I came across this information about what it takes to be very successful as a musician, golfer, airline pilot and,yes, even a burglar, in today's world. Don't be fooled because it starts out about golf, it merges into the berlin Music Academy, etc. Enjoy.

http://blogs.golf.com/top100/2...rovements-stick.html

Interesting article, and thanks for the link.

However, if it's leading people to believe that hard work without a great deal of talent will lead to a career in music, perhaps it's doing a disservice. We might divide music students into four broad categories. (Of course there are subsets and fine gradations; the following is simplistic):

1. Those with talent who practice a lot.

2. Those with talent who don't practice a lot.

3. Those with less talent who practice a lot.

4. Those with less talent who don't practice a lot.

Most people would probably agree that group one will do the best, and group four the worst. The question is, will group two or group three do better? In the performing arts, where talent is so important, I believe (unfortunately) that group two will ultimately do better than group three. In other professions, where talent may take a back seat to intellect, the reverse may be true.

And, of course, there is the possibility of a student in group two moving up into group one. I have seen lazy but talented ne'er-do-wells have a change of heart and finally start serious practicing, if a bit late. But someone in group three will not be able to enter group one.

In this day and age of extraordinary competition for few available jobs, is it right to encourage any but the very best to to count on having a viable career in music? Of course the others should be nurtured and encouraged to play as well as possible, and get the best possible instruction. Their skill on an instrument will be a rewarding accomplishment for the rest of their lives, and they will still be enriched and fulfilled by their ability to make music.

I subscribe to the notion that we all are born with about the same amount of talent, but that our talent, by design or by coincidence, is quickly cultivated in different ways and amounts. Two beginner 9 year-old cellists are likely not on an equal footing; they already have different experiences in piano lessons, singing at church, listening to music, hearing siblings' music playing, playing sports and other coordination activites, etc, etc...

How much encouragement to give which music students is an interesting question. I think learning on any level in any field should not merely be vocational training. Even on the most practical level, we don't know which music students are deserving of Professional Training until it's "too late" and many have "wasted" their time on music study. And, as with any field of study, if the music student is prepared only for playing their instrument after school school days are over, then by definition the schooling wasn't very good.

quote:

I subscribe to the notion that we all are born with about the same amount of talent, but that our talent, by design or by coincidence, is quickly cultivated in different ways and amounts. Two beginner 9 year-old cellists are likely not on an equal footing; they already have different experiences in piano lessons, singing at church, listening to music, hearing siblings' music playing, playing sports and other coordination activites, etc, etc...

Interesting notion, but how does it explain the four year old Capablanca, who learned chess by watching his father play, and immediately started trouncing everyone? Or Sarah Chang? She certainly had a great deal of exposure to music as a young child, had excellent teaching, and motivated parents. But so did thousands of other young budding violinists of her generation.

To deny the reality and significance of varying levels of inborn talent is to ignore the obvious, in my opinion.

This is the age old nature vs nuture controversy. Still, talent alone will get you only so far. Few are child prodigies yet many become outstanding professional musicians. We all know gifted musicians who never succeeded due to lack of practice or competing talents. I have seen other musicians with drive, focus and effort catch up and surpass their more advanced but less motivated peers. It is sometimes hard to gauge relative"talent" when prior experience and exposure is very different.

Don't forget training & money. It seems like a lot of talented players i have met started piano lessons at a younger age than when they started their regular instrument. Musical parents & siblings can be a factor, although not as common. Going to the right school(s) & studying with experienced teachers can certainly get players on the right track, although some of them burn out early on. Attending the right music festivals exposes them to some mentors & other players they wouldn't meet otherwise. Competitions also point players in the right direction. All in all, it's individual motivation & practice that will determine success. But it seems the most successful players that i've noticed (discussions, bios, etc.) have a good mix of the above.

Aaron Rosand said something like 95% hard work and 5% talent. I tend to subscribe to that belief, although there are exceptions.

To say that everyone is born with the same amount of talent is like saying every child has the potential to grow to be 6'8". Some kids don't eat much or eat healthy foods yet they grow like weeds. Other kids who eat all the "right" foods won't grow much taller than their short parents. No matter how hard you try, not everyone and frankly, most people will not have the same physique/figure and/or looks as Brad Pitt or Kim Kardashian. Everyone is born with different talents and gifts, some more than others, not the same or equal.

Generally, talented kids tend to be lazy. Kids who are less talented and/or have very little talent who are hard workers tend to surpass lazy talented kids. By the time a talented kid gets his act together, the less talented kid will probably have already won the job. Everyone knows who won the race between the hare and the tortoise. Conclusion: laziness is bad and hard work usually pays off in the end.

Aaron Rosand, a neighbor and friend years ago, compared me to Heifetz. When I asked him how I could even come close to that master Aaron laughed and said "you both have Arthritis in your shoulders." At least I had something in common with him.