Talent Vs. "Real Good"
While reading a <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000155"; target="_blank">thread</a> in Fireside Chat, I got to thinking about the use or MISuse of the word "talent" as in Ludacris is a "talented rapper."
First off, let me laugh a little at that insanely asinine remark. Ok, I'm done.
Now, the question. What do you consider being talented as opposed to being real good? I hear the word talent thrown around all over the place when describing anything from musicians to football players. I think talent is misused so much. Beethoven was talented. Fvcking Sean Combs is not.
Thoughts?
[ 09-04-2002: Message edited by: Shanny ]</p>
First off, let me laugh a little at that insanely asinine remark. Ok, I'm done.
Now, the question. What do you consider being talented as opposed to being real good? I hear the word talent thrown around all over the place when describing anything from musicians to football players. I think talent is misused so much. Beethoven was talented. Fvcking Sean Combs is not.
Thoughts?
[ 09-04-2002: Message edited by: Shanny ]</p>
Comments
As I have doubts about ludacris' abilities when it comes to hard work... I'd have to say its mostly talent then, and whoever controls what gets played on MTV...
but then again he's high 24/7, so is he talented, or the drug makers?
you can tell who talented people are, what they do is at the same time unique yet identifiable as theirs. (at least in music)
dunno, good question with no easy answer. could just be varying degrees of talent.
Hmm.
<strong>Women are always telling me how "good" I am. I've always kind of thought they should be saying I'm talented. I mean, not many other men can do the things I can.
Hmm.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's a dig in there somewhere, but for the sake of keeping some integrity in this thread, I'll hold off.
[ 09-04-2002: Message edited by: Shanny ]</p>
I think you can possess a tremendous talent for something, but never be anything more than "good".
I also think you can become great at what you do with only average talent, but a tremendous work ethic.
I further think you can be very *successful* at something without being talented OR hard-working, much less great.
Greatness must be achieved with a combination of talent and tremendous work ethic. Merely being "good" at something can come with talent alone or hard work alone, but people in the public eye rarely fit this description IMO. And of course, there are all sorts of people who are wildly successful without having any talent or work ethic - look at President Bush.
Seriously though - some examples:
Sean Puffy-Mac-Daddy Combs has zero musical talent, and probably zero work ethic (because where is he today?). But he was successful for a short time because he knew how to recognize a trend and mold his image to that trend. Period. All pop artists do this. Very few are talented, fewer still are hard working. But they all get their short-lived success because they know how to make bubblegum for the kiddies. Never mind that much of today's bubblegum tastes like ass - that's beside the point.
A couple notable exceptions: Madonna and Duran Duran. I don't like their music, but they had enough musical talent and enough ability to recognize where the trends were going, and subsequently enough work ethic to stay successful for a very long time.
Then there's sports. I'll pick the one I know the most about to make this next example:
Vincent LeCavellier - here's a guy with *enormous* physical talent for the game of hockey. So good in fact that he's been noted as a lazy player throughout his rise to the NHL, but he was so damn good he made his fellow minor leaguers look like cows on skates anyway.
Ah but now he's in the NHL and he's done precisely squat in roughly three seasons. Why? Because he has no work ethic. Until he gets one, he will be OK at best, unknown at worst. If he does get one, you'll see his name in lights for many years.
Brett Hull - the guy is talented, no question. But his greatness (anyone who scores more than 600 goals in the NHL is great) does not stem from his talent, but his work ethic. He doesn't skate as well as many of his peers, doesn't puck handle as well, doesn't even have as wide a variety of shots ... but he worked and worked and worked on his slapshot / one-timer to the point where, if he has an open look at the net, it's in. Every time. Quite simply, it's the best in the game and one of the best anyone has ever seen. That required more work than talent.
Then the anomoly - Jaromir Jagr. The greatest player in the game and one of the very best in the last 30 years. Here is a guy who got to the top of the NHL almost solely on talent. He misses practices, sits out of team warmups, doesn't work out a lot, and yet he consistently scores 100 pts a season (most years). Skates skates better than most, puck handles better than all but a few, and has the best overal shooting skills in the league - he's even a great passer. Yet he rarely has to work at it.
In fact I can think of no other athlete - in any sport - who attains such high standards, but doesn't work at it. He is the true freak of nature IMO.
Of course there are other examples and all kinsd of combinations and results, but in general, I don't think any pop artists of any kind are "talented" or "hard working" - I think they know how to work the system and recognize trends, that's it.
On the other hand, I'm a musician, I just "discovered" a local musician last night who is damn good - he's in that Travis/Radiohead/Jeff Buckley vein, but I'd even hazard to say that he is *better* than Travis or Radiohead. So why is he not huge? I don't know, the guy's got some amazing songs, seems to have the right image, yet why isn't he a household name? I don't know, well, here's the link if you want to check it out:
<a href="http://www.seet.ca/"; target="_blank">http://www.seet.ca/</a>;
Surprised that no one has mentioned "luck" in the whole deal. I read a lot about people creating their luck by working hard. On the other hand, I've seen people work hard only to bang their heads against a brick wall time after time. So what's the story?
I think what he meant by women saying he was "good" is that he is obedient. Like "good dog" when he dutifully retrieves the latest Cosmo from the store and spends hours and hours at The Pottery Barn and Bed, Bath & Beyond every weekend.
lazy ass bastard but always at the top of the stats sheets. guy doesn't work for crap, makes no secret about it and still does well.
but that's a hair off topic.
Now, I admonish you here because you SHOULD have addressed that within the thread of its origination, rather than here.
[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
No respect,
no poise,
no class.
<strong>Maybe these are simple-minded definations, but the way I see it, if you are "real good" without all the "hard work," then you are "talented." If you have to have the "hard work" in order to be "real good," then you are only "real good."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Simple-minded indeed because talented people must often work 'real hard' to be successful.
Shanny, you've blatantly taken that out of context to deliberately and deceitfully advance your own argument.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, no. That "quote" made me think of the use of the term "talented." I made no reference to the O'Rielly/Ludacris incident. That's not what this thread is about.
[quote]
The context was that Pscates compared rappers to any other "foul mouthed kid on the street 30 year ago." Now, even if that's true, any "foul mouthed kid" today cannot become a rapper of Ludacris success. Other factors exist than simply having a foul mouth.<hr></blockquote>
How does that have any context in this thread? I never mentioned anything about pscates or his views.
[quote]Now, I admonish you here because you SHOULD have addressed that within the thread of its origination, rather than here.
<hr></blockquote>
I admonish you for being a dumbass and not realizing this topic is completely different than the other, and I'm not sitting here drawing parallels between the two.
[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: Shanny ]</p>
<strong>You're a jerk, by the way.
No respect,
no poise,
no class.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks. I do it to get a rise out of simpletons like yourself.
<strong>I think this entire thread is 'real stupid'.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks. That's some quality right there.