Well, I know as a music teacher I believe that anyone can be taught to play or sing. But without a doubt it is easier for some people than for others. Aptitute? Talent? There certainly is a large amount of work, drive, and luck that plays into whether or not someone succeeds in music.

Can you be taught to be creative?

I believe that anyone can be taught to play or sing

Does it mean that you need the right teacher or teaching method?

I took extracurricular music with my sister and a couple of childhood friends, and it was really clearly obvious who had pipes of gold, who had effortless rhythm, and who could break down music theory and make it their bitch (not so small hint: I was told to focus on music theory within about six months of starting class. Paid off in results!).

Am I being lazy in thinking I have moderately above average drawing talent that could certainly be enhanced with training, but that my sister will never draw as well as I do? Just like there is no amount of voice training that will lead me to be mistaken for Whitney Houston, but she could do it raw.

Like creativity and curiosity, for instance. There are a lot of people who can be taught to write a perfectly good essay, or even a novel. There are not a lot of people who are going to come with ideas for them the way, say, Neil Gaiman does.

This brings me to the current season of the Sing Off (which I'm really enjoying).

Each week, it can be presumed, all the contestants work equally hard. It's a fishbowl situation where all they can/have to focus on is the competition.

Some are proficient, others are stunningly good in their arrangements and delivery. This would seem to me to be a microcosmic, if not microscopic representation of talent versus hard work.

Whoops. I was all about to add DMV registration early to my to do list, so I don't let it slip this year like I usually do...and then I remembered: I DON'T OWN A CAR.

Man, I hate remembering that.

Am I being lazy in thinking I have moderately above average drawing talent that could certainly be enhanced with training

I could not draw a decent line until I read (was trained by) Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain by Betty Edwards. It changed everything. Now, I can do exemplary renderings but cannot draw-from-my-mind in the way that you can.

Some of our pieces might be comparable, but you have talent and I do not...to my way of thinking...because you can create something from nothing, whereas I can copy something quite well.

t was really clearly obvious who had pipes of gold

Was it obvious who had the nicest ass? One person's pipes of gold can be another's tortured cat, right?

Is Gaiman more creative than Hemmingway?

If I ask a group of kids to make up a story about a newly discovered animal, what it looks like, they'll all create something from pieces of their knowledge, using past experiences of something that is called "animal" to describe something. Is the kid who writes the vivid tale about an epic adventure in which the last line is the discovery of a pink cat more creative than the kid who writes that when he was on the way to school she tripped over a pink cat? Or do they just have different levels of writing skills? Has one read a lot and therefore has gained the knowledge that employing suspense and a red herring can make something as lame as a pink cat seem very exciting and ultimately funny in the epic lead up, like how rosebud was a sled? That's probably something one learns, can be taught to do.

Is that talent or skill? Is it inborn creativity? I don't freakin' know.

One thing to remember is that "talent" isn't one thing. It's the combination of things.

Just as you can watch Top Chef and see that somebody obviously has a knack for unusually creative dishes that combine things in new ways and somebody else is great at executing classics and somebody else is incredibly efficient at managing their time, and somebody else has a higher highs and lower lows, etc.

In baseball there isn't just a hitting talent. Just going down a lineup I know well, on Emmett's tournament team you'd have:

Matthew - best at going with the pitch, high contact, high walk, doubles power.

Arlo - squares the ball up with home run and doubles power and high contact, low walks, incredible under pressure, great bat speed.

Alex R. - consistent contact and double power. Smooth stroke.

Jack - best power, high strikeouts, good walks.

Emmett - high contact with good home run power, medium walks. Best in RBI slot.

Kye - best bat speed but streaky on contact.

Hitting for contact, drawing walks and hitting for power are all different aspects of hitting.

I remember the Challenger crash, because I was in 7th grade, we stopped class to watch it all day long, we wen ou to hang the flag at half-mast, and my Bio teacher was freaking out, because she's been on the final list of teachers to go up on that flight.

One person's pipes of gold can be another's tortured cat, right?

No. Because it's the ability to hit certain notes and have a certain tone.