On varying degrees of talent
oasysco
difference in talent levels, just amongst folks here.
Obviously childhood exposure, depth of personal commitment, music
running in the family can contribute to how successful one becomes in
music... don't wanna try to define what I mean by "success" either :)-
An analogy that hit me in the face this weekend made the existence of
talent-levels clear to me.
I was at the gym Saturday AM. I jogged 2.5 miles around the indoor
track, hiffing anf puffing as I went. Afterwards, I cooled down in the
TV room for 20 minutes.
I went back into the locker room to shower and saw a fellow workmate
and asked what was up. He said he had just gotten in from a 20mile run
(comes to the gym, changes, runs outside, and comes back to shower ahcn
change). He looked like me after my 20 minute rest and he had just run
20miles!
He then told me how his Iron Man triathlon went a couple of weeks
earlier... finished in under 4 hours.
It was clear to me then that while I may be in a small percentage of
over 50's who exercise regularly, there is an even smaller percentage
of us who excel at it at the competitve level... those fewer than few
who commit everything to what they do and achieve success beyond the
dreams of those of us at lower levels. It's the same for music.
Once you enter into any exclusive club be it music, exercise, race car
building, motorcycle riding, kite building, or whatever, you find tiers
of professionalism, some of which take a lifetime to achieve, leaving
fewer and fewer folks at the top.
And even amongst top professionals, there are those who are wildly
successful (monetary, recognition), while most take success in other
forms (self-gratification, personal achievement).
And for those of us at lower levels who will probably never achieve
high levels of success, we can find contentment knowing that we're in
the small percentage of folks who tried in the first place and stuck
with it anyway.
My hat's off to those of you who make a living in music, are good
enough to make a living in music, but choose not to, and who aren't
good enough to make a living in music and who - like me - just enjoy
playing.
Greg
tomsalvojazz
him telling the story of going from grammar school, where he was an
outstanding artist, to high school, where he was among the few good
artists, to college (Pratt Institute - early on in their offering of
formal art education) where he found himself to be just another in a
pool of equally talented students. He was suddenly the smaller fish in
the bigger pond.
I guess talent is relative, but I am constantly and consistently
humbled - not so much when I get to meet the Jimmy Brunos or Jack
Wilkins of the world (because I've already prepared myself for their
talent), but when I go into Guitar Center on a Saturday afternoon and
there's some guy blowin'. Cuts me down to size quite quickly! Always
seems to happen right when my head is starting to get a little too big,
too.
The thing that really impresses me the most when I get to meet the
"stars" is how down-to-earth and approachable they are, and how
genuinely appreciative they are of our loyalty as fans.
Cool.
Mark Cleary
Interesting analogy and one I use all the time. Since I am a runner also I
can really relate. I am a ok runner and at 45 I can still run a 5K in under
22 minutes. My best marathon was 3 hours and 5 minutes when I was 31 years
old. I can without a doubt say that nature has much to do with talent. Sure
you need to practice you skills and work hard but I know top class runners
who were running the same miles as I was in a week. They could run a
marathon in 2 hours and 37 minutes on the same training.
I personally believe the guitar is really no different. Those with talent
can spend much less time and get the better or the same benefits. Sure the
greats have spend hours and hours over the years playing but I think there
is a law of diminishing returns. I have seen guitarist develop skills in
shorter time spans than others who put in the same practice. A persons ear
and fine motors skills can be improved but others simply have "better
genes." Many players may disagree with what I have to say but I really think
this is true. I think also that some very great players may even feel like I
am saying it is all talent no hard work. I am not saying this at all since
the very best players have spent many hours fine-tuning their skills.
As with any craft those with the best skills will rise to the top and those
who struggle usually quit or decide the law of diminishing returns starts to
hit. Same with running or many sports that require skill and dedication.
Tiger Woods could quit playing golf for 10 years and not pick up a club and
still beat any weekend duffer. Once the initial motor skills are put in the
brain then with practice after a layoff they return. I don't believe Wes or
Joe necessarily played the guitar more than others even in this newsgroup,
but the raw talent was greater to begin with. Wes died at 43 and my
understanding he did not start playing until he was 18 years old. There are
a huge number of players who have put in more time than Wes and I don't hear
them approaching his talent. In my case I could practice and study 12 hours
a day for the next 20 years and never get to his level or close. Martin
Taylor told me personally he has worked really hard to be sure but for him
playing the guitar is easy. He has to work for sure and develop tunes but
his ears hear things and he can figure them out. Once before a rehearsal I
saw him work out a few tunes with group he had never played with, he had it
down in 1 take. If that would have been some even good players it would have
taken more time.
--
Mark Cleary
Hollenbeck Jazz Guitars the Finest
Handcarved Jazz Guitars
http://members.cox.net/ruthster/hollenbeck/
"oasysco" <wilder...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167248722....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
ken
Mark Cleary wrote:
> As with any craft those with the best skills will rise to the top and those
> who struggle usually quit or decide the law of diminishing returns starts to
> hit. Same with running or many sports that require skill and dedication.
> Tiger Woods could quit playing golf for 10 years and not pick up a club and
> still beat any weekend duffer.
I just read the book written by his father, Earl Woods "Raising a
Tiger: How to Raise a winner both in golf and life" or whatever.
Tiger is surely talented, but he started really, really early and he
was lucky to have such a creative dad that figured out a way to get
Tiger interested in golf as an infant. He was swinging a golf club
before the age of one, I think...
> I don't believe Wes or
> Joe necessarily played the guitar more than others even in this newsgroup,
> but the raw talent was greater to begin with. Wes died at 43 and my
> understanding he did not start playing until he was 18 years old. There are
> a huge number of players who have put in more time than Wes and I don't hear
> them approaching his talent. In my case I could practice and study 12 hours
> a day for the next 20 years and never get to his level or close.
But I think you miss a very important point. It's not just plain,
simple hours put in.
Wes had a great environment (brothers etc...) to learn to play jazz.
The greats always talk about how important it was for them to play with
the greats before them and how they learned more from that than
anything else. (you can develop very good technique on your own though,
as you can see by the many youtube posts by teen virtuosos)
I don't know about marathon running, but in jazz, it really doesn't
matter how many hours you practice alone in your bedroom or with an
abersold. If you don't play with really good players, you just won't
get to a very high level...
That's a very important point that I think sometimes gets overlooked.
If Wes didn't have musical brothers like that and a jazz scene where he
was able to play with great players, talent or not, I doubt we would be
talking about him today...
Ken
p.s. I do believe in talent, though.
oasysco
> Absolutely right, Greg. My dad is a graphic designer and I remember
> him telling the story of going from grammar school, where he was an
> outstanding artist, to high school, where he was among the few good
> artists, to college (Pratt Institute - early on in their offering of
> formal art education) where he found himself to be just another in a
> pool of equally talented students. He was suddenly the smaller fish in
> the bigger pond.
>
> I guess talent is relative, but I am constantly and consistently
> humbled - not so much when I get to meet the Jimmy Brunos or Jack
> Wilkins of the world (because I've already prepared myself for their
> talent), but when I go into Guitar Center on a Saturday afternoon and
> there's some guy blowin'. Cuts me down to size quite quickly! Always
> seems to happen right when my head is starting to get a little too big,
> too.
Same here, but I'm sure the guy blowin' doesn't have to be as good to
cut me down to size :)- It takes about 5 minutes for me to hear someone
better 'n me if there are several people in there playing.
>
> The thing that really impresses me the most when I get to meet the
> "stars" is how down-to-earth and approachable they are, and how
> genuinely appreciative they are of our loyalty as fans.
>
> Cool.
Greg
oasysco
> Greg,
>
> Interesting analogy and one I use all the time. Since I am a runner also I
> can really relate. I am a ok runner and at 45 I can still run a 5K in under
> 22 minutes. My best marathon was 3 hours and 5 minutes when I was 31 years
> old. I can without a doubt say that nature has much to do with talent. Sure
> you need to practice you skills and work hard but I know top class runners
> who were running the same miles as I was in a week. They could run a
> marathon in 2 hours and 37 minutes on the same training.
>
> I personally believe the guitar is really no different. Those with talent
> can spend much less time and get the better or the same benefits. Sure the
> greats have spend hours and hours over the years playing but I think there
> is a law of diminishing returns. I have seen guitarist develop skills in
> shorter time spans than others who put in the same practice. A persons ear
> and fine motors skills can be improved but others simply have "better
> genes." Many players may disagree with what I have to say but I really think
> this is true. I think also that some very great players may even feel like I
> am saying it is all talent no hard work. I am not saying this at all since
> the very best players have spent many hours fine-tuning their skills.
We have an example in this NG - JAZ's son. Within a year of picking up
gutiar, he was improvising over jazz. 6 months later, he had changed
musical direction and was writing his own songs.
>
> As with any craft those with the best skills will rise to the top and those
> who struggle usually quit or decide the law of diminishing returns starts to
> hit. Same with running or many sports that require skill and dedication.
> Tiger Woods could quit playing golf for 10 years and not pick up a club and
> still beat any weekend duffer. Once the initial motor skills are put in the
> brain then with practice after a layoff they return. I don't believe Wes or
> Joe necessarily played the guitar more than others even in this newsgroup,
> but the raw talent was greater to begin with. Wes died at 43 and my
> understanding he did not start playing until he was 18 years old. There are
> a huge number of players who have put in more time than Wes and I don't hear
> them approaching his talent. In my case I could practice and study 12 hours
> a day for the next 20 years and never get to his level or close. Martin
> Taylor told me personally he has worked really hard to be sure but for him
> playing the guitar is easy. He has to work for sure and develop tunes but
> his ears hear things and he can figure them out. Once before a rehearsal I
> saw him work out a few tunes with group he had never played with, he had it
> down in 1 take. If that would have been some even good players it would have
> taken more time.
>
>
> --
> Mark Cleary
> Hollenbeck Jazz Guitars the Finest
> Handcarved Jazz Guitars
> http://members.cox.net/ruthster/hollenbeck/
Good points, Mark!
Greg
oasysco
multi-lingual. They're brought up in homes speaking two or more
languages and wind up commanding all of them because they were exposed
to it when young. Sure, they may all be sponges until they move out,
but when they're young, they're exceptionally spongy :)-
Greg
ken
> And I agree with you, too, Ken. An analogy is with kids who are
> multi-lingual. They're brought up in homes speaking two or more
> languages and wind up commanding all of them because they were exposed
> to it when young. Sure, they may all be sponges until they move out,
> but when they're young, they're exceptionally spongy :)-
Exactly. And I am one of those total bilinguals. In my case, when
people say I have linguistic talent, it's complete hogwash. It's just
about constant exposure etc...
Ken
Martacus
of/know people with massive chops who don't make great music, or people
with limited technique who can play three notes that'll silence
everyone. (And then there are people like Wes who has the chops and can
play the three notes...)
When I was bike racing I had two experiences that really brought the
hard work COMBINED with talent thing to me (you need to do both - a lot
of us work hard, but talent added to that is the formula). Two people
stood out - one was an older (60+) rider who'd train all year 'round,
including the winters, which aren't that pleasant on Long Island. He
could ride a 40K time trial in 57 minutes. I was on a ride with him
once, and we started at 22 mph. I asked him if this was our tempo for
the 112 mile course. "No, don't worry, we're just warming up."
Omigod... He was honestly concerned that I thought we'd go too slow....
(I lasted 61 miles with that crew - best ride of my life... I saw Elvis
in the last few miles...) The other was at a time trial in Riverhead -
George Hincapie (Lance's right hand man during the Tours) was 16 at the
time, riding for Kissena, I believe, or maybe Mengoni? ANYway, he blew
the doors off everyone, finishing 5+ minutes ahead of the second placed
rider. These are two amazingly gifted people who also work their asses
off - and we won't even get into Lance...
The best thing about my time racing was the things it taught me about
music, specifically technique - certain things are connected to
genetics, and eye/hand co-ordination is one of them. It can be
developed, but we all have different ceilings to our techniques. Some
recent studies show that early training helps develop the pathways - if
you don't play SOMETHING when you're younger, you'll never be as
technically proficient as your genetics will allow. (And if Wes or
Holdsworth didn't touch a guitar until they were 18, and this is
research that stands up, I don't want to think what they COULD be
capable of...)
Marty
Derek
Same can be said with athletic pursuits. In martial arts it is
typically very easy for me to spot someone who started as an adult
compared to having started as a child or teen. The adults can get to a
certain level of profeciency, but the ones who started younger are
typcially much better. The exception is if the adult had been an
outstanding athlete in another sport, which they probably started when
young.
With music, there is the athletic portion of playing, and the mental
aspec, similiar to the comparision that we are talking about in
linguistics. I also wonder how much of it depends on amount of
exposure to music. My family constantly had either the radio or record
player on. I was exposed to virtually every musical style except opera
and classical as a kid. Surely some Ph. D. candidate has done some of
this research.
pmitc...@hotmail.com
'untutored genius' tag. He played tenor guitar for some years before
picking up the regular six string. He also practised at home regularly
and diligently committed all of Charlie Christian's solos to memory.
Furthermore, he often played six nights a week and regularly jammed
after the gig. Sure, he was blessed with an amazing talent but it was
backed up with a lot of hard work.
Paul Mitchell Brown
ric...@gmail.com
Martacus wrote:
> (And if Wes or
> Holdsworth didn't touch a guitar until they were 18, and this is
> research that stands up, I don't want to think what they COULD be
> capable of...)
>
> Marty
I listened to a Jazz Profiles program about Wes. he actually started
playing on tenor guitar when he was 12 or so. He transitioned to a 6
string guitar later. So, he actually played quite a bit before his 18th
birthday.
...richie
oasysco
> (I lasted 61 miles with that crew - best ride of my life... I saw Elvis
> in the last few miles...)
I gotta big kick outta that line!
Greg
Chip L
answer as to why some athletes were better than others. 1) they are
physically and mentally endowed to perform better than most, 2) they
choose the activity which best utilizes their endowment and 3) they
work very hard at their activity of choice.
The same can be said for musicians (with the addtion of luck and
marketing....)
Chip L
Tim McNamara
"oasysco" <wilder...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm not trying to resurrect nurture vs nature, but there is a
> difference in talent levels, just amongst folks here.
It's not a debate that has definitive answers. The answers that have
been uncovered are interesting. For example, it is possible to do a
simple measurement (the ratio of the length of the index finger to the
length of the ring finger) and to be able to quite accurately predict a
person's athletic ability, spatial relations abilities, etc. This has
been traced to prenatal exposure to testosterone, which affects brain
development and other things (heart volume, VO2 max, etc). And yet it
is possible through training and learning to narrow the gap or even
overcome it.
Speaking as a psychologist, I think there probably are differences in
"natural ability" but also many differences in learning that affect the
sum of one's abilities as a musician. Reading Summerfield's book of
jazz guitarists, I notice over and over that the best guitarists started
in childhood, usually at or before age 10 and even 7 or 8, and practiced
diligently early on. There are few top-drawer guitarists who started
playing at 21. We know that young children learn things much faster
than older children and yet even faster than adults. But it is also
likely that some people are "wired" in a way suitable for being
musicians. The problem is that there is as yet no way to separate the
two factors in any individual.
Tim McNamara
"Martacus" <MashaA...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And there's mental/creative ability and physical ability - we all
> know of/know people with massive chops who don't make great music, or
> people with limited technique who can play three notes that'll
> silence everyone. (And then there are people like Wes who has the
> chops and can play the three notes...)
>
> When I was bike racing I had two experiences that really brought the
> hard work COMBINED with talent thing to me (you need to do both - a
> lot of us work hard, but talent added to that is the formula). Two
> people stood out - one was an older (60+) rider who'd train all year
> 'round, including the winters, which aren't that pleasant on Long
> Island. He could ride a 40K time trial in 57 minutes. I was on a ride
> with him once, and we started at 22 mph. I asked him if this was our
> tempo for the 112 mile course. "No, don't worry, we're just warming
> up." Omigod... He was honestly concerned that I thought we'd go too
> slow.... (I lasted 61 miles with that crew - best ride of my life...
> I saw Elvis in the last few miles...) The other was at a time trial
> in Riverhead - George Hincapie (Lance's right hand man during the
> Tours) was 16 at the time, riding for Kissena, I believe, or maybe
> Mengoni? ANYway, he blew the doors off everyone, finishing 5+ minutes
> ahead of the second placed rider. These are two amazingly gifted
> people who also work their asses off - and we won't even get into
> Lance...
Hincapie rode for G.S. Mengoni as a young rider. ISTR him beating the
Euro pros in sprints at the Tour de Trump or something like that over 15
years ago. There are clear differences in athletic capacities (VO2 max,
for example, appears to be mostly genetically determined) but there are
huge differences in training and preparation as well.
> The best thing about my time racing was the things it taught me about
> music, specifically technique - certain things are connected to
> genetics, and eye/hand co-ordination is one of them. It can be
> developed, but we all have different ceilings to our techniques. Some
> recent studies show that early training helps develop the pathways -
> if you don't play SOMETHING when you're younger, you'll never be as
> technically proficient as your genetics will allow. (And if Wes or
> Holdsworth didn't touch a guitar until they were 18, and this is
> research that stands up, I don't want to think what they COULD be
> capable of...)
Those guys are better possibly because of genetics, but certainly
because they practiced and gigged with other great players incessantly.
tomb...@jhu.edu
> Mark Cleary wrote:
>
> > Joe necessarily played the guitar more than others even in this newsgroup,
> > but the raw talent was greater to begin with. Wes died at 43 and my
> > understanding he did not start playing until he was 18 years old. There are
> > a huge number of players who have put in more time than Wes and I don't hear
> > them approaching his talent. In my case I could practice and study 12 hours
> > a day for the next 20 years and never get to his level or close.
>
> But I think you miss a very important point. It's not just plain,
> simple hours put in.
>
> Wes had a great environment (brothers etc...) to learn to play jazz.
Wes was playing well by age 12 om tenor guitar. He didn't start on
6-string until his late teens, but he was already playing well before
then.
Gerry
Did he play the tenor with a pick?
--
///---
pmitc...@hotmail.com
richard...@yahoo.com
Of all the things that he can do, the most remarkable is that, in a
room full of loud music, he can tell which guitar string is slightly
flat. He can tell if you didn't quite press hard enough on the D string
while playing a G13 at the third fret. He can break down any band-level
groove problem to the fundamental component issue. He has incredible
absolute pitch. He can sing anybody's part (using the note names as
lyrics).
I've asked him about this ability. In fact, he took 4 years of ear
training with dictation and struggled through it. He improved greatly,
he said. But, I'm convinced he was born with something most of us don't
have.
Rick
> > ///---- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
C6
Mark Cleary wrote:
There are
> a huge number of players who have put in more time than Wes and I don't hear
> them approaching his talent. In my case I could practice and study 12 hours
> a day for the next 20 years and never get to his level or close. Martin
> Taylor told me personally he has worked really hard to be sure but for him
> playing the guitar is easy.
Most people need both, talent and the willingness to work hard. Also,
don't underestimate sacrifice; some guys just want it real bad, and
they are willing to make huge sacrifices to attain a high level of
musicianship.
Jay
wrote his first songs at age 5 and started touring at 6 - No - not
Michael Jackson - but Mozart. Not really my favorite music - but what
a dude!
> > > ///---- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Who did you ride for, and who was that old guy? The old guys we heard
about were Francois Mertens and Arnie Uhrlass.
I was president of the LIBC 1990-93, raced only 1 year--for Kissena (in
1986). I'm thinking Hincapie rode for Kissena first as an intermediate,
maybe a junior, then for Mengoni--along with Issendorf, Mike McCarthy
and the other cyborgs. I did the club championship series in Prospect
in '86 and George was in the group. He won all 5 races. He was 13 at
the time. Occasionally his bro Rich would slow down and ride with
us--his dad too.
I don't doubt that George worked hard, but...I cudda worked all day and
night--wouldn't have mattered.
BTW, I couldn't time trial, no sprint at all. I could climb a little.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
David J. Littleboy
"oasysco" <wilder...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And for those of us at lower levels who will probably never achieve
> high levels of success, we can find contentment knowing that we're in
> the small percentage of folks who tried in the first place and stuck
> with it anyway.
My take on this is that there's lots of good music to be made at the lower
levels. I don't have to have Ron Affif's or Jimmy Bruno's chops to play a
tasty solo occassionaly while being usuful to the group the rest of the time
by playing rhythm.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Gerry
> I have been in the room with a musical genius.
>
> Of all the things that he can do, the most remarkable is that, in a
> room full of loud music, he can tell which guitar string is slightly
> flat. He can tell if you didn't quite press hard enough on the D string
> while playing a G13 at the third fret. He can break down any band-level
> groove problem to the fundamental component issue. He has incredible
> absolute pitch. He can sing anybody's part (using the note names as
> lyrics).
>
> I've asked him about this ability. In fact, he took 4 years of ear
> training with dictation and struggled through it. He improved greatly,
> he said. But, I'm convinced he was born with something most of us don't
> have.
How is his playing?
--
///---
Lumpy
> I have been in the room with a musical genius.
>
> Of all the things that he can do, the most remarkable is that, in a
> room full of loud music, he can tell which guitar string is slightly
> flat. He can tell if you didn't quite press hard enough on the D
> string while playing a G13 at the third fret. He can break down any
> band-level groove problem to the fundamental component issue. He has
> incredible absolute pitch. He can sing anybody's part (using the note
> names as lyrics).
>
> I've asked him about this ability. In fact, he took 4 years of ear
> training with dictation and struggled through it. He improved greatly,
> he said. But, I'm convinced he was born with something most of us
> don't have.
Do you really consider that some kind of
inborn musical genius? Every orchestra
conductor and musical director I've ever
known can do that. I would hazard a guess
that nearly any recent music school graduate
can do that.
Surely this guy's 4 yrs of study is not the ONLY
musical education he's been exposed to. And surely
he was not BORN being able to do those things
you describe.
Lumpy
--
You Played on Lawrence Welk?
Yes but no blue notes. Just blue hairs.
www.lumpyguitar.net
Gerry
> My take on this is that there's lots of good music to be made at the
> lower levels. I don't have to have Ron Affif's or Jimmy Bruno's chops
> to play a tasty solo occassionaly while being usuful to the group the
> rest of the time by playing rhy
I concur. The endless comparison thing with other players, with
metaphors tying musicians to sports which are all about quantification;
distance, speed, points. I'm sorry I just don't get it. I mean I
understand that in the absense of finite measuring systems, that
many/most musicians have come up with this other thing. Stratifying
who's better, worser, best, genius, "contributed to the legacy" etc.
Talent can not be measured. The relationship of hard work and fixed
hours to the final product of good, better, best in musical skills,
also unquantifiable. I can live with that. Somehow I can manage to
continue pumping oxygen without any of that; not for me, not for others.
When I was very young I was repeatedly called a genius. People kept
talking "natural talent" which I knew I didn't have. I figured the
people speaking were just not very knowledgeable about what they were
judging. Fortunately for me I didn't consider their opinion of any
value. Additionally when somebody said I sucked, I didn't consider
that of much value either. A great lesson was learned regarding
measuring my own playing by the evaluation of others: Don't.
I have a commercial comparison with people who ask, "Well jeez, if you
love music so much I can't imagine why you don't want to do it (any
more) for a living." My response: Do you enjoy making love? Well
sure they do. Do you want to make love for a living? Maybe not.
So comparing talent and hard work and trying to figure out which
component and how much some are "blessed" with, and how much accrues
via hard work and the balance between the two and all the rest. I
don't know. I don't.
I just like to play and I like to listen to others play. Good, not so
good, bad. They still have at least passing interest for me. Would I
rather listen to Joe Pass every day for a month because he's a genius,
or would I rather listen to lesser players, maybe even humble local
players?
The later.
--
///---
ken
> I concur. The endless comparison thing with other players, with
> metaphors tying musicians to sports which are all about quantification;
> distance, speed, points. I'm sorry I just don't get it.
So just don't read these threads. I don't care about string gauges,
pickups, picks, picking styles, amps, speakers and all that stuff (and
even guitars for that matter) so I just don't read it.
Simple, isn't it?
;)
Ken
Martacus
My point on Georgie is he had the talent and the work ethic - both
together is the killer combo. The old guy is Bill Meyers, also of East
End. He was AMAZING - taught at SUNY Stony Brook. I've been off the
Island for 8 years, so I've lost touch with everyone. I lived in
Lynbrook so I'd ride all over the Island - Sunrise was always
interesting....
Marty
Joe Finn
> difference in talent levels, just amongst folks here.
>
> high levels of success, we can find contentment knowing that we're in
> the small percentage of folks who tried in the first place and stuck
> with it anyway.
>
> enough to make a living in music, but choose not to, and who aren't
> good enough to make a living in music and who - like me - just enjoy
> playing.
>
> Greg
Good topic, Greg. I like the sports analogies up to a point. I used to play
a lot of tennis so I saw many parallels between my musical life and my
tennis life. In both cases though I emphasize the kind of commitment you
mention over "talent".
In music another important factor is the willingness to stick with it. I
noticed that most of my high school classmates who were promising musicians
gave it up before I got out of college. Many college music students found
themselves in other endeavors by the time I was thirty or so. I've even
known a few mature musicians who have moved on to other things too. It
happens.
For my part I still enjoy practicing, learning new material, performing,
teaching etc. Fortunately music is the sort of thing you can continue to
develop over your entire lifespan. Tennis careers on the other hand flash by
like they were on fast forward. ......joe
--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
>
Lumpy
> In music another important factor is the willingness to stick with
> it. I noticed that most of my high school classmates who were
> promising musicians gave it up before I got out of college. Many
> college music students found themselves in other endeavors by the
> time I was thirty or so. I've even known a few mature musicians who
> have moved on to other things too. It happens.
Every one of us that teaches gets an email like this daily -
"Hi. I'm 40something years old. I have an old Martin D-28
(or Fender strat or Les Paul or whatever) that I bought
for $100 plus a bag of pot back when I was in college.
Wife, kids, job etc got in the way of my playing for
the last 20something years. Now I'd like to pick up
where I left off. I think I still know a couple
of chords. I probably need new strings"
Lumpy
--
Did you do a lot of those Emergency Broadcast Warnings?
Yes. Had it been an actual emergency, I would have had told you.
www.lumpyvoice.net
Gerry
> Gerry wrote:
>
>> I concur. The endless comparison thing with other players, with
>> metaphors tying musicians to sports which are all about quantification;
>> distance, speed, points. I'm sorry I just don't get it.
>
> So just don't read these threads.
But the topic interests me. Reading others viewpoint and sharing my
opinion also interests me. Maybe you're confused, I didn't say "shut
up".
> I don't care about string gauges, pickups, picks, picking styles, amps,
> speakers and all that stuff (and even guitars for that matter) so I
> just don't read it.
I agree completely. Unless I'm actively looking for a guitar, that
stuff doesn't interest me enough to read.
> Simple, isn't it?
I guess not.
--
///---
oasysco
> On 2006-12-27 16:49:21 -0800, "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> said:
>
> > My take on this is that there's lots of good music to be made at the
> > lower levels. I don't have to have Ron Affif's or Jimmy Bruno's chops
> > to play a tasty solo occassionaly while being usuful to the group the
> > rest of the time by playing rhy
>
> I concur. The endless comparison thing with other players, with
> metaphors tying musicians to sports which are all about quantification;
> distance, speed, points. I'm sorry I just don't get it. I mean I
> understand that in the absense of finite measuring systems, that
> many/most musicians have come up with this other thing. Stratifying
> who's better, worser, best, genius, "contributed to the legacy" etc.
>
> Talent can not be measured.
So what is "talent"? Before it can be measured, it has to be defined,
though it may be beyond definition. Perhaps the success that results
from "talent" (whatever that is) can be measured.
Is talent just another way of saying passion mixed with commitment
mixed with ability mixed with an emotional depth of feeling most folks
don't have? I dunno, but most artists I've admired are in touch with
their sensitive side and somehow share that through their art. That is
unlike me, who has lost some passion about things I once felt so
passionate about in my youth... social ills, abortion, war, poverty,
religion. I think that good artists are able to retain and even
increase their level of passion as they grow older and communicate that
back to the rest of us through art. Maybe that is the definition of
"talent" and maybe the only way to measure it is to judge how much
their art moves us.
Interesting sidebar about conveying emotions through one's playing
(which might be what talent is all about)... I was watching a TV show
this week on savants. There were this one guy who was a musical genius.
He was being tested by some music/psychologist guy as to his ability to
render emotion in his playing. The guy asked this player to play a
particular tune happily... he played it in a major key and kind of
bouncy - as expected. When asked to play the same tune sadly, he played
it in a minor key sorta dragging it. When asked to play angrily, the
player resorted back to the happy playing. He didn't know how to convey
anger in music - you know with pounding on keys, staccato followed by
flurries of "angry" notes.
>The relationship of hard work and fixed
> hours to the final product of good, better, best in musical skills,
> also unquantifiable. I can live with that. Somehow I can manage to
> continue pumping oxygen without any of that; not for me, not for others.
>
> When I was very young I was repeatedly called a genius. People kept
> talking "natural talent" which I knew I didn't have. I figured the
> people speaking were just not very knowledgeable about what they were
> judging. Fortunately for me I didn't consider their opinion of any
> value. Additionally when somebody said I sucked, I didn't consider
> that of much value either. A great lesson was learned regarding
> measuring my own playing by the evaluation of others: Don't.
I had a grandma from the old country (Poland). When I was a kid, I
could do no wrong in her sight. Sometimes, she would take to her
phrenologist ways and tell my future... it was always bright, full of
success and happiness; never a bad moment. I was going to be everything
she wanted me to be. I don't know if I ever reached her ideal of
success, but it sure was nice having her as my own personal
cheerleader.
>
> I have a commercial comparison with people who ask, "Well jeez, if you
> love music so much I can't imagine why you don't want to do it (any
> more) for a living." My response: Do you enjoy making love? Well
> sure they do. Do you want to make love for a living? Maybe not.
Well, some folks do else we'd see a decrease of 85% in Internet usage
:)-
>
> So comparing talent and hard work and trying to figure out which
> component and how much some are "blessed" with, and how much accrues
> via hard work and the balance between the two and all the rest. I
> don't know. I don't.
>
> I just like to play and I like to listen to others play. Good, not so
> good, bad. They still have at least passing interest for me. Would I
> rather listen to Joe Pass every day for a month because he's a genius,
> or would I rather listen to lesser players, maybe even humble local
> players?
>
> The later.
Yeah, I agree. Variety over quality.. you know what I mean.
Greg
> --
> ///---
Mark Kleinhaut
Gerry wrote:
> I concur. The endless comparison thing with other players, with
> metaphors tying musicians to sports which are all about quantification;
> distance, speed, points. I'm sorry I just don't get it. I mean I
> understand that in the absense of finite measuring systems, that
> many/most musicians have come up with this other thing. Stratifying
> who's better, worser, best, genius, "contributed to the legacy" etc.
>
Winning, losing, scores and time are not all that sports is about.
There is an art in the athletics, a true beauty and vision of humanity
that is worth taking in regardless of the metrics. Whenever I've
enjoyed sports, its been tied to the facination with what the athletes
are actually doing while the winning or losing was almost a sideshow.
> Talent can not be measured. The relationship of hard work and fixed
> hours to the final product of good, better, best in musical skills,
> also unquantifiable. I can live with that. Somehow I can manage to
> continue pumping oxygen without any of that; not for me, not for others.
Sure, it "can" be measured- it's just nobody likes to agree on the
validity of how its done. Some people care greatly about this aspect
and invest heavily, but that's their burden not ours.
Anyway, interesting subject. For me, talent is more a function of what
one chooses to say with the tools at his disposal. We don't judge
writers by how fast they can type.
karlie
[...]
Hi Greg
a nice essay.
I actually don't believe in talent or genetic wonders. It might be
more a thing of the character quality and the way of learning. I
know that my way of learning is not the fastest as a self taught
guitar player but there are different ways to learn I think and it
depends on the goals at least. So lurking for information about
learning and getting better was always kind of a hobby of me.
I've read the posts here and the very interesting reactions.
Accidently, right as it belongs to this thread, Scientific
American (I'm a prescriber of the german version) has an
interesting article about this theme:
>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945&sc=I100322
This might give a viewpoint from science view, a view I personally
can retrace. We all know what time we waste. We all know how much
we could exercise more and we all know how much we should. And we
all feel that we could learn more and be better on the instrument.
This gives to me a brighter viewpoint to musicians like Kessel,
Montgomery, Bickert, Bruno and others: Those guys did a lot of
work. And I mean a lot. And they did it right. We should admire
them for this and not for the mystical bubble, the maybe one has
it or not, so called talent.
But ... I'm just so f** lazy sometimes ....
My 2cents
karlie
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> I rode with East End - I'm a hack on the bike, but I had a good time.
> My point on Georgie is he had the talent and the work ethic - both
> together is the killer combo. The old guy is Bill Meyers, also of East
> End. He was AMAZING - taught at SUNY Stony Brook. I've been off the
> Island for 8 years, so I've lost touch with everyone. I lived in
> Lynbrook so I'd ride all over the Island - Sunrise was always
> interesting....
>
> Marty
Yeah, interesting is a good word for it. The few times I rode with
groups there we were target practice.
Gerry
> Gerry wrote:
>> On 2006-12-27 16:49:21 -0800, "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> said:
>>
>>> My take on this is that there's lots of good music to be made at the
>>> lower levels. I don't have to have Ron Affif's or Jimmy Bruno's chops
>>> to play a tasty solo occassionaly while being usuful to the group the
>>> rest of the time by playing rhy
>>
>> I concur. The endless comparison thing with other players, with
>> metaphors tying musicians to sports which are all about quantification;
>> distance, speed, points. I'm sorry I just don't get it. I mean I
>> understand that in the absense of finite measuring systems, that
>> many/most musicians have come up with this other thing. Stratifying
>> who's better, worser, best, genius, "contributed to the legacy" etc.
>>
>> Talent can not be measured.
>
> So what is "talent"? Before it can be measured, it has to be defined,
> though it may be beyond definition. Perhaps the success that results
> from "talent" (whatever that is) can be measured.
I was going to pose that question. But I figured I'd take a drubbing
for mucking things up with defining terms. The dictionary says
"natural aptitude or skill".
> Is talent just another way of saying passion mixed with commitment
> mixed with ability mixed with an emotional depth of feeling most folks
> don't have?
If it's mised with labor and actualization, I might agree.
> I dunno, but most artists I've admired are in touch with
> their sensitive side and somehow share that through their art. That is
> unlike me, who has lost some passion about things I once felt so
> passionate about in my youth... social ills, abortion, war, poverty,
> religion. I think that good artists are able to retain and even
> increase their level of passion as they grow older and communicate that
> back to the rest of us through art. Maybe that is the definition of
> "talent" and maybe the only way to measure it is to judge how much
> their art moves us.
If it doesn't move us, the artist isn't talented, if it does he is.
That's the kind of misuse of the word I expect and why it makes the
word almost impossible to use in a definitive way. Most jazz is
performed by non-talented people if you consider that most people don't
like jazz.
Like that phrase that irks so much in "is jazz art" discussions: "I'm
not an artist, I can't play that well." As if "artist" was a reference
to calibre of ability rather than simply someone who produces art. A
sculture makes statues and a carpenter assembles wood. No mention of
quality in the definition.
In any case do you feel comfortable with your method of measurement above?
--
///---
Gerry
<markkl...@hotmail.com> said:
>> I concur. The endless comparison thing with other players, with
>> metaphors tying musicians to sports which are all about quantification;
>> distance, speed, points. I'm sorry I just don't get it. I mean I
>> understand that in the absense of finite measuring systems, that
>> many/most musicians have come up with this other thing. Stratifying
>> who's better, worser, best, genius, "contributed to the legacy" etc.
>
> Winning, losing, scores and time are not all that sports is about.
> There is an art in the athletics, a true beauty and vision of humanity
> that is worth taking in regardless of the metrics.
Yeah, and in the end somebody wins and somebody loses. And the winners
are famous and the losers are losers. Players that result in higher
scores go on the othe hall of fame and players that don't dissappear.
There is of course art in all things, but in the US we seem to compare
everything to sport.
>> Talent can not be measured. The relationship of hard work and fixed
>> hours to the final product of good, better, best in musical skills,
>> also unquantifiable. I can live with that. Somehow I can manage to
>> continue pumping oxygen without any of that; not for me, not for others.
>
> Sure, it "can" be measured- it's just nobody likes to agree on the
> validity of how its done.
When we measure scores, speed, distance in sport it's pretty easy to
agree on a definition. When we measure talent in music, I don't
believe we diagree about quantifying it: I believe we do not quantify
it. How do you measure talent?
> Some people care greatly about this aspect and invest heavily, but
> that's their burden not ours.
I don't know: we use the word "talent", generally, to indicate someone
demonstrating an ability, grace, stressless comfort, eloquence of
diction. But how does one measure any of those things. Apparently
either they've got it and we all agree, or they don't and we all agree.
But if we don't know or understand their vision, we'll simply call
them talentless.
> Anyway, interesting subject. For me, talent is more a function of what
> one chooses to say with the tools at his disposal. We don't judge
> writers by how fast they can type.
You certainlyl get extra points in the "talent" division, though, if
you play really really fast!
--
///---
Joe Finn
>
> Every one of us that teaches gets an email like this daily -
>
> "Hi. I'm 40something years old. I have an old Martin D-28
> (or Fender strat or Les Paul or whatever) that I bought
> for $100 plus a bag of pot back when I was in college.
> Wife, kids, job etc got in the way of my playing for
> the last 20something years. Now I'd like to pick up
> where I left off. I think I still know a couple
> of chords. I probably need new strings"
>
>
> Lumpy
The world's closets are full of teenage dreams that now reside only in dusty
guitar cases. ........joe
rpguitar
faces. Playing fast and playing with emotion (utterly subjective) are
just the most obvious ones. Songwriting and composing are just as
potentially moving and "exposed" as the performance side of talent.
One might hate Bruce Springsteen or Elton John or Bob Dylan or even Tom
Jobim (!), but these are artists who have moved millions not with their
instruments per se, but with their songs. Of course a singer has an
instrument too, but that misses the point that the Gestalt of the song
transcends the isolated vocal performance.
Songwriting has always been my personal motivation even as I forever
struggle with a quest to evolve my jazz guitar chops. I have been
moved to tears when listening to working mixes of my own music
privately in my studio. Usually lyrics are involved to elicit that
kind of response, but they are part of the craft that is songwriting.
Sure, I like to share these works with people - but (referencing
another thread) I do enjoy my own music and that's why I do it.
I called my first album (1997) "The Happiness of Pursuit" to underscore
the point that in music, as in life, the journey should be the
reward... because the destination is often unknown or constantly
moving. Best to have a good time travelling, working towards
something, regardless of how good you are to begin with.
Roger
oasysco
Man, that is so deep... and, yet, tragic. I was one of those teenagers
with dreams!
Greg
oasysco
> Remember that in music, it's not all about jazz and talent has many
> faces. Playing fast and playing with emotion (utterly subjective) are
> just the most obvious ones. Songwriting and composing are just as
> potentially moving and "exposed" as the performance side of talent.
> One might hate Bruce Springsteen or Elton John or Bob Dylan or even Tom
> Jobim (!), but these are artists who have moved millions not with their
> instruments per se, but with their songs. Of course a singer has an
> instrument too, but that misses the point that the Gestalt of the song
> transcends the isolated vocal performance.
>
> Songwriting has always been my personal motivation even as I forever
> struggle with a quest to evolve my jazz guitar chops.
=============
> I have been moved to tears when listening to
> working mixes of my own music privately in my studio.
Same here, but probably not for the same reasons :)-
Greg
Ted Vieira
1167317128.1...@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "Mark Kleinhaut"
<markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> We don't judge
> writers by how fast they can type.
>
>
> www.markkleinhaut.com
This has been an interesting thread and I've enjoyed reading all of the
input, but I have to say this is one of the coolest statements I've read in
a long time. Fantastic way of putting it. I'll be using this one, Thanks
Mark.
Ted Vieira
--
http://www.TedVieira.com
CDs, NEW: eBooks, Free Online Lessons,
Free Online Articles, Playing Schedule and more...
http://www.JazzInstruction.com
A fresh new resource to lessons
and instructional materials on the web
to help your development as a jazz artist.
oasysco
Your points are well-taken and that article (The Expert Mind) is
excellent...
Talking about a grand master of chess in 1909, playing against numerous
opponents simultaneously... 'How did he play so well, so quickly? And
how far ahead could he calculate under such constraints? "I see only
one move ahead," Capablanca is said to have answered, "but it is always
the correct one." '
That's like saying to an accomplished musician, with 12 notes from
which to choose, how do you know which one to play at any one time? I
simply choose the right one for that moment :)-
Further on about chess players, "The better players did not examine
more possibilities, only better ones".
Some other salient points from that article:
:::: " the expert relies not so much on an intrinsically stronger power
of analysis as on a store of structured knowledge"
:::: "Beginners could not recall more than a very few details of the
position, even after having examined it for 30 seconds, whereas
grandmasters could usually get it perfectly, even if they had perused
it for only a few seconds... The specific memory must be the result of
training, because grandmasters do no better than others in general
tests of memory."
:::: "showing that expert chess players activate long-term memory much
more than novices do" [heh-heh, not good news for those of us who tuned
in, turned on, and dropped out]
:::: "the proliferation of chess prodigies in recent years merely
reflects the advent of computer-based training methods that let
children study far more master games and to play far more frequently
against master-strength programs than their forerunners could typically
manage."
Greg
oasysco
Good point. I guess I should say that I appreciate the talent of
artists (paint, music, writing, etc) who are able to move me. For those
artists who don't ove me... like rap singers - they must have talent -
some natural ability to make a living at what they do, yet I don't
appreciate their talent much.
> Like that phrase that irks so much in "is jazz art" discussions: "I'm
> not an artist, I can't play that well." As if "artist" was a reference
> to calibre of ability rather than simply someone who produces art. A
> sculture makes statues and a carpenter assembles wood. No mention of
> quality in the definition.
>
> In any case do you feel comfortable with your method of measurement above?
Greg
> --
> ///---
ken
Ted Vieira wrote:
> On 12/28/06 6:45 AM, in article
> 1167317128.1...@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "Mark Kleinhaut"
> <markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We don't judge
> > writers by how fast they can type.
> >
> >
> > www.markkleinhaut.com
>
> This has been an interesting thread and I've enjoyed reading all of the
> input, but I have to say this is one of the coolest statements I've read in
> a long time.
I'll have to stop judging Ellington tunes by how quickly he wrote
them...
;)
Ken
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> Karlie,
>
> Your points are well-taken and that article (The Expert Mind) is
> excellent...
>
> Talking about a grand master of chess in 1909, playing against numerous
> opponents simultaneously... 'How did he play so well, so quickly? And
> how far ahead could he calculate under such constraints? "I see only
> one move ahead," Capablanca is said to have answered, "but it is always
> the correct one." '
>
> That's like saying to an accomplished musician, with 12 notes from
> which to choose, how do you know which one to play at any one time? I
> simply choose the right one for that moment :)-
>
> Further on about chess players, "The better players did not examine
> more possibilities, only better ones".
>
> Some other salient points from that article:
>
> :::: " the expert relies not so much on an intrinsically stronger power
> of analysis as on a store of structured knowledge"
>
> :::: "Beginners could not recall more than a very few details of the
> position, even after having examined it for 30 seconds, whereas
> grandmasters could usually get it perfectly, even if they had perused
> it for only a few seconds... The specific memory must be the result of
> training, because grandmasters do no better than others in general
> tests of memory."
Interesting. However, though this seems to be the conventional view,
it very much depends upon how one defines memory. Here is a view that
agrees chess requires no superior memory in the conventional sense:
http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/chessmemory.html
Here is a more nuanced view of chess, information processing, and memory:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Py104/ericsson.long.html
Steve (no chess player)
oasysco
Yup, much the same as the SciAm article... Grand masters don't have
better normal memories than the rest of us.
>
> Here is a more nuanced view of chess, information processing, and memory:
>
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Py104/ericsson.long.html
I started reading that one, but my brain fell out and now I can't find
it :)-
Greg
steinbergerstyler
All of the virtuosos I can think of - Bird, Coltrane, McLaughlin,
Holdsworth, Metheny, etc - practiced 12-20 hours a day for years if not
decades. I think that probably had more impact on their musical
abilities than their genes. Where there's a will there's a way; sure,
some guys are genetically luckier than others, but how many of you have
ever seen someone who truly loves music, practices their ass of for
years, dedicates their life to the art and still can't play for shit?
I've never met anyone like that.
I think the "poor me, I got genetically shafted" thing is just
fundamentally an excuse not to force oneself to put in the extra
practice, run the extra mile, etc. Check out Nietzsche; he seems to
think that our genes make us more who we are than anything else, but
that the greatest fundamental achievement of humankind is
self-overcoming...
YMMV, of course.
> >http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/chessmemory.htmlYup, much the same as the SciAm article... Grand masters don't have
> better normal memories than the rest of us.
>
>
>
> > Here is a more nuanced view of chess, information processing, and memory:
>
> >http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Py104/ericsson.long.htmlI started reading that one, but my brain fell out and now I can't find
> it :)-
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> > Steve (no chess player)
>
> > > :::: "showing that expert chess players activate long-term memory much
> > > more than novices do" [heh-heh, not good news for those of us who tuned
> > > in, turned on, and dropped out]
>
> > > :::: "the proliferation of chess prodigies in recent years merely
> > > reflects the advent of computer-based training methods that let
> > > children study far more master games and to play far more frequently
> > > against master-strength programs than their forerunners could typically
> > > manage."
>
> > > Greg
>
> > > karlie wrote:
>
> > >>"oasysco" <wilderkom...@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>
> > >>[...]
>
> > >>Hi Greg
>
> > >>a nice essay.
>
> > >>I actually don't believe in talent or genetic wonders. It might be
> > >>more a thing of the character quality and the way of learning. I
> > >>know that my way of learning is not the fastest as a self taught
> > >>guitar player but there are different ways to learn I think and it
> > >>depends on the goals at least. So lurking for information about
> > >>learning and getting better was always kind of a hobby of me.
>
> > >>I've read the posts here and the very interesting reactions.
> > >>Accidently, right as it belongs to this thread, Scientific
> > >>American (I'm a prescriber of the german version) has an
> > >>interesting article about this theme:
>
> > >>>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E834...
>
> > >>This might give a viewpoint from science view, a view I personally
> > >>can retrace. We all know what time we waste. We all know how much
> > >>we could exercise more and we all know how much we should. And we
> > >>all feel that we could learn more and be better on the instrument.
>
> > >>This gives to me a brighter viewpoint to musicians like Kessel,
> > >>Montgomery, Bickert, Bruno and others: Those guys did a lot of
> > >>work. And I mean a lot. And they did it right. We should admire
> > >>them for this and not for the mystical bubble, the maybe one has
> > >>it or not, so called talent.
>
> > >>But ... I'm just so f** lazy sometimes ....
>
> > >>My 2cents
>
> > >>karlie
>
> > --
> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> >http://www.dentaltwins.com
> > Brooklyn, NY
> > 718-258-5001- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Max Leggett
<steinber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I dunno,
>
>All of the virtuosos I can think of - Bird, Coltrane, McLaughlin,
>Holdsworth, Metheny, etc - practiced 12-20 hours a day for years if not
>decades. I think that probably had more impact on their musical
I have a book on the shelf called, I think, Prodigies, which lists all
the famous musicians who made it young. They all seem to have done
10,000 hours of work before they made it. Mozart, too - the stuff he
did at 6 is only of interest because of what he acomplished later, and
the calculation is that, by 18 or so, he'd done his 10,000 hours.
Immensely talented, but without all that directed effort it'd have
been wasted. Johann Bach had a son whom he described as his most
talented student, and he amounted to zip. Look at his portrait and you
see why - he was too busy boozing and wenching to actually do any
work. Differing talent levels, fer shure, but differing work ethics,
too. 10,000 hours of work with middling talent will result in a
competent professional. It's the talent thang that makes a Heifetz or
Bird.
>abilities than their genes. Where there's a will there's a way; sure,
>some guys are genetically luckier than others, but how many of you have
>ever seen someone who truly loves music, practices their ass of for
>years, dedicates their life to the art and still can't play for shit?
>I've never met anyone like that.
They'd be competent professionals. Nothing wrong with that. There'd be
no symphony orchestras without third desk cellos.
> Check out Nietzsche
Has he got any sound clips?
-------------------------------------------------------
Is it not strange that sheep's guts should hale
souls out of men's bodies?
Willie 'The Lion' Shakespeare
-------------------------------------------------------
richard...@yahoo.com
and pianist. He has recorded, on piano, with Bud Shank, among others.
He is also a pro quality guitar and bass player. He also plays drumset
and various percussion instruments.
Rick
On Dec 27, 6:00 pm, Gerry <somewh...@sunny.calif> wrote:
> On 2006-12-27 16:18:22 -0800, richardipoll...@yahoo.com said:
>
> > I have been in the room with a musical genius.
>
> > Of all the things that he can do, the most remarkable is that, in a
> > room full of loud music, he can tell which guitar string is slightly
> > flat. He can tell if you didn't quite press hard enough on the D string
> > while playing a G13 at the third fret. He can break down any band-level
> > groove problem to the fundamental component issue. He has incredible
> > absolute pitch. He can sing anybody's part (using the note names as
> > lyrics).
>
> > I've asked him about this ability. In fact, he took 4 years of ear
> > training with dictation and struggled through it. He improved greatly,
> > he said. But, I'm convinced he was born with something most of us don't
> > have.How is his playing?
> --
> ///---
oasysco
> I have been in the room with a musical genius.
>
> Of all the things that he can do, the most remarkable is that, in a
> room full of loud music, he can tell which guitar string is slightly
> flat. He can tell if you didn't quite press hard enough on the D string
> while playing a G13 at the third fret. He can break down any band-level
> groove problem to the fundamental component issue. He has incredible
> absolute pitch. He can sing anybody's part (using the note names as
> lyrics).
>
> I've asked him about this ability. In fact, he took 4 years of ear
> training with dictation and struggled through it. He improved greatly,
> he said. But, I'm convinced he was born with something most of us don't
> have.
Whatever you do, don't refer to that "something" as talent :)-
A show I saw on savants talked about how they can focus nearly 100% of
their brain's attention on music since they don't have to contend with
all the day-to-day worries the rest of us have and that require a
generalist's approach to life.
The guy you know may have that same savant-like focus ability and still
be able to contend with day-to-day issues, which would be a talent in
and of itself.
Greg
>
> Rick
>
> On Dec 27, 3:46 pm, pmitchbr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Or pick a play with a tenner?
> >
> >
> >
> > > Did he play the tenor with a pick?
> > > --
> > > ///---- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
C6
steinbergerstyler wrote:
> how many of you have
> ever seen someone who truly loves music, practices their ass of for
> years, dedicates their life to the art and still can't play for shit?
> I've never met anyone like that.
Yeah, I agree with that....commitment, and sacrifice are vastly under
rated.
>
> I think the "poor me, I got genetically shafted" thing is just
> fundamentally an excuse not to force oneself to put in the extra
> practice, run the extra mile, etc. Check out Nietzsche; he seems to
> think that our genes make us more who we are than anything else, but
> that the greatest fundamental achievement of humankind is
> self-overcoming...
>
I think there is something to the DNA argument though; a lot of great
musicians come from musical families
Mark Cleary
disagree. Bird spent lots of time playing no doubt but he died at 34 years
old. I just don't buy the "if you put in all the hard work you can be a
great player." Those with talents for a given task or skill find them
naturally easier than the rest of the general population. These could be
talents unrelated to physical skills.
An example I give is relates to this is memory. I have an excellent memory
for dates and numbers. I teach Church history and never rely on notes. I
still remember the lifetime batting averages of many of the great Baseball
players ( Ted Williams .344). I have not looked at that stuff in years and
it comes right to me . I remember dates of events and Saints lives with very
little effort on my part. The kicker is I cannot remember the names of my
students in class without really working very hard. I am not suggesting I am
some memory genius but I think I have a talent for those things. I believe
that guitar playing is exactly the same.
My comment to Nietzsche is I have studied him and I wonder what happen when
he died and found out the Truth. He had no idea of what the greatest
fundamental achievement of human kind he simply missed the fundamental
option.
--
Mark Cleary
Hollenbeck Jazz Guitars the Finest
Handcarved Jazz Guitars
http://members.cox.net/ruthster/hollenbeck/
"steinbergerstyler" <steinber...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167333522....@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
richard...@yahoo.com
among us at birth. Further, abilities can be developed at different
levels depending on environmental influences. Nature and nurture both
count.
I have no difficulty believing that some people are born with better
ability to distinguish pitch than others. One example: Some people can
sing with terrific intonation, some can't. Those who can't really
struggle just to get to the level that someone else reaches without any
effort. Same argument goes for perception of rhythm and probably every
other aspect of music.
Having said that, it is also quite clear that hard work pays off.
I've been playing 42 years. Probably more hours than Wes had played by
the time he was great. I don't believe that if I had done exactly what
he'd done, I'd be as good a player. The fact is, that, IMO, almost
nobody is as good a player, no matter how many hours they put in. The
difference, I think, is talent.
On Dec 28, 12:06 pm, "Mark Cleary" <mclea...@verizondot.net> wrote:
> I am responding not as a flame or put down, but I guess I respectively
> disagree. Bird spent lots of time playing no doubt but he died at 34 years
> old. I just don't buy the "if you put in all the hard work you can be a
> great player." Those with talents for a given task or skill find them
> naturally easier than the rest of the general population. These could be
> talents unrelated to physical skills.
>
> An example I give is relates to this is memory. I have an excellent memory
> for dates and numbers. I teach Church history and never rely on notes. I
> still remember the lifetime batting averages of many of the great Baseball
> players ( Ted Williams .344). I have not looked at that stuff in years and
> it comes right to me . I remember dates of events and Saints lives with very
> little effort on my part. The kicker is I cannot remember the names of my
> students in class without really working very hard. I am not suggesting I am
> some memory genius but I think I have a talent for those things. I believe
> that guitar playing is exactly the same.
>
> My comment to Nietzsche is I have studied him and I wonder what happen when
> he died and found out the Truth. He had no idea of what the greatest
> fundamental achievement of human kind he simply missed the fundamental
> option.
>
> --
> Mark Cleary
> Hollenbeck Jazz Guitars the Finest
> Handcarved Jazz Guitarshttp://members.cox.net/ruthster/hollenbeck/"steinbergerstyler" <steinbergersty...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1167333522....@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> > > >http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/chessmemory.htmlYup, much thesame as the SciAm article... Grand masters don't have> > better normal memories than the rest of us.
>
> > > > Here is a more nuanced view of chess, information processing, and
> memory:
>
> > > >http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Py104/ericsson.long.htmlIstarted reading that one, but my brain fell out and now I can't find
> > > > 718-258-5001- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quotedtext -- Show quoted text -
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
C6
Max Leggett wrote:
> I have a book on the shelf called, I think, Prodigies, which lists all
> the famous musicians who made it young. They all seem to have done
> 10,000 hours of work before they made it. Mozart, too - the stuff he
> did at 6 is only of interest because of what he acomplished later, and
> the calculation is that, by 18 or so, he'd done his 10,000 hours.
That 10,000 hour idea makes sense. One wonders why these people wanted
to practice that much in the first place... especially at at such a
young age. They must have been making rapid progress and formulating
concepts fairly quickly which reinforced the desire to keep working.
oasysco
talents for a given task or skill find them naturally easier than the
rest of the general population".
I have been a computer programmer by training and trade for the last 25
years. Within my career field, we have what used to be called "super
programmers", who starting back in the 70's were studied for qualities
that made them head and shoulders more productive than the majority of
other programmers.
The idea was to find out what made them tick and apply those same
principles to other programmers to make everybody more productive.
Long story short... they couldn't distill the essence from the
super-programmers to allow all of us to become SP's, but they did
extract certain rules the SP's followed and used them to create a new
standard for programmers called "structured programming".
To this day, however, we still have SP's and normal programmers.
Nowadays, the SP's are the young guys at Google, Microsoft, Youtube and
other places who have managed to marry superior analytical skills with
technical abilities, visionary qualities, and business acumen to become
wildly successful in the computer field while the rest of us eek out a
living a various levels well below them.
Greg
C6
Mark Cleary wrote:
> I am responding not as a flame or put down, but I guess I respectively
> disagree. Bird spent lots of time playing no doubt but he died at 34 years
> old. I just don't buy the "if you put in all the hard work you can be a
> great player." Those with talents for a given task or skill find them
> naturally easier than the rest of the general population. These could be
> talents unrelated to physical skills.
>
have better ears and rhythmic sense than others. That all seems pretty
obvious. But most people who play music, have average, to maybe
slightly above average talent. (The below average ones often give it
up) The rest depends on work and commitment. Many people do become high
level players by working towards it. Mike Stern, for example, still
practices and takes lessons. He has worked hard to get where he is. A
great player may not be great in the sense of an innovator or stylist
like Bird ( how many are?) but he/she can still move conciously in the
direction of playing at a higher level. Anyway, you can only work with
what you have; it seems pointless to marginalize the work process just
because certain people have great ability.
Max Leggett
I guess it came fairly easily so it seemed like pleasurable
concentration, unlike cleaning your room, which is work, plus they got
constant reinforcement and preferential treatment, and the other kids
looked up to them. Most of them were strongly supported by their
parents, so doing it made Ma and Pa happy as well as got you out of
doing the washing up or any heavy manual work in the garden. There
were a lot of attractive women in the school orchestra, too. This
isn't something to be ignored. 10,000 hours sounds like a lot, but
it's only 3 hours a day for ten years, which is nada. Jimmy B talks
about 8-10 hours a day, so does Metheney, and that's probably more
like it. It's a matter of having all sorts of stuff in finger memory,
so it's a muscle reflex when an idea comes into your mind. But without
the indefineable talent you'll likely end up as second viola desk in
the Denver Philharmonic, and there's no shame in that.
C6
Max Leggett wrote:
> But without
> the indefineable talent you'll likely end up as second viola desk in
> the Denver Philharmonic, and there's no shame in that.
>
intense.
Lumpy
> ...he was too busy boozing and wenching
> to actually do any work...
Hey, let's be fair. Boozing and wenching
takes a lot of work. You're not just born
into it.
Lumpy
--
You Played on Lawrence Welk?
Yes but no blue notes. Just blue hairs.
www.lumpyguitar.net
tom walls
oasysco wrote:
> Yeah, I tend to agree with you, my Catholic brother... "Those with
> talents for a given task or skill find them naturally easier than the
> rest of the general population".
I think you guys are giving talent WAY too much credit. IMHO it seems
fairly obvious that some people have a greater innate ability at some
things than other people do. However, being a great player is not the
natural consequence of greater ability. It's genius that provides the
insight, motivation, and direction that lead some to greatness and
others to stand around gapmouthed. From what I know about Charlie
Parker, Ornette Coleman, and John Coltrane, none of them awed their
peers with their early blooming talents, but given time they sure
enough wowed them with their genius. And you know what they say about
genius: 90% perspiration, 10% inspiration.
oasysco
Greg
Rick Ross
"tom walls" <tomw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167351460....@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
u forgot about gear:)
Steven Bornfeld
Men perspire, women glow. I sweat--no genius yet!
Steve
Joe Finn
"oasysco" <wilder...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> Man, that is so deep... and, yet, tragic. I was one of those teenagers
> with dreams!
>
> Greg
Same here. My tennis rackets are real dusty at this point, too.
........joe
Lumpy
[and perhaps opening an old argue/discussion]
Do other endeavors, other than arts and athletics,
have similar nature vs nurture arguments?
ie do some people think there are "innately talented"
dentists? Carpenters? Banana farmers?
I think it's simply the mistique factor.
I think most people would think "Oh I could
be a great plumber, I'm just not interested
in becoming one".
But in arts and athletics, I think some people want to think
"He's so good, it can't be just because he worked hard
at getting there". So they use the "talent" factor as
a cop out. "I wasn't born with the talent that he was
so I could never be that good". Never mind that "he"
practiced his ass off for the last gazillion years
while the "sour grapes" person tried it a few times.
Those artists and athletes that we consider "talented"
typically have spent a lot more time at their skills
than physicians, contractors, chefs etc. Of course he's
good at the bagpipes. He's been playing the darn things
since he was 5 years old.
tom walls
Rick Ross wrote:
And you know what they say about
> > genius: 90% perspiration, 10% inspiration.
> >
> tom
> u forgot about gear:)
True dat! Easily 60% gear. :-)
Sean
> Let's just remember a few points about Wes before ascribing the
> 'untutored genius' tag. He played tenor guitar for some years before
> picking up the regular six string. He also practised at home regularly
> and diligently committed all of Charlie Christian's solos to memory.
> Furthermore, he often played six nights a week and regularly jammed
> after the gig. Sure, he was blessed with an amazing talent but it was
> backed up with a lot of hard work.
> Paul Mitchell Brown
A connection between talent and hard work: The talented may realize the
benefits of practice quicker than others, and thereby be motivated to
continue practicing. Without the talent, someone might practice and
practice and not feel they are getting anywhere... and quit. But if you
are a 14 year old Wayne Gretzky who has already experienced success and
the benefits of effort, you are probably much readier to listen to the
coach who tells you that you will benefit from doing 500 slap shots a
day after running 20km. You will have faith that your efforts will pay
off.
--
Always be sincere, but never be serious.
Allan Watts
Sean
>
> Mark Cleary wrote:
> There are
>> a huge number of players who have put in more time than Wes and I don't hear
>> them approaching his talent. In my case I could practice and study 12 hours
>> a day for the next 20 years and never get to his level or close. Martin
>> Taylor told me personally he has worked really hard to be sure but for him
>> playing the guitar is easy.
>
> Most people need both, talent and the willingness to work hard. Also,
> don't underestimate sacrifice; some guys just want it real bad, and
> they are willing to make huge sacrifices to attain a high level of
> musicianship.
Some guys who end up as impresarios or critics or whatever might be
those guys who love music and who worked really hard at it, but had
lack of talent prevent them from being the guy on the stage. So they
try to be involved however they can.
I've heard people scorn others for lack of talent, which seems to me
ridiculous. It's like scorning someone for being short. What the hell
can they do about it?
The scorn should be reserved those who waste their talent.
Sean
> "Lumpy" <lu...@digitalcartography.com> wrote
>
>>
>> Every one of us that teaches gets an email like this daily -
>>
>> "Hi. I'm 40something years old. I have an old Martin D-28
>> (or Fender strat or Les Paul or whatever) that I bought
>> for $100 plus a bag of pot back when I was in college.
>> Wife, kids, job etc got in the way of my playing for
>> the last 20something years. Now I'd like to pick up
>> where I left off. I think I still know a couple
>> of chords. I probably need new strings"
>>
>>
>> Lumpy
>
> The world's closets are full of teenage dreams that now reside only in
> dusty guitar cases. ........joe
There is a growing tendency for the world's garages to be full of 50+
year old teenagers rocking away on equipment they could only dream of
having when they were teenagers.
Tomorrow night being New Year's Eve Eve, the Idjits will rock the
neighbourhood until midnight! Life is good.