• PoopingCough@lemmy.worldEnglish
    10·
    2 days ago

    No doubt, but imo “natural talent” is way less common than just people who have put in the work, at least for musicians in my experience. For every person i know that just started rippin shit from when they were 3 years old there’s like 20 more folks who have just put in the hours. I also think some people who seem to have that natural talent it’s more like they just were immersed in that environment from birth. Music is a lot like a language; you can always learn a new language as an adult but people that grow up speaking it because of their environment will make it look effortless.

    • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
      2·
      4 hours ago

      I was a pretty high level athlete (in swimming so not a pro, but did compete at an international level) and I can back this up too.

      “Natural Talent” is a thing. But that only really applies to the very very top end of the spectrum. Like professional athletes absolutely have genetic advantages over a normal human. But you can get 98% of the way there through just pure determination, grit, and practice.

      I imagine it’s not quite the same for music, but unless you’re trying to become a billboard level musician or someone who travels around putting on shows, you can absolutely become “good enough” just from (in this case) 12 years of dedicated practice.

    • Fritee@lemmy.world
      4·
      1 day ago

      In addition, a lot of the “natural talent” might be coming from early childhood practice when children’s brains are the most malleable - eg if a kid is drawing since they are 6, it is much more likely they’ll be noticed and cultivated. Which makes them more likely to appear talented when they are 11 / 15 etc, when they might be noticed and cultivated in turn etc. Early advantages pile up.

      Not to say that some things gene related are not advantageous - you are not likely to become a basketball player if you are short, even if you put in enormous amounts of practice.