
How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall? Talent (2014) - Tomte
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/science/which-matters-more-talent-or-practice.html?_r=0
======
rada
Carnegie Hall, specifically, is known for enabling sub-par performers to rent
the space (along with all its prestige and history, of course). Yes you can
"get to Carnegie Hall" on talent alone - OR you can just pay your way in.
Rentals start at just above $1,000 (for one of the smaller auditoriums on a
weekday) and go up to $20k (for the main Stern auditorium on a Saturday
night). To put this in perspective, if you get the most expensive rental and
sell out its 2,800 seats at just $10 per ticket (the rental fee includes
ticket marketing and sales by Carnegie Hall, by the way), you will pocket $8k
in profits.

In the music world, this is a well known punchline to the "how do you get to
Carnegie Hall" joke. Lots of people get in that way, such as the Tiger Mom's
daughter, as one famous example. (And let me tell you... as a classical music
lover duped into attending these performances because of the Carnegie Hall
brand - they suck).

There is an interesting parallel to another front-page post on HN today,
_Entrepreneurs don 't have a gene for risk – they come from families with
money_
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10151566](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10151566)).
This quote fits especially nicely: "So while yes, there's certainly a lot of
hard work that goes into building something, there's also a lot of privilege
involved - a factor that is often underestimated."

~~~
Quanticles
These lines of reasoning (it's talent/money, not work/grit/focus) appeal to
those who don't want to take responsibility for their own success or failure.

~~~
Someone1234
The line of reasoning that money or social status play no role appeal to those
who have it and who want to think of themselves as entirely "self-made." It
wasn't the millions of dollars I got handed or the premium education, no, it
was pure grit and hard work.

You see this all the time with rich people. They're the kids of even richer
people but yet still are "self-made" who "started out with nothing" and did it
through "hard work."

~~~
Quanticles
Yeah, you see a few people with wealthy beginning say that.

You also see plenty of success stories of people with much humbler beginnings
say that.

Which you choose to focus on is either going to motivate you to work hard or
be an excuse to not.

------
santoriv
I was a professional classical musician for a number of years before getting
into programming. I'd say that this article lines up with my experience pretty
well. Obviously to be successful you need to have some level of hard work and
the more you work the better, but really talent is the main delineator at the
very top.

I think there are basically 3 categories of talent.

Top level: I had a friend who practiced about 1 hour a day and now plays
professionally in the Boston Symphony. Obviously she had bucketloads of
talent. These folks are quite rare.

Middle Tier (this is where I was): Folks who worked quite hard for a decade or
more squashing all of their performance weaknesses to get to the level where
they could perform professionally. There are a fair number of these people.

Quixotic: Even when these folks practice 6 hours a day, they never progress
beyond a certain ability level. They will never be professionals. Sometimes it
takes a couple of decades before they give up. I have a lot of friends that
fall into this category of talent.

Of course there are people who have top level talent _and_ pour on bucket
loads of work. The one guy I knew in college who was like this is now in the
Canadian Brass.

I spent a couple of decades playing my instrument before quitting and I can
say without a doubt that the idea that talent is _actually_ hard work is
complete nonsense.

There are many technical "sticking points" that most people need to overcome
before they can perform at a professional level. The most talented performers
breeze through most or all of the sticking points that everyone else has.

The non-obvious side effect of this is that the most talented players are
often the worst teachers - because they have no idea how to help anyone else
get through their "sticking points". But that's another discussion
entirely.....

------
KyleBrandt
I went to music conservatories before getting into this industry.

At least for classical music. As a general rule, the people that get steady
orchestra jobs that pay around 100k have a lot of natural talent, practice a
lot, use practice time well, and have great teachers.

It takes all of these in US because of supply and demand. There are a lot of
very good players and relatively very few jobs.

An analogy might be if the only 100k+ programming jobs in US were at Google,
and almost all other programmers had to freelance because no other jobs were
available.

------
jahnu
Relevant Father Ted:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-eXcazOhHk&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-eXcazOhHk&feature=youtu.be&t=123)

------
gmarx
One thing these debates ignore is the role of talent in making one enjoy the
activity. I think talent helps one achieve early success and so enjoy it more
and want to practice more. In fact I wonder if what we think of as talent
might be a few characteristics, one of which is love of the activity.

~~~
Tenhundfeld
I think you're right. I made a comment below about Jimi Hendrix. It's
debatable how much "natural ability" he had, i.e., he wasn't one of those rare
prodigies who picks up the guitar at age 3 and can instinctually make it sound
good.

But what's not debatable is his overarching _love_ of the guitar and obsession
with learning everything he could to play it better.

------
mentos
I'd recommend reading "Talent Is Overrated" [0]

While I agree that innate talent exists I disagree that it cannot be made up
for.

[0] - [http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Overrated-Separates-World-
Class...](http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Overrated-Separates-World-Class-
Performers/dp/1591842948)

~~~
vixen99
So which great performer, a pianist for instance, 'made up' for lack of
talent?

~~~
mentos
Well the idea is what you perceive as talent is actually a lot of hard work.

~~~
coldtea
How about the talent is exactly in being able to put the hard work?

That (determination, persistence etc for a particular task) might be something
people are born with, or something people develop young and can't much change
it.

~~~
RogerL
I'm me. I'm more talented at some things than other, even the same domain: I'm
far, far better at piano than classical guitar despite having worked far more
on the latter.

So, is the theory that I work hard than me? Or, maybe I work less hard than
me?

Doesn't make sense. There are talent differences independent of levels of
work. This is trivially true.

~~~
coldtea
> _So, is the theory that I work hard than me? Or, maybe I work less hard than
> me? Doesn 't make sense._

Looks like you missed the whole (emphasis mine):

"That (determination, persistence etc FOR A PARTICULAR TASK)"

You might have worked more hours, but with less effectiveness (because guitar
doesn't inspire you etc).

------
inetsee
The paper referenced in the article is available here:
[http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/07/Macn...](http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/07/Macnamara-et-al.-2014.pdf)

------
milansm
TL;DR "But in the end, the most important factor over which people have
control — whether juggling, jogging or memorizing a script — may be not how
much they practice, but how effectively they use that time."

------
benihana
> _" If you throw all these kinds of practice into one big soup, of course you
> are going to reduce the effect of deliberate practice,” he said in a
> telephone interview."_

I can't help but feel like NYT is just baiting with this headline. The
headline talks about talent, but the article meanders through a couple of
thoughts and quotes and never arrives at talent. Or anywhere. There's no
substance here, just a headline that makes it seem like they're going to make
a point they never do.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
"Deliberate Practice" is a stupid lie. The claims about it are completely
unfalsifiable. If practice doesn't show results then you just say it wasn't
"deliberate".

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Untrue. How about a definition? Concentration; slow repetition gradually
increased in tempo; no distractions and no false moves. Done over time and
systematically, results can be compared to the usual "play it wrong 100 times
until you accidentally play it right" technique.

This is clearly possible to do well. And easily compared with any other
technique. No need to call it stupid.

------
facepalm
Asian tiger mom got her kid to Carnegie Hall - once. (iirc)

------
lorenzop
For a minute I thought this was about literally how to get to carnegie hall.
Thought to myself: "surely google maps works better than talent."

~~~
techsupporter
That's actually the joke. A tourist stops a person on the street in New York
City and asks, "pardon me, do you know how to get to Carnegie Hall?" The
person replies, "talent."

~~~
gjm11
You're missing one level of reference here. The usual joke has the person
reply "Practice". The article is suggesting that talent is more important,
relative to practice, than is commonly thought.

So when you see the headline you're supposed to read the first bit, expect the
ending "practice", see "talent" instead, and understand that the article is
likewise going to replace "practice" with "talent" somehow. (Or to look back
at it after reading the article, see what they were playing at, and be
impressed by their wit.)

~~~
techsupporter
Ah, I suppose I am. I've heard the joke as "talent" or some variation, though
maybe people just use talent and practice interchangeably.

