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.
My confirmation bias is that I have difficulty accepting that I have writing talent, and believe it is a skill I've honed through practice, reading, and criticism.
However, anecdatally, my mother, grandmother, great grandmother, and I are all proficient at drawing and painting. It's hard for me to accept that there isn't some genetic material that points to or maybe enhances that skill. Every human can draw a representation of a human. It may be a stick figure, but humans are especially adept at recognizing/translating patterns (this is why we see images of Jesus in burnt toast). It's an ability we have when tumbling out of the womb, to be able to learn these things. We can draw a map, learn a chord, add two and two...rudimentary stuff. My dog will never be able to draw a map outlining where on the street my apartment is located. Even if she had thumbs.
I can draw the building itself and create the illusion of depth using perspective and shading, scaled in balance with the flower beds and carport. Is this a learned skill, or do I have a genetic predisposition to do this? Keep in mind that I was given paper and crayons and pens and ink when i was very small, with the expectation that this was just something I could do because my mother could. My brother cannot do this. He had access to these materials, but difficulty with spatial relationships (likely due to his dyslexia). My cousins and aunts cannot do this.
But if i was never given paper and pencils, would I have taken that required life drawing class in college and discovered that I had some holy shit ability to sketch the model? IDK. I can assume that I was given these things, was interested in it because my mother praised me for it, and became better over time with practice.
No. Because it's the ability to hit certain notes and have a certain tone.
That's a universal? I'm not being dickwaddy, I just don't know if that crosses cultural lines, or if it more like the subjectiveness of physical beauty.
I have had many arguments about the beauty of Leonard Cohen's voice with a cousin who will only listen to Jennifer Warnes sing his stuff. I feel like it's lacking beauty, but he thinks I'm on crack. If I were listening to it and did not speak english, would I prefer to hear the same lyrics out of Cohen, or Warnes?
That's a universal? I'm not being dickwaddy, I just don't know if that crosses cultural lines, or if it more like the subjectiveness of physical beauty.
I don't think a specific musical scheme crosses all cultural lines, but the ability to conform to a scheme requires talent. IM biased O.
Even within a culture, once you get beyond a certain level of skill, creative things get really subjective, obviously. But it doesn't mean that any acclaimed writer/singer/composer/painter/etc. isn't better at what they do than I am, or likely than I would ever be, even given 10,000 hours of work on my part.
As Dana notes, there are different musical scales that are more cultural. And things like Tuvan throat singing which are very different approaches.
But also, as with my example in hitting, singing involves a lot of different talents including the ability to get at the emotional truth of the lyric. So Cohen's voice might not be as pretty as Warnes, but he gets more out of the lyrics etc.
That Bobby McFerrin piece is uber-cool.
