Natural ability??

[Ant Wellington]

Yea!!!!

I was hoping this thread hit 100 postings!

Uh,...but I guess this one doesn't count. SH*T!!!

Someone else respond,...quick!!!

-aw

[thepontif]

I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!

[Ant Wellington]

"You cannot maintain a point of view simply because you like it or it accords with your preset metaphysical or emotional prejudices. If your view of reality is based simply on fantasy or conjecture, there will be no possibility of your being able to cultivate that view to an infinite level."

His Holiness the Dalai Lama

[sayman]

From "The Believing Brain: Why Science Is the Only Way Out of Belief-Dependent Realism":

Confirmation Bias. Seeking and finding confirming evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignoring or reinterpreting disconfirming evidence.

[cire113]

For all you science fans check out the movie " What the Bleep do we know"..

really interesting stuff about science...

I think science is cool but i believe there things going on in this universe way beyond human comprehension.. and its weird science is always changing; it seems science always de-bunks science..

Science explains alot of "what" in man made terms so that we feel we know .. and think we are smart... but does it really explain the deep mysteries of the universe the "why" questions...

Has anyone ever read that book your brain on music is it cool?

[mambo4]

My first post in Ant's forum!
(Anthony, you inspire me a great deal, both as a player and educator, so thank you.)

There was a similar thread to this one over in the general instruction forums a while back. The OP in that case was asking if certain people trying to learn music "will just never get it"
I definitively came down on the same side of it as Anthony and MP have: It's hard work that makes the difference far more than "natural talent."
I have said before that I don't really believe in such a thing as 'natural talent'-barring mutants with perfect pitch or savant-like perfect recall.
Everyone is obviously at a different level of musical ability, so in that sense there are "more talented" people than others.
But the reasons for this I suspect have very little to do with how we are born and oh so very much to do with early environment and how much effort was put in.

I feel that our culture has a tendency to believe that, in many areas of endeavor, some people "got it" and other people "ain't got it".
It's a view that permeates a lot of our thinking to the detriment of many educational or developmental aspirations.
I have encountered too many people who internalize this attitude to the point where they simply
forsake pursuing something that could greatly enhance their quality of life (like music )
because they think they "ain't got it"...when the only thing they ain't got is 10 years of practice to draw on.
"That's just how I am" they think, and close the door to developing in some positive direction.

we could turn the idea on its head and consider a hypothetical:
2 students take up bass:
one picks things up easily and believes he's "got it",
the other struggles, yet believes in hard work.
Over time , who do you think will become the better player?

[sayman]

Originally Posted by cire113

For all you science fans check out the movie " What the Bleep do we know"..

really interesting stuff about science...

I think science is cool but i believe there things going on in this universe way beyond human comprehension.. and its weird science is always changing; it seems science always de-bunks science..

Science explains alot of "what" in man made terms so that we feel we know .. and think we are smart... but does it really explain the deep mysteries of the universe the "why" questions...

Has anyone ever read that book your brain on music is it cool?

Nothing personal, but you should know that film has been resoundingly refuted by the scientific community as pseudoscience and nonsense.

There is plenty of fascinating science out there, but check the sources - just because it's in media or sounds good doesn't mean it's accurate.

Generally if a hypothesis is published in a accredited scientific journal and have the acceptance of the scientist's peers, this is a good indication that the idea have validity and data behind it.

[thepontif]

Another major paradox in this whole thing, and I touched on it before, is that the "knowledge" you need in order to harness that "X factor" in playing music, is NON-VERBAL knowledge. Science is always trying to describe things in terms of words and numbers and formulas, and for that reason I do not believe science will ever really understand creativity.

I recently participated in an MRI study on improvisation at Johns Hopkins with Doctor Charles Limb, who is a frequent visitor to TB and a good friend. There was also a Johns Hopkins Brain Science Institute conference called, "The Science of the Arts". Various artsists, musicians, dancers, architects, researchers, doctors, lay people, etc., all got together to discuss various aspects of creativity and the possible neuroscience that's behind it. I was involved in a discussion on improvisation, mainly, with Pat Metheny, Marin Alsop (conductor of the Baltimore Symphony), and Doctor Limb.

At the end of the two day conference, most of the worlds great minds in neuroscience and neuroaesthetics (in attendance) basically came to the conclusion that artists know something that scientists don't. IME, trying to describe the creative process in words and numbers eradicates the very creations themselves.

You may have heard the saying, "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture". Obviously there are lots of great conversations to be had about music, but in the end, communicating with words or numbers about music can NEVER substitute for listening to it, or playing it.

[Ant Wellington]

I saw what the bleep and the secret. There's another one similar that victor did music for.

The are some deep mysteries of the universe. But we dint understand those. So we speculate. If we understood them they wouldn't be deep mysteries.

I think of all the tools we have science us still the best at helping us understand how 'things' work.

This is your brain is music is a great read. But it's definitely not light reading. I highly recommend it.

-aw

[sayman]

Right, there are many things not yet understood, but we can't really state "never" with confidence. Who knows what future discoveries will reveal? Same token, we can't say we will either.

I did like Victor's analogy of music as a language. Makes a lot of sense to me.

[Ant Wellington]

I really hope some things remain a mystery,...like women!!! Science will never figure that out. I know that I won't figure them out.

[thepontif]

Originally Posted by Ant Wellington

I saw what the bleep and the secret. There's another one similar that victor did music for.

The are some deep mysteries of the universe. But we dint understand those. So we speculate. If we understood them they wouldn't be deep mysteries.

I think of all the tools we have science us still the best at helping us understand how 'things' work.

This is your brain is music is a great read. But it's definitely not light reading. I highly recommend it.

-aw

Is it really a mystery if you can repeat it regularly? Maybe you can't write down how you do it...but it may only be a mystery to everyone but you.

[nickbass79]

Originally Posted by nickbass79

Science is based off of theory that is in the quest of truth, right?

I mentioned this before and got ridiculed for it.

Originally Posted by Ant Wellington

The are some deep mysteries of the universe. But we dint understand those. So we speculate. If we understood them they wouldn't be deep mysteries.

I think of all the tools we have science us still the best at helping us understand how 'things' work.

-aw

has anyone studied the Philosophy of Logic?

[odin70]

Originally Posted by mambo4

2 students take up bass:
one picks things up easily and believes he's "got it",
the other struggles, yet believes in hard work.
Over time , who do you think will become the better player?

Number two will be average. Number three..the one that picks things up easily AND works his ass off, will be the best player.
I personally do not think that a player like lets say Marcus Miller struggled much when he started to play. Lots of hard work of course, but he was born talented. You just cant practice/study to become like him if you dont have it in your genes. IMO

[Sonicfrog]

Originally Posted by Ant Wellington

"My father says that if I hit 2,500 ball each day, I'll hit 17,500 balls each week, and at the end of one year I'll have hit nearly 1,000,000 balls. He believes in math. Numbers, he says, don't lie. A child who hits 1,000,000 balls each year will be unbeatable."
-Andre Agassi

-aw

Yes, but how many would-be great tennis players also hit as many balls as Andre, yet came no where NEAR his level of racket prowess?

Lets take a tennis player from his era. The very fun to watch Michael Chang. He didn't have the blindingly brilliant shot making ability that Agassi had. But, he had something different to bring to the table. He could RUN LIKE HELL. I would watch him play and be truly amazed a some of the shot he would chase down. The opponent would be caught completely off guard, because, in normal, non-space-bending tennis, no one, I mean NO ONE would get to those shots. I especially love watching him and Becker go at it! God, That Was FUN!!!!

Point is, Chang was not a shot maker... He was a shot getter... Different tools! And that's why he only ever won one open, the French. He didn't have a fierce forehand or backhand, and his serve and return game was average for a professional player. But he practiced as much as Agassi and the other guys. If he hadn't had that natural ability to seemingly bend space-time, we never would have heard of him.

My own experience. I play bass competently, and will get compliments from people I consider much better than I (a former 1950's LA studio guy once told me he loved the way I orchestrated my lines - what a wonderful and unique compliment to give - will always cherish it). I wouldn't consider myself great and I don't practice nearly as much as I should. But, if I have one thing, one natural gift, that I bring to the table, is my ability to harmonize. Always had that ability for as long as I can remember. I know guy who have been playing and singing as long as I have, and some, technically, can play circles around me on the bass. I don't mind. Music stopped being a contest for me a long time ago. But they just don't have that instinct, the ear, that thing, that let me pick up on a harmony so quickly. And some of those guys have never been able to put together the trick of playing bass and singing lead at the same time. Now THAT, for as much as I can do it well, IS a matter of practicing to be able to do it. I do it well enough to be able to be Sting in a Police tribute band... But I'm no Sting! Great talent that guy!

And then there is my Mom. She has none of the gifts that her kids do. All six of us are very musically incline. All do, or have played something at one point or another in our lives. Yet, me Mum, she has a hard time carrying a tune, has a worse sense of rhythm than even I do (should see me try to dance - now THERE is something sad to see) and for all the years she took piano lessons, she just never got it. Now, I love my Mom, and her taste in music IS a huge influence on me. She loves anything with a good harmony, Chad Mitchell Trio, Kingston Trio, Simon and Garfunkel.... She brought plenty of great music into the household and all her children absorbed it like a paper towel soaks up water. But, I think it's safe to say, we probably got our abilities from my Dads side of the family.

Oh... I just realized I'm going against the great AW... Oh well... I'm a glutton for punishment!!!!

Really have to go work now.

[Sonicfrog]

Originally Posted by Ant Wellington

I really hope some things remain a mystery,...like women!!! Science will never figure that out. I know that I won't figure them out.

What... Science and Women... And music mix great!!!!!!!

‪Neil Finn - She Will Have Her Way‬‏ - YouTube

[Sonicfrog]

Originally Posted by Ant Wellington

Yo Jack C,

And I disagree with you. But that's neither here nor there. Fortunately, our disagreeing doesn't make either of us a better or worse musician. Or affects either of our credibility.

But I'm curious,...is jumping high only a natural basketball ability? If not, what other natural ability can jumping high be? And,...are people who can jump high 'naturally' better basketball players than people who can't jump high? And how does jumping higher make someone a better basketball player?

Starting to sound very vague to me. But it's easy to be vague.

peace,
anthony

Well, this is funny... Because I can't jump for crap, and my nickname is SonicFROG!!!

[Sonicfrog]

Originally Posted by odin70

Number two will be average. Number three..the one that picks things up easily AND works his ass off, will be the best player.
I personally do not think that a player like lets say Marcus Miller struggled much when he started to play. Lots of hard work of course, but he was born talented. You just cant practice/study to become like him if you dont have it in your genes. IMO

Mark King of Level 42. Playing bass was not even his first choice of instrument. He had never really played it but was forced to because, as Level 42 formed, they already had a drummer, and though King could play drums, he didn't have a drum kit. But, he did have access to a bass. It's said he learned to play in a week!

That's just freaky!!!

[mambo4]

How about this question:
Do you believe an aptitude for music can be deliberately cultivated?
Or does one "got it"/"ain't got it"?

[thepontif]

You can't cultivate what isn't there. Got it, cultivate it. Ain't got it, can't cultivate it. You can cultivate a field to grow crops. But you need a field in the first place.

The bigger question is, how do you cultivate it. How do you know if it is, or was, there? How much of the result is the cultivation, and how much is just a function of the state of the soil before you started?