be. Most of that is based on trying to reason out stuff when science wasn't around yet. At least the metaphysics worth looking into anyways.

Well, but bluntly put metaphysics is about "the stuff all other stuff is based on". The study of logic is part of metaphysics. Metaphysics itself aren't really based on anything specific, yet of course their discussion is forcibly based on certain things, such as logic. Which of course is almost paradoxical.

Well, but bluntly put metaphysics is about "the stuff all other stuff is based on". The study of logic is part of metaphysics. Metaphysics itself aren't really based on anything specific, yet of course their discussion is forcibly based on certain things, such as logic. Which of course is almost paradoxical.

I don't think it's paradoxical, buuuut we have to define what we're talking about and honestly neither of us want to go down that road. XD

No we definitely don't want to open that can of worms :D

One can use science to explain music, but those explanations do not truly EXPLAIN music. Music is an experience, and not an explanation. I can't see how anyone who writes music could possibly attempt to explain music with science, and that's that. There are scientific reasons why certain chords are dissonant or consonant, but there's no scientific reason why this person finds A minor to be sadder than C minor, while that person is the exact opposite. There is an intangible quality to music that one can't explain with frequencies and patterns. That's what distinguishes a musician from a scientist.

One can use science to explain music, but those explanations do not truly EXPLAIN music. Music is an experience, and not an explanation. I can't see how anyone who writes music could possibly attempt to explain music with science, and that's that. There are scientific reasons why certain chords are dissonant or consonant, but there's no scientific reason why this person finds A minor to be sadder than C minor, while that person is the exact opposite. There is an intangible quality to music that one can't explain with frequencies and patterns. That's what distinguishes a musician from a scientist.

I guess you need to study more sociology~

Just because you don't know something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or reasons aren't known and studied.

The assumes you consider sociology a "science"... As a political science major (which means bupkis, i know, but whatever), I don't think social science is science per se.

And there is no way to deny individualized hearings of music, even given the exact same listening situation...

Well, I was lumping it all together. I feel they're aspects of the same basic study - sociology, PS, anthropology - its all studying people's macro actions, without getting too deep into the internal relationships.

The legitimacy (purity?) of the science can be traced to is focus on micro or macro relationships. That's why communications and Business are considered BS in the academic world - they're almost solely focused on macro-relationships.

Psychology is "legit" - less so than neuroscience, but still... But it studies micro-relationships to a degree greater than social sciences. But this is derailing the thread hxc...

I can't believe people have come back to this and declared that one must have "talent" to be successful.

It isn't true, not based on the understanding of Talent as an inherent ability lol

Talent as an inherent or in-born ability doesn't exist because we have no concept' of music when we are babies. No more than we know what English is.

Logic says that some must also have 'talent' to be able to speak a Language. But education and time has proved all that is necessary to develop.

Same with music. You need the correct education and the motivation to continually learn more and more.

Tallent must be nurtured, which is basically what the above post is. ^

Well, I was lumping it all together. I feel they're aspects of the same basic study - sociology, PS, anthropology - its all studying people's macro actions, without getting too deep into the internal relationships.

The legitimacy (purity?) of the science can be traced to is focus on micro or macro relationships. That's why communications and Business are considered BS in the academic world - they're almost solely focused on macro-relationships.

Psychology is "legit" - less so than neuroscience, but still... But it studies micro-relationships to a degree greater than social sciences. But this is derailing the thread hxc...

No, and no again. Psychology IS a real science, and it's tied together WITH neurology and medicine. Sociology is psychology applied to larger groups, it's STILL a science. You can't put stuff in a vacuum, everything's chained together.

Tallent must be nurtured, which is basically what the above post is. ^

No it isn't. It says that music is learned and that's it. There's nothing more to it, and there's no "talent" what so ever. Alas, the example he gave of language. If by "talent must be nurtured" you mean "people must be taught," then sure. Otherwise, lol.

No it isn't. It says that music is learned and that's it. There's nothing more to it, and there's no "talent" what so ever. Alas, the example he gave of language. If by "talent must be nurtured" you mean "people must be taught," then sure. Otherwise, lol.

In order to be a great musician, one must have tallent. What tallent is, by my definition, is an in-born ability to do something better than the average person, in this case composition. If one has a musical history in their family, then they're more likely to have that tallent. Now suppose there was a child who had this tallent but decided to become an athelete instead. Is he musical? No. He must be taught the musical tools to use the tallent to his advantage. So you're partially right.

Think of it this way. You have two students in a music theory class. The first is a musical whiz at all his stuff. He has his counterpoint down to the dime, he knows his modes, scales, chords, advanced harmony, all that jazz. Your other student is the oposite: she's tone deaf, can't understand the comcept of a mode, and can't recognize different works of composers. Now, she worked just as hard, if not more, than the first student in the class. They were taught the same mateiral at the same time. Why is one miles ahead of the other? Talent. Without an inborn tallent, it is harder to grasp musical concepts and actually write music. Granted, if the second student worked hard enough, she could become a great musician, but would she be as good as the first? Probably not. Would it be more work? Undoubtably.

Now I get that whole inferiority complex thing, which I admit, is a problem with concpet of talent. But I think that those without talent are often being either forced to be in musical studies or theri so passionate about music, for whatever reason, that they cannot shy away from it despite better alternatives for their time. (The latter is a true tragedy when one of the students truly pasionate about music fails a theory exam.) It's a cold, hard, fact of life. Some people are simply better adpet at things than others. This goes in all carrers. Those who are more socially outgoing would not fair well in a cubicle office job.

Talent is not everything, but it must be there for one to excel beyond the norms.

In order to be a great musician, one must have tallent.

I think you mean "talent" and I'd like you to prove this. Prove it, as in, scientific terms.

I think you mean "talent" and I'd like you to prove this. Prove it, as in, scientific terms.

Why does everything have to defer to science? I'm sure there are studies to this phenominon, and if they're aren't, there better darn be some soon! Talent exists, whether you like it or not.