Been reading something in Scientific American(August 06) that talks about an expert's mind. Thought it might interest you guys to know, that some top scientists say that:-

-It takes about 10 years of EFFORTFUL study before a person can master ANY field. Where effortful study means that you constantly push yourself beyond your current limit. In musical terms, it prolly means trying to master a song a little beyond your current ability, and repeat that for 10 years.

-That tests done on grandmasters in chess do not suggest they have an increased IQ. The only way their brains are different from others is simply that they have deeper knowledge of strategies previously implemented -which, you realise, points to the fact that their success is based purely upon their hard work at studying chess.

-Prodigies are therefore not exceptions to the "10 year rule". Even Mozart, they theorize, probably got so good at such a young age simply because he made up the time, probably, by working doubly hard in his younger years.

-The preponderance of Psychological evidence states that experts/geniuses are MADE, NOT BORN. Put simply, as long as you are determined enough to succeed, the sky's the limt!

So in that spirit I am going to try to master Alkan's Saltarelle without killing myself in the process. Thanks alot for the score, Sehpharite~!^.^

Sorry, talent can't be made, only improved.

There's only so far HARD EXTEREATING WORK can go, which talent, not even the sky is the limit.

These are great, but I think talent is still impossible to achieve or to, overall, surpass in any running distance.

Sure, Mozart had a lot of free time on his hands, but I don't think you can write just sit down and write and 20 minlong 3 movment symphony with HARD WORK, that's just genious.

As said, these are good, but talent surpasses anything.

I find solace in that study (I've heard it before).

I think that anyone who puts forth enough effort in something will eventually became great in it (but rarely will they become the best).

Im kinda half and half on this one.

Like Mazeppa said, there has to be something there in the first place to develop. My mum, for example just doesnt have a musical mind at all, so she could spend 10 years straight practising, and would probably only just be a very weak grade 4 standard at the end of it.

However if the talent is there in the first place, then fair enough- someone who knows what they're doing will make a LOT of progress in 10 years of hard work and high amount of effort. But that still won't make you perfect, there's no such thing. Learning is a lifelong journey.

Besides... when it comes down to piano, it's pretty much impossible for anyone to beat the best of the best (a.k.a. Liszt)- sitting down in your late teens/early 20s and being able to play 31 of the 32 Beethoven Sonatas perfectly in just a single sight-read, whilst adding your own parts into areas you dont feel has enough notes is some talent.

Deleted.

Could you just shut the fuck up with your O RLY comment you keep spamming everywhere? It's not cool, and neither are you. If you seriously have nothing to contribute with then I'd suggest you to go over to the General Chat and make a fool out of yourself over there instead, but leave the music section to people with actual interest.

Oh I left myself signed on and it was my little bro playing around. I'll delete his spam if necessary.

Oh I left myself signed on and it was my little bro playing around.

Ban that guy please.

Like your little brother knows about Ichigos so well to just go here and post.

We've heard the little sibling or older sibling messing around bull-Leave.

STFU you noob I deleted his spammy shit already ffs! This site is on my quick links so anyone uses my PC can access it... btw he's only 8yo and I'm 18... he just spams around forums for fun and it's too noobish a thing for me to do...

(Sorry for offtopic-ness)

If your 18, it seems he has better literature skills that you do.

Hah, "O RLY" is all he says... Well, he doesn't even need to write them, does he? If the pics are readily available on google... Everyone knows ctrl+c/+v...

Stick to topic please, I've deleted all his O RLY spams so there is no more stupid owl pics.

how many threads go off topic nowadays because of members feeling the need to yell at each other?

just do a couple of relaxation exercises and move on....

STFU you noob
Mazeppa is not a noob,

as for the point of this thread. talent, pure unreffined talent for something is inate. you can create experties in a field through study and bringing a child up in a certain envirotment were certain tendancies such as musical ones are nurtured. expertise in a field just requires study.

but genieus? no, i think that goes to far.

IQ still isnt regarded as an tottaly acurate messure of someones skill. Leadinging buissnessmen in the building trade im will to bet you dont all have great IQs but they a talent for knowing what people what and how to do things. They have not spent thier lives training to achieve this. it just happend and i doubt many people can do what they do...

i lost my train of thought, so excuse the mess

True, I hate Math because I suck at it, and I suck at Math because I hate it-being smart in one area, doesn't make you good in another.

Im kinda half and half on this one.

Like Mazeppa said, there has to be something there in the first place to develop. My mum, for example just doesnt have a musical mind at all, so she could spend 10 years straight practising, and would probably only just be a very weak grade 4 standard at the end of it.

However if the talent is there in the first place, then fair enough- someone who knows what they're doing will make a LOT of progress in 10 years of hard work and high amount of effort. But that still won't make you perfect, there's no such thing. Learning is a lifelong journey.

I am with Thorn on the 50-50 [sorta]. But I dont think that someone is born with talent. I think it all starts with how much hormones are in the body at a young age and how the child was raised.

Someone with a bunch of Testost' and raised in a family of jocks is more likely to be a jock then a painter. Same goes with someone with not as high levels of Testost' and raised in a calming, art family.

I think its impossable for somone to be born with talent. It just makes no sense. Where did this talent develope from? A past life? Pshh...

I am no musical prodigie by anymeans. I'm above average but not a mozart or thorn. I am okay at academics, the arts and socializing, but that all took years of hard work, goals and determination. If someone wanted to write a song on Rach's level, he could do with it hard work.

*sneeze*

*points and laughs at the spam*

okay. Here's the thing. Music and chess are too different. YES, you can become an expert at chess in 10 years without talent. Because chess is systemetic, mathematical but not only that (music is also mathematical and systemetic), it is based upon a set of rules which DO NOT ALLOW room for creativity. There is only one absolute best move, and so be it. If you dare to memorise every single possible outcome of every single possible move, you can't lose in chess.

The Arts, not only music, requires creative minds. That doesn't just get made. Yes you can train and hone it to perfection. But there's gotta be something in there to start with. Sure everyone has talents. Whether you're "natural" or not depends on how easy it is for you to grasp and understand the ways to exploit your creativity. To put it simply, if musical prodigy 'can be made in 10 years', a true natural will do it in 1 year.

That goes for every field pretty much, but yeah. There are just some people who can't compose/draw/make anything original.

I might be considered a "natural" as well.

In one year, I was starting to play the Rantasie-Impromptu and Beethoven's Pathetique. Now, remember I can't master piano playing with schooling and such blocking me too.

I think its impossable for somone to be born with talent. It just makes no sense. Where did this talent develope from? A past life? Pshh...

I read somewhere (Time magazine) that some people who grow up to be good long-distance runners have genetic mutations that allow their cardiovascular systems to deliver more oxygen to their bodies than the average person's.

Besides, if it's possible for someone to be born with below-average potential for a skill (quadriplegics and piano), then shouldn't it be possible for someone to be born with above-average potential?


okay. Here's the thing. Music and chess are too different. YES, you can become an expert at chess in 10 years without talent. Because chess is systemetic, mathematical but not only that (music is also mathematical and systemetic), it is based upon a set of rules which DO NOT ALLOW room for creativity. There is only one absolute best move, and so be it. If you dare to memorise every single possible outcome of every single possible move, you can't lose in chess.

From wikipedia: "Kasparov said that he sometimes saw deep intelligence and creativity in [Deep Blue]'s moves, which he could not understand."

But if you don't buy that definition of creativity, then consider this: The number of playable solo piano pieces of length 2 minutes or less is arguably finite. Just like you could "dare to memorise every single possible outcome of every single possible move" in chess, you could enumerate every single solo piano piece, then pick out the "best" one according to some criterion, and be a great composer.

Perhaps creativity is the ability to recognize a bad idea before trying it out...

From wikipedia: "Kasparov said that he sometimes saw deep intelligence and creativity in [Deep Blue]'s moves, which he could not understand."

But if you don't buy that definition of creativity, then consider this: The number of playable solo piano pieces of length 2 minutes or less is arguably finite. Just like you could "dare to memorise every single possible outcome of every single possible move" in chess, you could enumerate every single solo piano piece, then pick out the "best" one according to some criterion, and be a great composer.

Perhaps creativity is the ability to recognize a bad idea before trying it out...

Very good point, but again, chess there is an objective, best move that lets you win the game. Just the hienously large combination of possible moves allow room for "apparent" creativity.

Everyone has different taste in music. There is not "best music" that's going to appeal to absolutely everyone.... or is there? Maybe we'll find out one day. One thing I'm sure of is that we'll make unbeatable chess "AI" before we compose this utopian music XD

Everyone has different taste in music. There is not "best music" that's going to appeal to absolutely everyone.... or is there? Maybe we'll find out one day. One thing I'm sure of is that we'll make unbeatable chess "AI" before we compose this utopian music XD

I believe a person's taste in music is closely linked to his/her personal perceptions and experiences. So you could say, someone is a fan of slower pieces because he feels it escape the stressful fast pace of his life. Obviously a BIG generalisation but you get the idea - if we wanted to compose this utopian music, we'd need to work around ALL of everyone's idiosyncrasies, and even craft into it some allowance for new ones that may crop up - obviously not an easy thing to do!

But what about an unbeatable chess AI? Although the "best" move can be picked out when in a specific situation, think about the opening stages of a chess game. With the infinite number of moves would come an infinite number of responses. The unbeatable AI would need to take into account of ALL these resposes. And you realise this means thinking vastly ahead of the player - manipulating him, blocking any possible counter-tactics and others that may have yet being invented, and so on. Is it any easier than crafting a piece of music that appeals to ALL idiosyncrasies a person may have? That would depend on which set of possibilities you consider less inifinite.

Creativity is recognizing a "bad" idea before it is even tried out...while I would support that, an extensive knowledge-base would enable one to recognize failings in such ideas, and hence be "creative". To be able to make connections in places others don't see, perhaps, would enable them to do this without prior experience, and perhaps become the pioneers that the geniuses are often recognized as being. This would enable the person to find solutions to the idiosyncrasies others don't see, and perhaps create a work one step closer to that "perfect" work.

But who is to say that Mozart and gang was more able to make these associations, could see things others couldn't, and not simply just worked so hard his extensive knowledge base enables him a wider range of resources to work with? I wish I could ask him - but even if I did, its unlikely he would give a correct answer. How many clever people do you know are willing to say "Oh I'm not really clever, I just worked really hard?"

Isn't the end result the same? If Mozart died before before was 40, most of us would have double that time, and an extra bunch of years of accumulated music knowledge to work with. What's to stop us seeing something he couldn't, even if that means doing it at 95 years old, just before you die?

I think it's how the brain was developed while in your mommy's belly...

you become better as you develop it...

nevermind i don't make sense XD

But what about an unbeatable chess AI? Although the "best" move can be picked out when in a specific situation, think about the opening stages of a chess game. With the infinite number of moves would come an infinite number of responses. The unbeatable AI would need to take into account of ALL these resposes. And you realise this means thinking vastly ahead of the player - manipulating him, blocking any possible counter-tactics and others that may have yet being invented, and so on. Is it any easier than crafting a piece of music that appeals to ALL idiosyncrasies a person may have? That would depend on which set of possibilities you consider less inifinite.
?


There are sooooooooo many situations which overlap, and there are patterns in the moves themselves which cut the combinations required to think over down to few hundred million or so.
We already have a chess AI which world no.1 can't beat. A (theoretically) unbeatable AI isn't as difficult to make as it may sound.

But music.. there's gotta be some people in this world those taste conflict absolutely. This would cause problems...


*Slightly going offtopic aren't we? :mellow:

We're forgetting the definition of a prodigy: a person, esp. a child or young person, having extraordinary talent or ability: a musical prodigy (www.dictionary.com). So if you acquire your skills at a later age, then you're simply not a prodigy. You're just . . skilled! And obviously there's nothing wrong with that.

Leave it to Al to ruin the controversy and arguements. :heh:

We're forgetting the definition of a prodigy: a person, esp. a child or young person, having extraordinary talent or ability: a musical prodigy (www.dictionary.com). So if you acquire your skills at a later age, then you're simply not a prodigy. You're just . . skilled! And obviously there's nothing wrong with that.

Dammit!! you can't just kill the entire discussion like that XD

We're forgetting the definition of a prodigy: a person, esp. a child or young person, having extraordinary talent or ability: a musical prodigy (www.dictionary.com). So if you acquire your skills at a later age, then you're simply not a prodigy. You're just . . skilled! And obviously there's nothing wrong with that.
Forget the details of the language~! We KNOW we didn't compose music at 6 - don't rub it in:heh: . OK then let's just simply clarify that we aren't discussing YOUNG prodigies, just prodigies who aren't young ie prodigy leaving out the "esp. a child or young person". And DON'T pretend you didn't know it was going that way initially! :P

Anyways Kou, I guess you have a point. It's much easier to find the logic behind a game as systematic as chess, whose patterns will be so much less varied than the reasons behind people liking certain music. Indeed, we haven't even come CLOSE to understanding the vast complexity that is the human brain and its associated emotions, so I guess it would be a much easier task to create utopian chess tactics than it would to compose utopian music.

Indeed music is much harder to decipher than chess. I know nuts about musical theory, but believe that it is therein that explanations of why music is beautiful lie. I can't think how anyone can compose music without some implicit knowledge of rhythm, pattern, chords and all the rest. The key is learning more and more of such styles, and perhaps, its when someone manages to take all the good things they know about their current knowledge of it all to create something new and hopefully, beautiful.

But WHAT is beautiful? No matter what you give there's always gonna be people who disagree. And perhaps therein lies the problem - what IS good? Is it measured by how popular the songs you write become? How well your recordings sell? How much acclaim you receive each year? Indeed, I know of many literary greats who only got acknowledged posthumously and I'm sure there are just as many in the world of music. I guess that extra knowledge will help you get more acclaim, but art...is one of the most slipperily unpredictable things there possibly are...

Sorry guys, didn't realize it. Carry on :heh:

Beauty is in the mind of its beholder. You can even see conflict right on Ichigo. On the compositions I've submitted, I've had good and bad comments on almost every piece. Take my first piece, "music" that I submitted. I've had many tell me how they hated its dissonance, but I've had equal amount of pm's telling me they liked it. That is the reason why I decided to leave the song as it is.

On a book I've read, it says that people only dislike something because they don't understand it. It falls outside their reality, and they feel uncomfortable.

Prodigies, in my personal opinions do exist. Take perfect pitch, I doubt that I myself could achieve perfect pitch even if I had 10years practicing it. Mozart had perfect pitch at age 4 (possibly earlier, who knows). If you don't call that a gift, a prodigy, I dont know what is.

Most Professional Go players in China are around the age of 13-16. If what the scientists claim was true, shouldn't the 50-60years old men be far more superior in skills?

However, I don't agree with the idea where people who work hard but still gets no where. If a person dedicated all their time to practicing the piano, I'll bet they will be able to learn even the most difficult piece out there in the time of 10years. Or would you call he/she who worked for 10years on a complicated song and finally mastered it a prodigy?