I am sure that the article scares some people because, what would they do without excuses to avoid their passion? They would have to be brave, just do it, use wisdom, learn, and embrace it, come what may.

You might like the book Excuses Begone by Wayne Dyer. It has good research and good logic.

Palestrina and Bach are indeed quite similar to in their notions of what a composer was They did not view themselves as “artists” but craftsmen, as did the milieu in which they worked. This quite an unremarkable historical observation. (The comparison with your construct of “Coltrane and ‘whomever’” is completely invalid as far as I can see, and rather nonsensical.)

(I will point out that historically and stylistically, there are a lot of similarities too, or a least Palestrina no small influence on Bach (Lasso too). In his church music, Bach very much was informed by Palestrina, adding the innovation of “common practice” tonality to the strict contrapuntal forms of Palestrina, and adding some nice touches to Palestrina’s notion of imitation. And it creeps into Bach’s secular works as well. Have a look at some of the “ricercare” type fugues in WTC I. So to say that they do not bear mention together, is indeed quite at odds with the facts.)

I really do not get the point of this last post. What are you defending, and how does personnel attacks on me help this defense? (And quite frankly, it is none of your business how I chose to post here. This is neither here nor there as far as the discussion goes.)

As to “genes”, well I am not putting forward the notion of biological and materialist determinism in great creative achievement. This is mostly a modern construct and I imagine that it will pass in time. I am not a “physicalist” in these matters, but am open to those who are having their chance to prove their points. As I said above, how we get these great creators is quite mysterious.

But your argument about genes is circular: Would not your “enthusiasm and drive” be genetic too? If you are not arguing from a materialist POV, what POV are you arguing from?

It seems that you just do not like the word (or the notion) of talent. But it is preposterous to imagine that there in not such a think as native ability, of course there is, all the world shows this.

Talent has nothing to do with “enthusiasm” or “drive”. Now its proper flowering most certainly does, or does in almost all cases. Some people have more ability than other people. period. Given the same level of “enthusiasm and drive”, material circumstances and opportunities being equal, the odds are very great that the person with the superior talent will outdo the one with inferior talent, and far outdo him. This is hardly mysterious no matter how unfortunate it may be.

As for genes, well a great many errant assumptions get pushed out from the field of Genetics, I grant you, but it is a field that is really in its infancy. There is obviously such a thing as inherited traits. Are you saying that genes are not the mechanism for this? If not, than what is? If the colors of a person’s eye’s is determined by genes then why would not other aspects of them, such as intelligence or mathemical ability, not be determined this way?

Yes there is a great deal of sneering in the current academic community about “nurture versus nature”, but I suggest that this is mostly PC cant. The nuture people are not making a very good scientific case for it; they seem to play around with a lot of statistics, often with very dubious methodologies, but insofar has they do hold to a materialist model, they have not come up with much of a theoritical model for it, or so it seems to me. Seems mostly politics to me. Very little of it seems to have much to do with hard sceince (e.g., physics biology or genetics).

You know , it is hard to get some of the core IQ data, and harder yet to publish about it or even speak about it. Look at what happened to Summers up at Harvard. Why? it leads to some very politically incorrect conclusions.

Thank you, Mr. Steinberg.

However, Mr. Steinberg’s formula for successful practicing, including the mental attitude, and his description of what it takes to motivate excellent performers, are right on target. These insights are extremely useful and should be studied by every teacher and every expecting parent in the US.

No he didn’t. He was always very good at math [and some other subjects]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Early_life_and_education

He was a late-talker, true, but that doesn’t mean what you think it means [Thomas Sowell may be able to give you a little info on that]. He was always a top student.

To reiterate what many people say above:

1. Everybody can get better with some effort, as noted in the article. Many people can find something they can do well and succeed in.

2. However, the people at the pinnacle will have put in the effort, and also have genetic advantages [whether physical or cognitive abilities]. Oh, and they’ll likely have social advantages [Bill Gates went to some pretty nifty schools] as well. And perhaps a smidgen of luck.

So, doing well enough through hard work is in the grasp of most people [though not all], but it’s silly to make people think that hard work alone will get you to the very top. Or even in spitting distance of it, depending on the goal and your particular circumstances.