How important is talent in music?

I don't think talent matters, all you need is a decent face, a sick beat and catchy lyrics. That's it

Two words: Stevie Wonder

Talent beyond comprehension.

a reply to: Profusion
wanna see talent in music, visit the 60's. just amazing

a reply to: Profusion

That question has no straight answer I suspect, "talent" is I think subjective, I could make a 55 min. track of kicking a trashcan to something that resembles a rhythm and somebody would fall in love with it as "indy" or "edgy" or whatever the new hip thing is. So umm just listen to what ya like I guess?

a reply to: luthier

This is a thread about talent. Not about human qualities.

a reply to: Profusion

talent is of paramount importance and spears has none.
i also would not call her a musician. singer maybe. musician. no way

want to see a talented musician?
check out esperanza spaulding. tal wilkenfeld. lots of others

a reply to: luthier

Talent would have to be defined but hard work and creativity are more important aspects of higher arts.

Talent is creativity combined with natural aptitude. Hard work is futile without it.

Talent is all.

On listening i think we can look at ethnomusicology and anthropology abd see music can be both performed and listened and apreciated by anybody and everybody.

Yes. Bad music.

Advertising and programming have effected the situation your talking about. I dont believe its an inherent reality.

People who have no talent cannot possibly understand how creative people function. Their opinions are worthless.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: luthier

Talent would have to be defined but hard work and creativity are more important aspects of higher arts.

Talent is creativity combined with natural aptitude. Hard work is futile without it.

Talent is all.

On listening i think we can look at ethnomusicology and anthropology abd see music can be both performed and listened and apreciated by anybody and everybody.

Yes. Bad music.

Advertising and programming have effected the situation your talking about. I dont believe its an inherent reality.

People who have no talent cannot possibly understand how creative people function. Their opinions are worthless.

All completely false.

Music is a cultural aspect of life in most countries. Its function is not always to be the best individual artist.

For instance it doesnt take a talented person to understand and apreciate their cultural stories and art. The audience in a traditional gamelan setting say and the musicians are not required to have mozart level talent.

A drum circle in traditional senaglese music or singing while working which you can readily hear on alan lomax recordings.

Ya all can be as elitist as you want. Music has many different functions from military drums, to community ceremony to artist expression.

To even compare britney spears or most any pop musician to people who commited their lives to understanding music on a theoretical and artistic level is rediculuous.

Pop music is modern folk music. It shouldnt be judged with the same authority as the "classsical" forms of the world.

There isnt a singer on the planet i am aware of in pop music with the "talent" of say Dawn Upshaw or Pandit Jasaraj.

Also talent is not always defined as creativity. If you heard an 8 year old sing stevie wonder perfectly i would guess you would say thats a talent. Where as its really mimicry by your definition. Can a person ve say talented at copying another person but creatively void of producing their own material? In which case your definition also doesnt work.

If this is about pop music and fame the the single moat important factor is luck, followed by connections. Pop music has never been about the most dedicated talented people. They were lucky and had the right product at the right time.

The public however was much more EDUCATED in music which allowed for better listening.

Something as simple as music education created both Jazz an Motown music. Directly related to french teaching band music and ohio, detroit etc having black music programs.

Why was pop music classical at one point? Was it because society was more talented or because they had a better musical vocabularly and the cultural significance allowed for it?

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: luthier

This is a thread about talent. Not about human qualities.

And?

I said its overated or at least greatly misunderstood. particularly in pop music.

Just to some it up its a reflection of societies grasp of musical language and cultural signifigance.

The same society that elevated Duke Ellington didnt sudenly become less talented. The public has however steadily lost its musical literacy. Thanks to music programs being chopped in the US especially where we still export a huge amount of pop music trends.

a reply to: luthier

Music is a cultural aspect of life in most countries.

All human cultures produce music. All cultures that produce music appreciate musical talent.

The audience in a traditional gamelan setting say and the musicians are not required to have mozart level talent.

No, they are required to have their own kind of talent. Sometimes this is considerable. I'm glad you mentioned gamelan, because it serves as a great example of what I mean. Gamelan musicians have to be able to play long, complex traditional pieces, which sometimes go on all night and which they must memorize perfectly. A great deal of detailed knowledge and skill is required to play these works. The audience is often as familiar with the piece as the performers are, and they are quick to judge the quality of the performance.

Moreover, gamelan players must also be schooled in the other arts that accompany the musical performance:

Typically players in the gamelan will be familiar with dance moves and poetry, while dancers are able to play in the ensemble. In Indonesia, gamelan often accompanies dance, wayang puppet performances, or rituals and ceremonies. Source

Here’s a quote that illustrates the importance of skill and talent in traditional music, explicitly including gamelan:

Kwabena Nketia, an African ethnomusicologist, once remarked that in traditional performing arts, the renewal of past artistic experience is expected. The role of an artist is to shed new light and to intensify the experiences that the audience wishes to renew. Insufficient innovation tends to bore the audience; too much innovation destroys the pleasant memory of the art work, possibly resulting in the audience's displeasure with the interpretation. A "good" performing artist, then is one who knows the borderline between "too much" and "not enough," a fine line that is often very personal indeed. Such is the case with Javanese music. Source

As you no doubt recall from our earlier exchanges, I live in South Asia. I am familiar with the traditional music of my own country (which is a multiethnic, postcolonial society with many intermingling traditions, so there are lots of different kinds of music). I am also familiar with the traditional music of many other countries, including the different traditions of North American music. There is no form of music that I know of in which talent and skill are not prized.

Ya all can be as elitist as you want.

I think you are making a mistake. This isn’t about keeping people out.

Talent is important for success in music, whether you define success as commercial, critical or popular. I think that is what we have been discussing here.

You don’t need much talent simply to make music — pretty much everyone does it, anyway, even if all they do is hum or whistle the latest pop hit. But if you want to make music with or for other people, then you need to be able to muster at least a little talent — enough to work your instrument or voice, sense the rhythm, sing or play in tune — or else your listeners will soon ask you to stop.

So talent (even a tiny bit of talent) is vital is you plan to keep on making music. In front of other people, anyway.

a reply to: Astyanax

Thank you and I think it illustrates my point.

Talent first off very ambiguos word.

Second education and cultural history.

Creativity "talent" vs musical "talent" vs concentration talent.

I could have perfect pitch and "add" for focusing on long forms vs a semi talented hard worker and be a better gamelan musician.

The public is loosing vocabulary which allows a vernacular change. This one being exploiting talents like dance, technology and i suppose beauty. Creative people all around spears put that performance on.

Its the fault of the public we dont have a vocabularly to judge the music. Basically we have comic book level literacy and attention so spears is making money.

When we had focus and music language we could sit through 15 minute Count Basie songs (without auto tune or PA equipt even).

Art is a reflection of us. As a culture.

In other words she is a manifistation of us as a collective using current vernacular.

When a person has say musical talent and focus talent mixed with education you can get virtuasity in playing. When one is musically talented, creatively talented, and focus talented you get real innovators and composers. Whether its Bjork or Mozart.

Britney is simply pop art which is simply the general culture's acceptance of that as art. Her talent is being directed well and dancing. Her whole marketing team is full of graphic designers, sound engineers, choreographers, dancers etc.

Her singing isnt what people are there for. Its the whole production.

Frankly it makes me disgusted but who am I? I cant fight the entire culture that produced it.

One of the things I have noticed in America and musicianship is that it has become a competition sport, especially among rock guitarists.

and on a professional note when I'm musical director for a film, I look for "style" and the ability to adapt, not chops.

I will select a musician that may not have the technical ability but has that elusive quality of "style" and originality.

a reply to: olaru12

One of the things I have noticed in America and musicianship is that it has become a competition sport, especially among rock guitarists.

Agreed, and not just among guitarists. What was American Idol but a competition in the public arena? In fact, it had more in common with Ancient Roman gladiatorial contests than with any modern competitive sport.

and on a professional note when I'm musical director for a film, I look for "style" and the ability to adapt, not chops.

That is, you look for musical talent: the ability to make music beautifully and convincingly.

I will select a musician that may not have the technical ability but has that elusive quality of "style" and originality.

That elusive quality known as talent, in fact.

a reply to: Astyanax



Well in my opinion what your calling talent is a portion of the formula. Hardly the most important aspect to musical integrity.

Personally i think the biggest aspect of "talent" is having your finger on the pulse of the moment and producing that in your art. This is how everyone experiencing the same moment in culture and history relate to the artist.

Most human beings are crearive. Creativity is the basis for knowledge.

Personally when I went to a conservatory

I had to audition for judges(faculty) to even be considered.

I had teachers erase sections of music and humilate me for the purpose of breaking down ego.

I had to perform pieces in master classes that were judged by faculty and my peers for grades.

Chances are neither of the last comments come from professional or academic music backrounds where competition has been going on for many centuries. Thousands of years in India.

I can give you example after example of band leaders creating competition, throwing drumsticks at people underperforming (max roach) and horn players trying to show each other up. Famous well respected ones. Legends even.

Same goes with Hindustani and Carnatic music.

So american idol is just a cheesy lame version of that.

Personally i changed schools and my major realizing i would prob be poor composing modern chamber music.

It had nothing to do with talent it had to do with the public having no understanding of the musical language to apreciate or judge the music.

It simply doesnt matter if a person has talent or not if the cant understand the language.

I also completely and utterly think your assement of a non talented person in music not being able to apreciate music on a high level ridiculous. Its about knowing the language. Which is education not talent

a reply to: luthier

I have no desire to argue with you. But you fail to convince. Mostly because I have no clue what your point is.

a reply to: Astyanax

Its real simple.

What people consider art and what is popular is a reflection of societies interests not a lack of talent in the populatuon.

If people think Spears is good it isnt because they have no talent. Though that is possible.

Its because they dont have the exposure and dont have the vocabulary to decern what is garbage and what is art.

In other words music education in the country that produces a large amount of the worlds pop culture.

i guess for me the bottom line is talent 'should' be of utmost importance but it is not.

talent, skill, musicianship....whatever you want to call it. it really bothers me that it is not more of an issue.

i dont really know how to put it into words.

basically popular music is just that. it is watered down, popular, catchy, 4/4 # that people can dance and hum and move around to so that is what is 'popular' hence pop music.

back in the 50's and 60's pop(popular) music was actually the killer # of the day.
in the 70's we started to lose it a bit. a lot of the popular music was still pretty awesome but it started to go by way of the gimmick and lack of musicianship route.
i will use punk as an example...angst...yeah ok...some decent lyrics...maybe some...yeah.
musicianship though....where is it at? it does not exist.

then in the 80's we basically lost it and it seems it is gone forever.

there is still great stuff out there. fantastic artists. crazy talent. strong musicianship...you wont really hear them on the radio though.

i will use beyonce as an example. one of the most popular 'pop artists' out there. dies she have talent? of course..
she can sing. she can dance. she knows how to move that big ass.


when she is ready to put on some massive show who does she call?
divinity roxx? her bass player and musical director for the last couple tours. divinity is amazing. crazy talented but not well known. when she is playing her music she is in tiny little clubs across the world. she is not playing sold out arenas for her stuff though.
so she gets the call and then has to dumb it way down for the popular music crowd so they can understand what they are listening to.

it is all very frustrating

a reply to: luthier

What people consider art and what is popular is a reflection of societies interests not a lack of talent in the populatuon.

Yes, art and popular entertainment are reflections of the societies that produce them. And those who have a gift for producing art and popular entertainment are viewed as talented in all societies.

What people consider art and what is popular is a reflection of societies interests not a lack of talent in the populatuon.

It is not because they lack talent, it is because they lack taste.

they dont have the exposure and dont have the vocabulary to decern what is garbage and what is art.

No, that has nothing to do with ‘exposure’ or ‘vocabulary’. It has to do with taste. Of course taste can be developed and refined but it must be there in the first place.

Taste, like talent, is an expression of personality. Bad taste usually implies a worldview that diverges from reality, or which is blind to certain aspects of life, or which is morally suspect. Have you ever noticed how tyrants and criminals tend to have terrible taste (except for the Borgias, of course)?

a reply to: Astyanax

Taste, like talent, is an expression of personality. Bad taste usually implies a worldview that diverges from reality, or which is blind to certain aspects of life, or which is morally suspect. Have you ever noticed how tyrants and criminals tend to have terrible taste (except for the Borgias, of course)?

10 World Tyrants Whose Gold Chairs Are Classier Than Donald Trump’s

a reply to: Astyanax


Well generally speaking how is that true?

Your telling me the entire population lost taste?


Your arguements when you actually follow them through are full of generality and dont hold up.

There is a very visual arc of musical decline as record companies learned how to literally program the public. They did many expirements with sound and brain pleasure centers to assure the right intervals and tonality were used and promoted that music which would create a desired response.

At the same time music education was destroyed in the US.

Which means both the listener and the artist themselves have a far less chance of having had a music education

For instance not knowing what a major 9 chord is and having no idea how to use it.

If your arent exposed to other music or music at all besides the radio your chances of devloping a palate for music is very slim


This is the difference.

You believe its the artists without talent.

I believe the audience isnt asking them to utilize their talent and develop it.


Modern talented people Elvis, the beatles, mozart all still exist. Society just doesnt care. Ask a person to name 5 classical composers from eventhe 20th century you'll get a blank stare.

Big big difference from a time like the swing era where the general public knew the songs and partner dances, time signatures etc. People in the US had much higher musical literacy both theory and cultural.

Spears is obviously talented. She was picked up by talent scouts very early and was a child actor.

Its her education and technique that are an issue. Something this society doesnt value so she didnt develop those things.

If society eats only big macs why would you expect the chefs to make tapas?

If you arent exposed to different flavors you cant develop a taste for them.

If you dont understand the language of math, your probably not going to be able to listen to a lecture about quantum mechanics or even want to.