The Talent Myth

 

When my aunt and uncle visited me last week, I discussed all of my projects involving sight-reading and writing my book. My uncle proclaimed that he believed my gift in piano came from both my grandmother, a pianist and vocalist and my dad, an electrical engineer. He associated engineering with math and made a connection between math and music. When I said that I did not think that musical ability was an inheritable trait, they seemed taken aback and flabbergasted as if I was denying a special gift presented to me.

My relatives are far from the only people who buy into the hereditary views of musical talent. In fact, much of modern popular culture perpetuates this viewpoint to the extent that even pianists fall under the influence of its spell. Years ago, I too felt that musical talent was a fixed attribute and one that I could not develop beyond a certain point. I believed that I was musically untalented as well. Other pianists also regard themselves as ungifted particularly in the area of sight-reading. The myth of innate sight-reading skills persists among pianists even if they are quite proficient in other ways.

This blog post seeks to dismantle the notion that piano sight-reading is an inherited special talent that only a few lucky pianists can hope to possess.

A good place to begin is with the whole idea of “talent.” One music professor I had mentioned that he has never heard of a good definition of talent. Often this word is used, but is thrown around like an empty vacuum. Everyone assumes that one understands the meaning of the word yet no specific evidence of musical talent actually exists.

Further, talent frequently becomes a substitute for understanding what happens during rigorous music study. The process of learning and mastering a musical instrument involves years and often decades of private lessons with good teachers, thousands of hours of practice, multiple semesters of intensive music theory classes, technical development, and an acute awareness of bodily motions that create specific sounds. None of these skills are inborn or predestined. They are acquired as a carefully planned sequence of instruction that is really no different from the specialized training of other professions.

What is much more important than talent is having strong interest and motivation. An intense desire to play an instrument or master a specific skill brings one to spend hours practicing it. With increased dedication, more progress and improvement can occur. The eventual results of this process may produce what is called “talent,” but this is not a reflection of inherent raw talent that supposedly exists without practice.

Most likely, the prevalence of the talent myth persists because its proponents believe that they would not be able to learn the skills themselves. Talent can be used as an excuse not to make the effort in the deep process required to obtain new abilities. Beneath the misconception of innate gifts, however, lies the latent undeveloped sight-reading ability that awaits being brought forth.  

Stay Tuned,

 Robert