It's not that strange. He's just pointing out that there's a difference between wanting to be good at doing something and liking doing something; and that the former is nigh-impossible to reach without the latter.
Really? The music example seems clear enough to me--everybody wants to be able to play well, fewer people want to spend an hour a day playing boring stuff that doesn't sound good. But let's go for a few more examples:
Imagine yourself in the operating theatre, surrounded by nurses and technicians as you prepare to remove a brain tumor. You're about to save someone's life, and earn $5,000 doing it. Wouldn't you want to do that?
Now, would you really want to spend 12 years memorizing facts about obscure diseases first?
How about being able to do informal gymnastics, like you'll see on a youtube search for "tricking"? Wouldn't it be pretty cool to, while walking across a lawn with some friends, decide to do backflip with a 270 degree twist? And actually have it work?
All you'd have to do is around 10,000 hours of grueling exercise and step-by-step drills.
I know that, and that's why I'm better at the piano than gymnastics, because I simply didn't put any effort on stuff I didn't like. What surprises me is that you did an important effort, though you say you didn't grab any reward out of it. That seems unusual to say the less - Everything I've spent a significant time practising, I did because either I liked it, or I rapidly got some reward (like in sports), or eventually because I was under external constraint (like going to school).
