|
On October 25 2009 03:52 omg.deus wrote:
mozart is an exception...the ability of mozart is something that we only see once every thousand years...
I doubt that, you have to realize that we live in a completely different day and age now with the internet and what not. Not to mention it doesn't take a genius to make great music, combine that with the vast improvement of general health and the chances to express yourself and I think that the Mozart's of today just don't stand out enough anymore.
You have to define exactly what makes Mozart so special, as far as I'm concerned Beethoven is vastly superior. :p
|
Someone earlier recommended the book Outliers, and I'd definitely recommend it too. Just a small excerpt from that book regarding mozart:
+ Show Spoiler +"The emerging picture from such studies is that ten
thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level
of mastery associated with being a world-class expert—in
anything," writes the neurologist Daniel Levitin. "In
study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction
writers, ice skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master
criminals, and what have you, this number comes up
again and again. Of course, this doesn't address why some
people get more out of their practice sessions than others
do. But no one has yet found a case in which true worldclass
expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that
it takes the brain this long to assimilate all that it needs to
know to achieve true mastery."
This is true even of people we think of as prodigies.
Mozart, for example, famously started writing music
at six. But, writes the psychologist Michael Howe in his
book Genius Explained,
by the standards of mature composers, Mozart's early
works are not outstanding. The earliest pieces were
all probably written down by his father, and perhaps
improved in the process. Many of Wolfgang's childhood
compositions, such as the first seven of his concertos for
piano and orchestra, are largely arrangements of works
by other composers. Of those concertos that only contain
music original to Mozart, the earliest that is now
regarded as a masterwork (No. 9, K. 271) was not com-
posed until he was twenty-one: by that time Mozart had
already been composing concertos for ten years.
The music critic Harold Schonberg goes further: Mozart,
he argues, actually "developed late," since he didn't produce
his greatest work until he had been composing for
more than twenty years.
|
On October 25 2009 09:23 skyglow1 wrote:Someone earlier recommended the book Outliers, and I'd definitely recommend it too. Just a small excerpt from that book regarding mozart: + Show Spoiler +"The emerging picture from such studies is that ten
thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level
of mastery associated with being a world-class expert—in
anything," writes the neurologist Daniel Levitin. "In
study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction
writers, ice skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master
criminals, and what have you, this number comes up
again and again. Of course, this doesn't address why some
people get more out of their practice sessions than others
do. But no one has yet found a case in which true worldclass
expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that
it takes the brain this long to assimilate all that it needs to
know to achieve true mastery."
This is true even of people we think of as prodigies.
Mozart, for example, famously started writing music
at six. But, writes the psychologist Michael Howe in his
book Genius Explained,
by the standards of mature composers, Mozart's early
works are not outstanding. The earliest pieces were
all probably written down by his father, and perhaps
improved in the process. Many of Wolfgang's childhood
compositions, such as the first seven of his concertos for
piano and orchestra, are largely arrangements of works
by other composers. Of those concertos that only contain
music original to Mozart, the earliest that is now
regarded as a masterwork (No. 9, K. 271) was not com-
posed until he was twenty-one: by that time Mozart had
already been composing concertos for ten years.
The music critic Harold Schonberg goes further: Mozart,
he argues, actually "developed late," since he didn't produce
his greatest work until he had been composing for
more than twenty years.
this is the worst thing ive read in a long time ahahahhaha
the author, constantly suffering from being a piece of shit "psychologist", goes on a crusade to determine why he isnt a "genius". Turns out all it takes is 10k hours
What a pathetic pile of steaming shit
|
On October 25 2009 07:51 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 03:52 omg.deus wrote:
mozart is an exception...the ability of mozart is something that we only see once every thousand years... You have to define exactly what makes Mozart so special, as far as I'm concerned Beethoven is vastly superior. :p
Arguing that Beethoven is " vastly superior" than Mozart is irrelevant because they aren't competing against each other like in Starcraft. Music is art and has the power to evoke strong emotions in the listener. If Mozart writes a piece of music that has that emotional power over someone and Beethoven also writes a piece of music that has the same effect, arguing which is better doesn't matter since they both achieved the same goal.
Music is subjective to a degree, yet most of us can still recognize excellence in other subjective arts such as in the Mona Lisa or The Godfather. What made Mozart stand out from everybody else is not that he was a child prodigy, which is indeed amazing but not wholly unique, but that other renowned musicians are unable to offer any kind of critique or suggestion to his music. His compositions also showed no signs of revisement or modification. He simply wrote down the already finished masterpieces that were playing in his head.
This is the best analogy I can give: There are many film directors that are considered great. Mozart is like a great director in which no other director can offer any kind of suggestion or critique to his work. Of course this really isn't realistic since we all agree these arts are subjective. There will always be someone who just has a different idea of what is best. Yes, there will be people who aren't great directors that will have problems with this "great director", but if all the great directors (scorsese, hitchcock, kubrick, tarantino, etc, etc,) could offer no critique or suggestion, I would tend to give more value to their judgment than someone who just sees a lot of movies. :p
|
On October 25 2009 07:34 ilovezil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 06:01 Volta wrote:
Great blog to read, discussions about ability and how talent/hard work compare always appear to me as fun things to talk about (no idea why)
I hate reading interviews or anything that ask how to get good at a field, and somewhere they mention 'skill is mainly augmented by talent' (a StarCraft interview comes to mind, can't quiet remember the exact one) because it could make people believe that no matter how much effort they put in they won't be able to reach a desired level, play a certain song, whatever..
Having a passion to play and actually putting in hard work trumps talent! Regarding that last line you wrote, I actually think hard work creates talent. Disregarding the whole schpiel on "natural talent", the word talent does exist, as does the meaning it carries. Nevertheless, this does not have to be negative. Remember, as I've stated before, Jaedong wasn't even considered that great not too long ago as he took down Nada, who was the favorite and while Jaedong was the underdog. So then, how did this no-namer become the best zerg and one of the best Brood War players today? Hard work. And through hard work, he produced the talent he probably didn't know he had by persevering to uncover his potential. Bisu and Sea[shield] once lost vs ToT)Mondragon( and ToT)Testie( a few years ago in a CW in a convincing manner. I can't say what the winners thought, but I'm sure that they probably didn't see anything overly special in either bisu or sea at the time of the match. Just another good korean, but the potential Starleague winners and historic gaming figures? Probably not.
Talent usually means something that one has intrinsically, which may mean anything from the personality to the current skill level of said person to their ability to learn and grasp concepts.
Hard work creates talent - most easily seen at the top of every field when there is no clear-cut template of success to follow. Think BoxeR, Nal_Ra, YellOw during the times where few other progamers were around, and how they still managed to improve - they basically created that unknown talent which was nonexistent, which today we can name "talent". If muta micro/vulture micro was never discovered would we say "Oh XYZ is so talented in _____"? But only (inspired) hard work together with analysis and a passion for the game created (and/or uncovered) all this "talent".
Perhaps words like passion, talent and hard work get thrown around when laymen see successful people (who can be successful simply through marketing and publicity, see the balloon boy or any politician who wasnt worth his salt) and try to attribute years of effort and training to 1 single word. Simply put, to get good one would a) have a passion for something, b) have to discover where his talent lies (can be found in subaspects of virtually any field) and c) practice really hard once his rhythm of work, reflection and analysis has bee establised.
-2c
|
Of course theres no such thing as natural talent. Talent is just a term to describe somehow who has put the work into a certain field to become great at it.
|
On October 25 2009 15:00 Probe. wrote:
Of course theres no such thing as natural talent. Talent is just a term to describe somehow who has put the work into a certain field to become great at it.
While I don't like the idea of natural talent, I must disagree with your statement. I do believe in natural talent and in fact, believe it's foolish to completely disregard it. There are people who display affinity in certain skills, whether it's a guy that never picked up a guitar in his life, yet musical notes come easily to him, or if it's a guy that never picked up a chess piece, but can easily catch on to the strategies and mechanics.
I believe that early age and environment play huge factors in these cases, where the person had at least some type of similar exposure from the past that is "built" into him or her and develops subconsciously as the person grows up. Some people even consider genes as a factor, but I don't have enough background or knowledge to touch upon that.
However, this natural affinity does NOT necessarily make you all that great. Surely, you've met people around you who have displayed faster learning capabilities than you even if you both had started the same new activity with no prior experience. That's only natural. It's not as if person A and person B will develop the skill at the same pace and same way. The point is that just because person A may learn faster and display his or her "natural talent" doesn't mean person B will always lag behind since everyone's learning curve is different. How the individual works will eventually depict the true differences in potential over a long term period of time. Even afterward, is it not possible to continue learning and developing? History has shown that human beings consistently demonstrate "impossible" feats where what once is known as the limit is broken by an outstanding individual.
To sum it up, natural talent is usually not that important in the long term. It does exist, but it has already been agreed upon by a vast majority of posters in this thread that it means jack shit amongst those who had reached the top and revealed what truly made them who they are.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
talent(insert whatever variable u think) x hardwork(insert whatever variable u think) = skill
|
Very important too is to have good training methods. Even if you had natural affinity into something and work a lot on it, you gotta know how to spend that time most efficiently.
|
On October 25 2009 22:30 Rekrul wrote:
talent(insert whatever variable u think) x hardwork(insert whatever variable u think) = skill
so 0 talent = 0 skill? lol
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On October 26 2009 15:35 Stratos.FEAR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 22:30 Rekrul wrote:
talent(insert whatever variable u think) x hardwork(insert whatever variable u think) = skill so 0 talent = 0 skill? lol
obviously...take artosis for example
|
Of course talent plays a huge part. Beethoven, for instance, never had the endless melodic inspiration of Schubert. If you read a book like "The Great Pianists" by Schoenberg, you'll find pretty much every great pianist was a child prodigy and touring by no later than 15. Then you can take individuals like Walter Gieseking or Glenn Gould who can 'practice' by just reading pieces away from the piano whereas everyone else needs to spend 8 hours a day. Most of them apparently have ridiculous abilities in memorisation (not just of music) as well.
Obviously practice is important, but it's nonsense to think you can get to the absolute top without talent.
|
On October 26 2009 16:22 Spinfusor wrote:
Of course talent plays a huge part. Beethoven, for instance, never had the endless melodic inspiration of Schubert. If you read a book like "The Great Pianists" by Schoenberg, you'll find pretty much every great pianist was a child prodigy and touring by no later than 15. Then you can take individuals like Walter Gieseking or Glenn Gould who can 'practice' by just reading pieces away from the piano whereas everyone else needs to spend 8 hours a day. Most of them apparently have ridiculous abilities in memorisation (not just of music) as well.
Obviously practice is important, but it's nonsense to think you can get to the absolute top without talent.
Practice strengthens talent. No one is good at something until they put in the work to be good at something.
|
Obviously. "talent x hardwork = skill" as someone said.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
So it seems the student teaches the master now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
