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

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.

That's pretty hilarious, thanks.

And yes, studies exist aplenty. They point, unfortunately, against what you're saying the entire time. There was a book here mentioned a bunch of posts ago which discusses this and there are great many scientific reasons why something like "talent" is HIGHLY unlikely and that it's much more likely that it's just a thing of perception and popular opinion. To identify "talent" you have to isolate it from all the other sources of influence first. The baby example is a great one. If "talent" was something indeed so obviously factual, we should be able to detect it like we can detect a genetic mutation, a certain behavior pattern and so on.

But alas, we can't. It boils down to education, and a ton of other reasons that make X person learn maybe faster than Y person, or give the illusion of "higher skill" when there is really a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why that's there rather than a magic word like "talent" to explain it.

OF COURSE, this is even more hilarious by the fact that you're also someone who imagines the unimaginable and all that jazz from the religion thread. I don't want to get the threads mixed, but it's impossible avoid the comparison since you're arguing for something you have absolutely no evidence of in both cases.

As for why does everything have to defer to science?

I think you can think of that one on your own, though considering the track record, probably not.

It's a matter of term definition. There is, of course, no magic; on the other hand, of course people learn at different speeds. If someone is learning at a very high rate, he is "talented;" clearly it is simply a function of the situation. However, that he is functioning better in the situation provides a difference from the "norm," thereby making acceptable the use of the term. However, in my own experience, I've seen kids coming from the exact same family situation have totally different "talent" in martial arts (way back when I actually might have been in shape) - but at any rate, anecdotal evidence only holds up so far, so I'll defer to published studies.

I see what he's saying - the term is what it is - no reason to fight the language.

Well the usage of the word or its existence is one thing and the fact that the usage is poor at best and very impractical when addressing didactic or pedagogic methods is another.

Anecdotal evidence is no real evidence, btw.

All fair enough.

Would you argue that given two extremely similar students, with very similar upbringings and psych profiles (i.e. nature and nurture the same), would always learn at the same speed in the same way?

All fair enough.

Would you argue that given two extremely similar students, with very similar upbringings and psych profiles (i.e. nature and nurture the same), would always learn at the same speed in the same way?

That's very difficult to answer. What do you mean "extremely similar?" Identical twins? Very similar upbringings? What does that mean?

ETC, it's not easy. Even the slightest difference can affect the psychology of a person in ways not easily imaginable.

That's very difficult to answer. What do you mean "extremely similar?" Identical twins? Very similar upbringings? What does that mean?

ETC, it's not easy. Even the slightest difference can affect the psychology of a person in ways not easily imaginable.

Ha! You totally dodged the question! Answer it! :angry:

Ha! You totally dodged the question! Answer it! :angry:

I asked for more information so I could attempt to formulate a proper answer.

Sore?

Corbin, identical? And did your brother enjoy music as much growing up?

SSC, there isn't much else, it was more a general setup. So far you've said that talent as an imaginary force doesn't exist, and talent as a difference in learning styles resulting in different paces of learning should be considered as it is and not simply written off as (magic) talent.

You have 2 music major students of the same age at different colleges in different towns; both were brought up upper-middle class, both we pushed hard into music at a young age by their respective parents, both enjoy music equally, both have succeeded equally in their other classes and extracurriculars, fill in the blanks for the rest if you need to. Do you think that both students will perform equally as well in, say, counterpoint classes?

Well, I'm a twin.

I'm amazing at music.

My brother isn't.

Lol.

Is he Gay too? If not, the whole "Gay by Nature" arguement goes out the window.

Corbin, identical? And did your brother enjoy music as much growing up?

SSC, there isn't much else, it was more a general setup. So far you've said that talent as an imaginary force doesn't exist, and talent as a difference in learning styles resulting in different paces of learning should be considered as it is and not simply written off as (magic) talent.

You have 2 music major students of the same age at different colleges in different towns; both were brought up upper-middle class, both we pushed hard into music at a young age by their respective parents, both enjoy music equally, both have succeeded equally in their other classes and extracurricular, fill in the blanks for the rest if you need to. Do you think that both students will perform equally as well in, say, counterpoint classes?

Trick question, though I will bite just to see where you're going with this.

No, I don't think they will perform the SAME. I won't say "equally well", as we'd have to get into theoretical specifics as what kind of errors each would make, what kind of counterpoint they wrote, etc.

I don't think they will perform the same because they are not the same person. But this doesn't mean they can't both pass the class with OK grades and learn things. The interesting part is if there was a significant difference between them which couldn't be traced to the education system, their background or personal psychology altogether.

Just, so to speak, someone is "bad" at something.

See where I'm going? We can apply the same concept of talent in inverse. This is precisely why the whole idea falls apart because it has to account for both these possibilities. If someone can be "talented," that is to say, better at something because of X or Y unknown reason it should as well be possible to observe the inverse.

The key is, I'm against defining "talent" as something beyond proper understanding or explanation.

For example, someone who grew up surrounded by people who spoke multiple languages and they themselves learned at an early age 2 or 3 languages, it can be said they have a rather good reason to be better at learning another language than someone who hasn't had the same background as them.

To the outside observer this may and probably WILL be perceived as "talent" as they don't know this child's background. But there's a perfectly reasonable explanation behind it.

But because this example implies something that is part of the development process and has to do with learning, it shouldn't be out of the question to say that someone who is a mathematician has a "talent" for numbers if we don't know they are a mathematician to begin with. This is what I'm against, because it's simply a lack of information that leads to the wrong conclusion.

Likewise, someone who we know has been their entire lives, say, a soccer player and they have a pretty terrible track record will be labeled as "untalented." But the reason he performs so poorly may not be related to his "lack of talent" exactly, we just don't really have enough information to analyze this properly (in this example.)

I just had a totaly wild and unpremeditated thought:

Perhaps SSC is trying to prove talent doesn't exist because he has none.

:horrified:

Wow.

That didn't answer the question.

However, I can answer anything about my situation with my twin brother to facilitate any rhetoric. You may have theory with the genetics and "naturalness" of anything governed by twin studies, but I actually have and know my twin.

So ask away SSC and Ferk. :)

Rather nice of you!

Can you point out where and how you would say you and your brother differ significantly and in what fields, whatever that may seem odd. I think the whole thing is fascinating and from what I've read of identical twin studies it's really quite something to look at.

A lot of times it seems as if talent is hereditary, and some is, but I think musical talent is developed. Now some people were born with good ears, or or "right-brained," but hard work is always needed to improve or perfect musical skill. Before I went to college, I would come up with good melodies, and even whole pieces, but I wasn't good at elaborating on themes, so a lot of my early stuff is "main theme - new theme - another new theme - main theme etc. etc." Theme and variations were completely out of the question. But now I'm going into my junior year and thanks to theory, aural skills, sight singing, composition lessons, instrumental lessons, conducting... and all those other things, those earlier "melodic skills" have turned into "compositional skills." Even though Mozart was composing at the age of 5 he had his father and teacher Leopold, and of course that early stuff is horribly boring!

So in sum, No I don't think that people are born with the ability to compose.

I've seen a lot of differences in talent, both in my high school days and now.

I had a friend who wasn't good at reading, had no pulse and no musical instinct, and I've seen him work extremely hard to become an All-Stater.

I myself am quite good at reading, have decent pulse and musical instinct, and all of that was natural to me. That's my talent - my natural ability. My training was nil; I sat in the back of band class through middle school and 9th grade. Then I started to care, and my ability manifested itself.

I would say that natural talent wise, my friend is pretty low, while mine is pretty high. This doesn't make him WORSE or BETTER than anything, and how good you are isn't dependent on talent. But talent IS a factor. We both went far in high school, musically, because we both worked. I would say he worked harder than I did, because he had to, but I still went farther than him musically. This is my best friend in the world, and I am in no way bragging or putting him down; I'm merely pointing out that there is a difference in natural ability, and that is called talent.

SSC it seems like most of what you use to 'prove' that talent doesn't exist is the inevitable misuse of the word, such as with your multi-lingual example. The, by your definition, irony does not exist, for most people misuse that word, mistaking it for coincidence.

This doesn't make him WORSE or BETTER than anything, and how good you are isn't dependent on talent. But talent IS a factor.

SSC it seems like most of what you use to 'prove' that talent doesn't exist is the inevitable misuse of the word, such as with your multi-lingual example. The, by your definition, irony does not exist, for most people misuse that word, mistaking it for coincidence.

Nice self contradiction there, and if you don't agree with my definition of talent then you try to define it.

Personal examples and anecdotes aren't evidence, like I said before.

...I've already defined it. Talent is natural ability.

...I've already defined it. Talent is natural ability.

I AGREE!!! I think that this is the most simple way to say it.

...I've already defined it. Talent is natural ability.

.. OK. What does that mean exactly? What is "natural"? Genetically defined ability for example?

Defining it like that only begs for more questions than it answers.

Your natural ability is what you can do with little to no instruction/experience. Basically, what you can do on your own.

"Raw" talent, that's something that with almost no help and guidence you can still excel at. I know I practically restated what Jamie just said, but i agree with him. Its a talent without help, then it become a trade, almost...

Your natural ability is what you can do with little to no instruction/experience. Basically, what you can do on your own.

Hrm. Yeah, OK. So how do you suggest this can be measured? Because if there is such a thing, it must be proven. To prove it, we only need to measure and be able to understand how it works in order to predict the outcome in the test condition.

Problem is, how do you tell the difference between "talent" and things that would facilitate the person's ability to do something "on their own?" That's the crucial problem.

It has to be something that cannot be explained by genetics, upbringing conditions or psychology conditions. I think, therefore, that it's rather unlikely since these factors are basically everything there is to it. "Talent" would assume an extra "ability" to come out of thin air.

And as it turns out, things don't tend to come out of thin air so I'm ever so skeptical with such concepts.

SSC's opinion:

If it cannot be measured, it does not exist!

SSC's opinion:

If it cannot be measured, it does not exist!

Troll harder.

We differ on a lot of things... Most people say we are more different than other brothers and sisters.

For the longest time, especially as kids, we were VERY similar. We were in the same social situations and all of that.

Then when we had access and the FREEDOM (I think that is important) to choose what to do, read, and everything else-- we started to differ greatly.

I am a very sexual person. He isn't at all. I am very interested and adept at music. He actually is too, he just doesn't seem to have the effort to practice.

Now, he does, I feel, have a natural edge in writing over me. When we were younger, about 14 or 15, he ALWAYS did better. And I was damned good! He just had the perfect score and I had the 99. I've done A LOT of training in writing now though, and eventually I surpassed him, but I have no idea where that came from.

Physically we are different now as well. He is VERY skinny. I'm much more muscular and stronger. We chose to pursue different athletic interest and our bodies are different because of that.

His interest are also very different. He is very interested in the discourse on civil liberties and things dealing with 9/11. He is very well versed in science literature and news. We both respect and read a lot of what each of us present to each other.... it is just that we both know different things by now. I like science a lot. He immerses himself in it however. He likes music, and I do the same... immerse.

Socially we are very different as well. I'm very social.. he isn't.. to put it bluntly.

Hmm, anything else?

Well the key is seeing how you two were very similar at a young age. I'd say, if anything, that shows at least by this anecdote a good example of what upbringing/choices/etc cause. It's interesting also that you said you two became actually different and individual people when you had the ability to pursue different things.

That, I think says a lot. Though you say he was very good at writing for apparently no reason, do you really think there was nothing that could have helped him "train" that ability or have an affinity to it that isn't at first glance obvious? Like, say, someone who reads a lot is probably more likely to pick up writing better, even if they haven't themselves written much than someone who doesn't read as often.