Intelligence is defined broader than IQ is, and less is known about the group differences in intelligence, which is quite relevant to this conversation.

In this specific scenario of music this is true, but in the grander scheme of things IQ is the most important. Almost all of the modern day jobs depend on IQ, and it has been shown that high IQ correlates with high success. IQ is not the only intelligence, but it is the most important one in today's world.

Aside from that, there are more factors that are relevant to IQ differences than just ethnicity. Time plays an important part: IQ scores have been rising over time, and as you have already mentioned, when a person gets older, genetic factors start to win out over environmental factors. There are also factors like socioeconomic class, and what opportunities someone has when it comes to education. There are even theories about nutrition playing a role.

IQ scores have not been rising over time, in fact Flynn effect has been reversing since the 90s and the average IQ has been decreasing. The very fact that influence of genetics increases with age just shows that genetics matter more when it comes to IQ than nurture. Studies have been done on identical twins who separated at birth and raised in completely different environments, and still the biggest factor was genetic.

And this is just talking about genetics. In recent years there has been more attention for epigenetics, and the way genetics interact with our environment. I'll use your example of the genetic component to musical talent. There are most certainly indications that there is in fact an heriditary element to it, but this brings other elements with it. A musically gifted child is more likely to have parents that are also gifted, and more likely to then nurture this trait in their child. When the child gets older, they will then likely seek out other environments that suit this gift, like an education in the field, other people that are also interested and gifted in music (just to give some simple examples). This helps in further developing what the child was born with.

That just means that the underlying genetic factor gets reinforced by environmental factors, in the end genetics still ends up being most important.

In short: there is no consensus over this, especially when it comes to "racial" differences.

It's been shown over and over again that there are differences in capabilities between ethnic groups, and we see these differences manifest in real world results. The lack of consensus and the "debate" is motivated by political correctness and not facts.

So I quite frankly think it's potentially dangerous to make claims like you did (especially something like calling one group "more capable" than another)

Worst case scenario, comments like these invite people to be racist and sexist.

These statements show why you disagree, you see that factually I am right, but "it is dangerous", just political correctness. Why is it dangerous? Reality is sexist, racist, and dangerous then.

I've never even said what we should do, just laid out what would happen in a truly merit based society. Most societies moderate outcome to limit social strife, US does it with affirmative action, it is actively hampering Asian enrollment in universities because they're too successful.

Even when it comes to sexual differences we moderate outcome. We know that men are physically more capable than women, so we have created sports categories for women where they can compete, otherwise all sports would be just men. Is that too dangerous?