Talent
 

What the **** is it exactly? What makes a talented or untalented musician in your eyes?

Discuss

You're very talented.

There is so much that goes into it, it's hard to say. I see people equate talent with playing very complex and difficult pieces perfectly as talent, and that's one aspect. Good musicianship comes from putting in enough time into practicing and playing figure out all the mistakes that can be made, and correcting them, always become a better version of oneself than the day before. Jerry Garcia said something like if he knew there was so much to learn on guitar he would reconsider another occupation if he had to choose over again. I think the mark of a good musician is being aware of your limitations, using what you have but at the same time pushing yourself to improve. Peter Buck said he never play anything that beyond his ability. (paraphrasing what they said) But it's not about just how or what musician plays, it's about what the musician conveys emotionally too. I think it takes certain je ne sais quoi to convey emotion through music. Music is a never ending learning curve.

It's an old Greek or Roman coin, isn't it?

Not a word I usually use when discussing music.
When I do, it's interchangable with technical and/or compositional proficiency.

I guess it equates the ability to create with the value of money. Since most people make their livelihood off their abilities. In most cases the greater the ability to create something the more money one makes... more talent. Art and music is the one area where it's backwards, where you can have talent but not be recognized or make a living. Vincent van Gogh, Paul Gauguin, Rembrandt all died poor.

I think it's more of a songwriting thing. If you're good at your craft and you can make songs with some substance, you're talented in my books. This rule can apply to stuff I don't care for too. Even if I can't feel the music, I can understand what kind of work goes into creating it.

Isn't being talented just having an inherent technical skill at something, that wasn't learned beforehand?

I think talent is more than having just the skill to make music, it's showing your unique point of view through that skill. it's creating something no one could've done except you while having a quality alot of ppl will relate to, something that becomes your signature and makes you stand out from other talented musicians or your very influences.

And untalented musician is one that plays music for all the wrong reasons. egotistical and pretentious reasons. thankfully the road to being a musician is a never ending and arduous one that weeds out the poseurs.

But how then do you account for the likes of classical pianists or violinists, or those in an orchestra even, who never write their own music (or at least, never perform it in public if they do write it, so it remains unheard which is kind of the same end result) but can lovingly interpret Chopin or Bach or Dvorak? Surely they have to be rated as talented, even if they never created anything themselves?

Well of course, their "craft" is the recreation of music. You kind of just answered your own question with "lovingly interpret".

I think plenty of 'good' albums lack talent. To me, its an expression of technical skill. If you create something original that's easily replicated, you're not talented, you're creative and enjoyable. Talent is being able to work your instrument to its highest, most complicated parameters. If you can create a piece of art for any person, no matter their preferences, no matter how difficult it may be, you're talented. Otherwise you're just a musician trying to reach others with your own brand.

Which is not a bad thing.

All in all, they know how to play an instrument well, and they know how to write a stand-out song, and not just filler. They've got to show they can do something a little different instead of generic. And if they are generic, they're still talented if they still sound really good. Like Kiss. Talented, generic. That's my def, anyway. Basically, prove that you stand out more. Because musicians that don't stand out in anyway generally aren't something to write home about. Not to say its about popularity. It's the music itself that needs to stand out, not the connection to the media.

Oh, yeah, another form of talent is to immitate someone perfectly while still letting people know its you. A good example is this band called Milk Duct Tape. You can tell its them, but one song from their debut EP sounds exactly like a Stones song. That takes talent.

It can mean a lot of things—songwriting ability, proficiency with an instrument or instruments, versatility, ability to improvise, stage presence, etc.

It's been diluted with each successive technological advancement that's made making "art" easier.

Those damned lyric writing drum machines.

Everyone has some level of "talent"- it's just that some have the ability to take that level higher. There are millions of guitar players in the world- all have talent. But few reach a stratosphere of being able to do things that others cannot. Same with any instrument.

In my view they're talented musicians but not composers. idk why they don't choose to be composers. it can't be for lack of skills so it must be they lack the drive to create something of their own. i really don't understand that perspective, i learned how to play guitar to make my own songs not play covers forever.

For the classical world, it's much much much more difficult to (1) get an people to play your work if you're doing more than solo stuff and (2) get an audience than to just play the classics.

Didn't disappoint.

But missed the point.

Wanna smoke a joint?

I reserve the right to believe that if you can make anything to appeal to an audience, you have talent, no matter your skill level

There are different kinds of talent if you ask me. Talent to play a guitar at a high level (Plankton), talent to write awesome songs (me, Plainview, Plankton, Mondo etc), talent to do whatever the hell it is that Frownland does, etc.

Glad I'm not the only one that hasn't figured it out yet.

Yeah but that doesn't cover the guy in an orchestra, one bassoon player or cellist who is basically following direction from a conductor. But if he hits a bum note or plays out of tune, the whole piece suffers. So is he or she talented then? Surely they are, yet they're not creating anything, specifically, at least, anything original.
So you're totally discounting singers who have all their material written for them? Talent = being able to play an instrument? That's a bit narrow. And what about producers who have "the midas touch" and can spot a star when they're still busking for pennies? Surely that takes talent too?
Frown answered that pretty well. It's different in the world of classical music, where the new is often frowned (sorry man) upon, or at the very least treated with suspicion or even outright contempt.

The way I see it, if you make music I like I consider you talented.

Like I said, if you can attract an audience, you're talented

4'33"

Nuff said.

There you go.

I'd think it's safe to assume that John Cage was an extraordinarily talented composer.

Damn straight.

I like The Shaggs, but they're not talented.

That's only if you limit your scope to technical proficiency.

By most people's standards they are seen as having no talent. I would say they have very little talent. They could do things that a person with zero knowledge of a musical instrument couldn't do. Imho. With hardly any talent at all, they had somehow got through writing and performing songs and making an album. I think it was their father who gave then the chance to make the record. It wasn't a talent scout obviously - that goes without say. :/ And as bad they were they somehow got a cult following for those who like outsider art. Probably cause of Zappa.

I don't think they're talented in song-writing terms, production-wise, or melodically either really. It just works despite all that, I guess the appeal is the lack of actual musical talent that is so compelling.

ftfy

I honestly think that The Shaggs are a pretty good counter argument to the tech=talent argument because their music shows that a primitive approach to music can be pretty awesome if you don't get caught up on the technical aspects of it.

To elaborate I'll use Lou Reed as an example. The dude can sing four notes, but he's talented in that he can take that limited (and not all that appealing from a conventional standpoint not counting his own music) and make it into something great.

I mean I see your point but the lines are blurred between something being unconventional or simply not very good. I mean the fact I enjoy The Shaggs music shows their must be some qualities that work well, and I buy the primitive point you made actually. Lou Reed had very strong lyricism and song-writing to make up for his range, and he used his lack of 'conventional' singing ability to his advantage by presenting his lyricism and world views in a gritty and humorous way that no one had really done before. I guess Dylan's similar in that respect. I guess my point is that I can break down the elements that make someone like Lou Reed talented and innovative, whereas The Shaggs are somehow more than the sum of their parts, for no individual areas strikes me as being skilful or novel or dynamic. It's just that the layers of amateurishness sort of mesh together into something quite hypnotic, but it's basically down to the charm and lack of ability.

Was about to totally agree with you but then this;

Totally agree.

idk much about the shaggs but from what ive heard from them idk if i would call them talented. they have a naive sound that can be a little endearing but you also gotta fix their songs on your head whenever you listen to them. they have a good sense of melody but they don't have the skill to pull it off and you kinda focus on the potential they have not their execution.

It may not be a fair comparison but i kinda view Daniel Johnston in a similar way except that i like how Daniel pulls it off because despite of his technical talents he bares his soul in his songs. that's something i still haven't perceived in the shaggs. (but again idk much about them)

I think that one important thing is often forgotten, especially in, errh... geekier circles (the metal community, the prog community, this community), namely the importance of playing with feel.

Go to a really good, respected, cello teacher for instance. Then learn to play super difficult pieces fast, precise and without flaw. Most likely, the teacher will tell you that you are terrible and need more practice. This is because playing with feel is just as important as technical skill. It's 50%/50%, but most prog/metal supposed "virtuosos" have very little skill in the expressive part of that equation.

Basically, I'm saying that in my mind, most highly regarded prog/metal "gods" are of neglible talent in my eyes.

This goes for singers as well. Hell, just to be a bastard and push the issue a bit more, I'll divulge that I think Opeth is a mediocre band because they play like sleepy robots. At least pre- Heritage.

Robots don't sleep.