• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Do you ever feel like you're not a natural?

#41
GeoffT said:
Whether this kid has some natural ability or advantage over other kids doesn't really matter, in either case he never gets this good without doing the work. Celebrate the time and effort he put in to reach this level, not how much of a head start he may have had based on natural ability.
Click to expand...

It's not really about head starts. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that, while he has certainly put in some time, that it wasn't a particularly stringent regimen of hours a day "woodshedding".

See, this thing that we're calling "natural ability" is really more about the way a particular brain and attached human being works. So, those who have a higher IQ for patterns will have a far easier time grasping and executing musical concepts and have the potential to exceed most peoples ability to learn them with far less study.

Then it's about dexterity. That's different for everyone too. The point of diminishing returns even with all hours of the day devoted to exercise and devotion to training the hands to repeat actions faster and more precisely just isn't the same for everyone.

It's also important to put in a word about imagination. Nothing anyone does musically means anything if the person making the music is doing nothing more than mimicry.

In the end, the notion that everyone has to practice and study for hours a day to achieve musical fluency just doesn't follow my own personal experience. There are people in the world who just have it inside them.

I will tell you a story about a guy I was in high school band with. He started playing sax in grade school and did very well with it. For the last concert before graduating he decided to play the drums because the drummer couldn't figure out how to play the song (I may date myself, but the song was Abracadabra). It took him 5 minutes to figure it out and play it right, and he'd never played drums before. When we got to high school he decided that every semester he would pick up a different instrument. It didn't take him more than a week to get 100% competent with every one he picked up. Now, I'm not saying he was an amazing flute player or an unbelievable french horn player, but he was the best in his section on every instrument. I can also tell you that he wasn't much on practicing. (Unless he was doing it in his sleep at night...) Went on to be accepted to 3 very good music schools, only to decide we should run off and follow the Grateful Dead.

I've met a good few of this same sort of person in my life and they all have this innate ability to make extraordinary music.

"Natural Talent"

:)
 
#42
TigerInATrance said:
See, this thing that we're calling "natural ability" is really more about the way a particular brain and attached human being works. So, those who have a higher IQ for patterns will have a far easier time grasping and executing musical concepts and have the potential to exceed most peoples ability to learn them with far less study.
Click to expand...

I don't deny that this is true, it absolutely is. Some people learn certain subjects faster and easier than others. I'm saying that those aptitudes (or lack of) are usually not the limiting factor in whether or not someone can be successful and reach a very high level in the field of their choice. BTW, the example of the kid who could pick up any instrument quickly is a very bad example of how much influence natural ability has on long term success since it doesn't end with long term success at a high level.

My problem is with the idea of seeing only the end result and assuming it is mostly natural talent when that is only a part of the equation and it is not an absolute must have.

Most people consider Mozart to be a prodigy or just naturally talented, go look up how much time he had composing before he started writing any of the material most people are familiar with and enjoy today. When people first saw the Beatles and even long after they broke up they were considered naturally talented, go look up how many 8 hours days they put in playing in Hamburg before they broke.

A large amount of time well spent is part of almost every single example you will find of people who reach a high level of success in their field. Natural ability is common in those stories and it definitely makes the process easier but there are far too many examples of success without it for it to be the most important contributor.
 
#43
GeoffT said:
My problem is with the idea of seeing only the end result and assuming it is mostly natural talent when that is only a part of the equation and it is not an absolute must have. .
Click to expand...

+1

The question of natural talent is usually posted by some young player
who is temporarily frustrated at the challenge of progress,
perhaps starting to wonder if they should just give up.
What is the most helpful advice you would give that young payer?

Would you post youtube videos of child prodigies and assert that yes, some people "have it."
(and thus by extension maybe the OP just "doesn't have it"?)

Or would you tell him the truth:
that no one is born skilled, there is no excellence without training, hard work and dedication,
and the worries of 'natural aptitude ' are of no practical use in that pursuit.
 
#44
xdanxx said:
Do you ever feel like you have to work way harder to achieve results, and bass playing doesn't come nearly as natural as it does to others? Do you even believe the whole "natural" thing to be a true concept, or does it just come down to practice and dedication in your opinion?
Click to expand...

When I started playing music, I was a spastic kid who had no intrinsic rhythm taking drum lessons. 15 years later, I could comfortably sit in with many different types of bands on various instruments and make music happen.

So it just comes down to dedication. If I can do it, anyone can.
 
#48
I think some of it is natural born, just like athletes. I think all good musicians practice a lot. I think being raised listening to music and playing a variety of instruments helps, but I think what the OP is revering to is the ability to shut it off. By that I mean the ability to take all of what I’ve stated above and not think about it. Our minds too often get in the way of our fingers and hearts, our souls. When you can relax and turn off that switch and trust yourself, you will be that person that looks like it comes so easy, whether you are playing your bass, a sport, or whatever else.
 
#49
mambo4 said:
that no one is born skilled, there is no excellence without training, hard work and dedication,
and the worries of 'natural aptitude ' are of no practical use in that pursuit.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely. But there's no contradiction between this statement and the existence of talented child prodigies - whom I mentioned only in response to some people earlier in the thread who were asserting that "there's no such thing as talent".

Here's an interesting article on the heritability of aptitudes:

Invalid Link Removed

And the abstract:

National Center for Biotechnology Information said:
The origin of individual differences in aptitude, defined as a domain-specific skill within the normal ability range, and talent, defined as a domain specific skill of exceptional quality, is under debate. The nature of the variation in aptitudes and exceptional talents across different domains was investigated in a population based twin sample. Self-report data from 1,685 twin pairs (12–24 years) were analyzed for Music, Arts, Writing, Language, Chess, Mathematics, Sports, Memory, and Knowledge. The influence of shared environment was small for both aptitude and talent. Additive and non-additive genetic effects explained the major part of the substantial familial clustering in the aptitude measures with heritability estimates ranging between .32 and .71. Heritability estimates for talents were higher and ranged between .50 and .92. In general, the genetic architecture for aptitude and talent was similar in men and women. Genetic factors contribute to a large extent to variation in aptitude and talent across different domains of intellectual, creative, and sports abilities.
Click to expand...
 
#51
bassybill said:
I agree entirely. But there's no contradiction between this statement and the existence of talented child prodigies - whom I mentioned only in response to some people earlier in the thread who were asserting that "there's no such thing as talent".

Here's an interesting article on the heritability of aptitudes:

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

I'm curious who you think said, "there is no such thing as talent"?

The conclusions in the study you linked are based on data. The reason I said you can't make any conclusions about how the kid got so good is you have zero data just from watching a video.

Claims like "I'm certain that his standard could not be achieved by every single other 9 year old, even if they did work as hard as he clearly has" are speculative at best without some data and facts to back it up. You can't be certain of those things without knowing how this kid scores in the categories mentioned in the article compared to others or having a "control" group of kids who have similar experiences in terms of when they first had access to a piano, the quality of the training they have access to, how much they are exposed to muic, how much time spent practicing, and the level of motivation/how much they really enjoy playing. You can't come to solid conclusions about the inputs when the only data you have is the output.

The differences in natural ability can be very easy to spot in a group of beginners or children, I'm sure everyone has hard evidence of it's existence, like you did comparing yourself and your sister and the other poster mentioning the guy from his school who picked instruments up quickly. You can see it and it is definitely real. What most people don't see are the things I mentioned above, access to an instrument or top flight instruction and practice time. Those things seem much less real and influential since we usually don't actually see them happening. People tend to believe what they can see more than any other input they get, that is why people enjoy magic. David Copperfield can't levitate or make the statue of liberty disappear and people know that with a high level of certainty but it is difficult to get past what their eyes are telling them. I liked playing with magnets when I was very little because I couldn't see what made them work, I have since learned how and why they attract or repel but they are still pretty cool because they react differently then virtually every other pair of objects I have seen throughout my entire life.

When people see a very high level of performance they check their databank of experience and knowledge, and talent is generally at the top of the list because they have seen it many times with their own eyes. That is why I used the term "magical" talent earlier, not because it doesn't exist but because it gives the false impression that you have a lot more information than you really do.
 
#52
Geoff, I wouldn't disagree with most of that. This post is just by way of clarification.

I do understand the nature of evidence. That's why I said "I'd bet..." before, and not "I'm certain". It was a statement about balance of probabilities and, yes, it was speculative rather than conclusive - but also based on an understanding of genetic variation in populations. The video I posted may have "zero data" about how the kid got to be that good, but that doesn't mean you can't take an educated guess about whether he is exceptional or not. Incidentally, there's more of the documentary available on YouTube. It's worth a look.



I can't help wondering about his brother - it would be interesting to hear a little more about him.

Anyway, the statement I made about "every single other 9 year old" meant only that some kids exist who would not be able to achieve that standard by the age of 9, regardless of environment. I don't think anyone would dispute that and the study I linked to certainly supports the assertion. I didn't mean that NO other kid could ever do it. That's why I said "every" and not "any". My apologies if you found this ambiguous.

As for who said there was no such thing as talent - well, that's implied by some of the earlier posts in this thread (not yours). If you go back through, you'll see which ones fall into that category. And a large part of the self-improvement industry is based on people's desire for this non-existence of talent to be true, in my opinion. "YOU can do ANYTHING!" It's nonsense, even though some folks get rich selling it. Good luck to them, I guess.

But as I said before, I don't believe that talent is in any way "magical". Quite the reverse. All I'm saying is that it does exist, which I note you have acknowledged.
 
#53
I don't think a discussion of Savant-ism, while interesting, bears little relevance for 99.999% of musicians. You can not argue that some combination of genetics yields unbridled musical ability, this gift is not available to people with average brains. There is also the story of a man with absolutely no musical talent or training who was struck by lightning. When he recovered, he found that he could play the piano brilliantly and could also compose original music. True story........ I point this out because it means nothing to anyone else except the person with the gift.... and???

The rest of us, get busy, study and practice!
 
#54
I've had to work very hard to get to where I am (fairly competent, not great by any means) and no, I don't consider myself a natural. Maybe my viewpoint is different but I look at it like this.

Michael Jordan worked very hard, and could jump and soar like nobody else. Plenty of other people likely worked just as hard as MJ. He just had more natural ability and was better at it.

Guys like Adam Nitti are the MJ's of bass to me. I'm sure he works really hard at his craft, he's just crafting at a whole nother level. Stuff I physically can't pull off.
 
#55
My take on this comes after I read Greg Allman's book My Cross To Bear. These cats started playing cheap guitars at a very young age and that was basically all they did. They quit school to be able to practice. They used every opportunity they had to play with whoever they could get to play. As a band they played more than most of us work. Rehearsing before and after shows. The term practice practice practice definitely applies. I'd humbly say 3-4 hours a day won't even get you to mediocracy in the music world. Glad I have a day job that is much much easier than being a professional musician. My hats off to those of you that make it work!
 
#56
TigerInATrance said:
Some of what's being said here is a little misguided. Hard work can allow anyone to play a musical instrument fairly competently, but, no matter how much work you put in, you will never reach the level of a Paul McCartney or Stevie Wonder or Dave Gilmour or Neil Peart without a high degree of natural talent. You either have it or you don't.

To the OP, if you have the drive and willingness to put in the time, you can certainly pull through. Another thing is that sometimes you need a change of pace. It's very helpful to practice a different way or listen to something completely different or find some new people to jam with occasionally.
Click to expand...

I highly dispute this. I say there are some people who will never be able to do that -- but they are the exception, and rare. I think, failing a physical or mental handicap, there is no reason you can't be one of them.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back