The "Gift"

I would like to know what you think of this maxim:

"If all parents paid attention to the true nature of their children and provided them with an adequate environment, all children would reach extraordinary levels of ability.

We are often led to believe that talent is something that nature gives, whereas it is something that nature develops. When a person is born, they are characterized by a certain vital charge, by a force that will animate their faculties: no one can say how skilled a person is by nature. Talent is only known to the extent that it is developed or wasted.

(S. Suzuki)"

I like the maxim very much; I think so too. However, thinking about the education of children, it seems to me that Suzuki takes for granted that parents provide one to their own, perhaps lacking the sensitivity to understand their talents and possibilities.

In the current Italian scenario, in many cases parents stop much sooner, effectively giving up on the educational task and creating monsters of arrogance (and insecurity). Far from an adequate environment...

I read the reflection....in part I agree and in part I do not....The art of music, on the other hand, is truly a natural gift. One is born in tune, one does not become so, unfortunately. One must be born with it. The world is full of out-of-tune people who cannot sing or understand the breadth of an interval between a tone and a semitone, nor can they reproduce a rhythm just heard. There are people who have spent a lifetime trying to become in tune without succeeding. I challenge any tone-deaf person to become in tune through study. The first aptitude test a professor gave me at the Conservatory at the beginning of my musical studies when I was little was a test on intonation and rhythm. It is from there that one understands if they can begin to study music. I agree, however, that this is not enough....it takes study, humility, tenacity, and patience. Talent without intellect is not enough to reach the summit. But with intellect without talent, one cannot even begin.

GILDA wrote:

I read the reflection....in part I agree and in part I do not....The art of music, on the other hand, is truly a natural gift. One is born in tune, one does not become so, unfortunately. One must be born with it. The world is full of tone-deaf people who cannot sing or understand the breadth of an interval between a whole tone and a semitone, nor can they reproduce a rhythm they have just heard. There are people who have spent a lifetime trying to become in tune without succeeding. I challenge any tone-deaf person to become in tune through study. The first aptitude test a professor gave me at the Conservatory at the beginning of my musical studies when I was little was a test on intonation and rhythm. And it is from there that one understands if they can begin to study music. I agree, however, that this is not enough....it takes study, humility, tenacity, and patience. Talent without intellect is not enough to reach the summit. But with intellect without talent, one cannot even begin.

You know, I disagree when you say that someone who is tone-deaf will never be able to be in tune. Setting aside some of the problems that afflict the tone-deaf (for which unfortunately nothing can be done), a tone-deaf person is nothing more than a person with an untrained ear.

It is very true that if one starts from this level, the path to reaching a good level will be even more tortuous than normal. But why should we block the desire to make music?? are we sure that something cannot be born from nothing? and besides, who says you must necessarily become someone to make music??

I might say it depends; if one has to play the violin or sing, I understand... but even for the pf [piano], intonation can be conquered and used relatively during performances, let alone if one is not playing chamber music...

In reality, nature cannot provide tuning Hz nor temperament... in fact, I have found that many classical ensembles struggle to intonate microtonal music... this is because we have become too specialized in equal temperament, when there is a lot of repertoire in other fields.

For example, audio processing requires a lot of ear and taste and less intonation; with electronic instruments, the octave can even be divided into 50,000 parts... so it is difficult to become in tune at that point... so what is the valid "protocol" for establishing when one is in tune?

I'm just throwing it out there to hear your thoughts...

I understood your question and I am curious how others feel about it.

For me, a person is in tune with respect to equal temperament.

sisifo1987 wrote:

For me, a person is in tune with respect to equal temperament.

... so before the Baroque era, everyone was out of tune?

Today, the reference system is not just the equal one, which is why I think one should only be in tune with respect to a reference system

Ahahah nice one Natan! You're right, it depends on which system is being referred to.

Curiosity: during singing studies at the conservatory, is practice also done on other systems?? (I am referring to systems that include intervals smaller than a semitone)

Beautiful answer Sisifo, but I want to be biting... surely a European conservatory course won't be what establishes the system.

Poor Siberians and Mongols

... obviously joking

On one thing I agree, even if I filter Gilda's post taking into account the fact that she is a violinist, true tone-deaf people can be counted on your fingertips... the rest is more or less a gift (to be understood as small or large). The higher it is, the more advantages can be drawn; for example in terms of time but sometimes also in terms of results... "cantabilità" [singability], broadening the concept, is still a gift.

Obviously I am writing from a compositional point of view, not everyone knows how to find singable melodies and in the background there is often an intonation problem that isn't "attended to"

I forgot, Leo is a jazz musician; despite knowing the logic of Patterns, spontaneity nonetheless provides that tiny bit of autonomy to let our beautiful singing emerge... even if the medium were an instrument

ok, guys, I agree with you on the fact that a person should not limit themselves, and if they feel the urge to sing even if they are out of tune, they should do it and how.... I was referring to the "gift" in terms of talent; saying that the "gift" does not exist, which is a cliché to be debunked, believing that everyone can become musicians by studying is wrong.... thinking that through study one will certainly reach the heights of a great musician is false, just as it is false to think that great musicians were such only because they studied a lot..... It would mean that all of us, by studying, could become Beethoven or Mozart..... We all know that is not the case. Then, of course, Sisyphus is right in the fact that a person, even if out of tune, has every right to sing, to try, and to have fun too. I was referring to the article written in which it says that the Gift actually seems not to exist and that everyone can get there with commitment and a proper education. How can this be said regarding child prodigies, with composers like Mozart or painters like Caravaggio?... Did they not have a gift? And this is true not only in the field of music but in all fields. Even in the fields of science, literature, painting, etc.. Every individual has their own gift and just as there are blondes and brunettes, whites and blacks, curly and straight hair, bald people and those with long hair, there are many gifts in their diversity.... it is everyone's task to discover their gift and to have the opportunity to develop it in order to express themselves best and thus realize themselves as a person. But saying that with study and a proper education I will be able to become a scientist like Einstein.... Well!.... if only!

But I have a doubt Gilda, staying within the field of music, a musician is not necessarily a genius, but a genius is a musician.

The point, in my opinion, is that I am convinced that not everyone in the world can do everything, so if you have ability (let's say "gift", okay), by working hard you can get there... but if you don't have ability, you will surely be able to reach a goal, but which one in relation to the "minimum" achievable to define oneself as a musician?

In my opinion, people like Mozart, Beethoven, etc. are (relatively) outside the loop in the sense that if the gift were theirs alone, there would be few musicians in the world... instead we know that is not the case. Or rather, what kind of gift are we talking about?

Talent is not genius... what do you think?

Ok Egidio... everyone makes music, even the housewife, the child who hums. And it is good that it is so. I replied to the article I read about musical talent and myths to debunk..... Reading the article, it seems that in the end no gift exists and that everyone, for better or worse, through study and application can arrive at making art. Now, if by art one also means making music at an amateur level, that's one thing; then perhaps it would be better not to speak of talent. In my opinion, true art requires a "Gift," which I believe exists and which expresses itself in the best possible way through art itself. Let me tell you what I mean by "gift"....: something that goes beyond the canons of normality and that not everyone has. Precisely because it is not normal, it is gifted... whatever extremely complicated thing you do with extreme ease, which makes you unique in its originality to the point of astonishing everyone. Realizing that what you are using is not due to your own merit achieved through your efforts, but precisely (because of the ease with which you use it) is gifted by nature, found without effort. That something that is so easy for you to do while for others it is even impossible and never reachable. We are not talking about normality but precisely about a "Gift." Gifts are found in music, science, literature, etc.... thanks to these gift-filled characters, today we have Chopin, Paganini, Liszt, Beethoven, Caravaggio, Leonardo, Einstein.... They left that "Gift" to others in the world, who will be able to use it and which otherwise we would never have known.

Egidio, I forgot to tell you that I agree with the fact that a musician doesn't necessarily have to be a genius to still make good music... Ok, you are absolutely right and I completely agree with you, as well as with Frank when he says that there are different degrees of gifts. However, I remain doubtful that without even a minimal degree of "gift," through application alone, one can manage to make dignified music. Anyway, I wanted to say that I intervened in defense of the "gift" because in the article I read, it seemed as though it actually didn't exist much.

GILDA wrote:

i intervened in defense of the "gift" because in the article I read it seemed that it actually did not exist.

And you did very well

Egidio wrote:

in the world not everyone can do everything

Aside from quoting Gilda's post, this completes what I wrote in my opinion... so everyone can be a doctor? An architect? A conductor? A painter? A performer? A journalist?

Or rather, everyone can approach something with passion, but being able to do something with a minimum of credibility is another thing... perhaps the time has come when Leo should make himself heard, if he feels like it

Dear friends, thank you for this beautiful discussion. I reiterate what has been written: in my opinion, there is no such thing as a gift, in the arts or in other disciplines. This does not mean that talent does not exist; fortunately, talent is decisive and fundamental in making us different from one another.

The difference between gift/talent is not terminological but of substance. A "gift" is something we have regardless of our will, whereas talent develops by testing oneself, through the ability to discover and follow one's own inclinations and desires.

I would add that it is wrong to speak of a single musical talent, because music requires a combination of many different talents: musicality, self-discipline and order, sensitivity, physical health and strength (for many instruments), dedication and commitment, patience, intelligence and adaptability, the ability to synthesize, empathy.

Each of these qualities, or talents, can be developed, starting from an initial potential that is, however, completely unpredictable until one begins to dig deeper.

Leo, many years ago I proposed Egidio's maximum proposal from Suzuki to a group of friends, and a friend replied to me in this way:

"we are all born with POTENTIAL abilities, which must however be trained and developed, otherwise they atrophy, especially from age 18/20 onwards; neuroscience demonstrates this to us, given that at that age we begin to lose brain neurons... obviously this doesn't mean that as adults we cannot learn... but in childhood, infancy, and adolescence, one is at the peak of strength and mental abilities... there are natural predispositions, meaning we are all born with potential abilities, but there are those for whom these potentialities are stronger from birth and therefore, if trained, they become "geniuses"... how do you explain that there are people who draw perfectly from age 4-5? Without having trained or being exposed to specific stimuli? they are innate skills, genetically predisposed... the same applies to music!!!"

So:

how should we call these "POTENTIAL abilities" or "natural predispositions"? Reading between the lines, in a novelistic and perhaps overly romantic way, I label them as a "gift"... but the final part is what should make one reflect:

...how do you explain that there are people who draw perfectly from age 4-5? Without having trained or being exposed to specific stimuli? They are innate skills, genetically predisposed... the same applies to music!!!"

Or rather, what answer would you (or Leo) give?

Even our leader's hair is a beautiful gift.... think about it... there are those who don't even have that..... or ask a bald man to grow his hair out.... let alone in music. Why is it that there are small children who, without any help, are perfectly in tune and others instead are out of tune... the difference between the first and the second is that the first has received a beautiful gift, the other will have received another but not that one.