I Give Up

[GroovyBaby]

And that is why I won't be quitting my day job anytime soon!

 

[ClusterFlux]

If there is one thing I know about music, it's that some folks have "got it" and others don't. In the film Mozart, Salieri did not have it and Mozart did.

I hate to break it to you, but "Amadaeus" is rife with inaccuracies.

Shaffer and Foreman weren't even trying to be accurate. They deliberately played up the drama and fabricated events because it made for a compelling story.

Salieri and Mozart were rivals, but it was mostly about competing for the same work. They were generally friendly; Salieri supported Mozart's career during and after his life, including conducting his operas; and certainly had nothing to do with Mozart's death.

Salieri wasn't touring at age 10 like Mozart, but at age 16 he was able to impress Emperor Joseph II with his musical abilities. Salieri was successful and influential during his career. Some of his works (like "Tarare") were more highly regarded than some of Mozart's at the time. He was the opera director for the Habsburgs, and his operas were performed all over Europe. His students included Beethoven, Liszt, Schubert (and Mozart).

The process of canonization and vagaries of history also vastly exaggerate Mozart's contributions, and downplay the role of others, in the European musical tradition. Mozart was not working in total solitude, making radical changes without any input from anyone. He was listening to, learning from, and responding to his contemporaries and the context of his time.

Many who proclaim Mozart's genius have never listened to, let alone analyzed, works by his contemporaries. I'm fairly confident that most listeners, and probably some classical performers, couldn't tell if a composition they hadn't heard before was written by Salieri (or Kraus, or Vogler, or Cimarosa, or many other 18th century composers). And of course, if I play two pieces and tell you "the first is Mozart and the second is Salieri," all those years of being told that "Mozart is better than Salieri!" will undoubtedly cloud your judgment of the quality of the piece.

I.e. it's a bit silly to suggest that Salieri "didn't have It" based on Shaffer's play.

The 9 year-old boy...he's got it.

Maybe, but maybe not.

The majority of prodigies have an early head start, but in almost all cases, their peers catch up in a few years. At that point, learning is less about talent, and more about grinding out incremental gains with lots of hard, repetitive and boring work -- which doesn't always suit someone for whom skills and attention were acquired fast and early.

 

[wes stephenson]

I hate to break it to you, but "Amadaeus" is rife with inaccuracies.

Shaffer and Foreman weren't even trying to be accurate. They deliberately played up the drama and fabricated events because it made for a compelling story.

Salieri and Mozart were rivals, but it was mostly about competing for the same work. They were generally friendly; Salieri supported Mozart's career during and after his life, including conducting his operas; and certainly had nothing to do with Mozart's death.

Salieri wasn't touring at age 10 like Mozart, but at age 16 he was able to impress Emperor Joseph II with his musical abilities. Salieri was successful and influential during his career. Some of his works (like "Tarare") were more highly regarded than some of Mozart's at the time. He was the opera director for the Habsburgs, and his operas were performed all over Europe. His students included Beethoven, Liszt, Schubert (and Mozart).

The process of canonization and vagaries of history also vastly exaggerate Mozart's contributions, and downplay the role of others, in the European musical tradition. Mozart was not working in total solitude, making radical changes without any input from anyone. He was listening to, learning from, and responding to his contemporaries and the context of his time.

Many who proclaim Mozart's genius have never listened to, let alone analyzed, works by his contemporaries. I'm fairly confident that most listeners, and probably some classical performers, couldn't tell if a composition they hadn't heard before was written by Salieri (or Kraus, or Vogler, or Cimarosa, or many other 18th century composers). And of course, if I play two pieces and tell you "the first is Mozart and the second is Salieri," all those years of being told that "Mozart is better than Salieri!" will undoubtedly cloud your judgment of the quality of the piece.

I.e. it's a bit silly to suggest that Salieri "didn't have It" based on Shaffer's play.



Maybe, but maybe not.

The majority of prodigies have an early head start, but in almost all cases, their peers catch up in a few years. At that point, learning is less about talent, and more about grinding out incremental gains with lots of hard, repetitive and boring work -- which doesn't always suit someone for whom skills and attention were acquired fast and early.

Dude.... he's already better than most of the people on this website. He's going be head shoulders above his peers for a long time. Also, I've been around and know child prodigies. They only get better.

 

[Jek Porkins]

This post started my day off great! Thanks boss!

 

[Jek Porkins]

This kid also marks his headstock with perma marker for his tuners various pitch differences and drop D like my daughter did at his age. My daughter can smoke me like a cheap guitar today! Both my adult kids play bass! It was fun watching them get better through the years and also makes me feel good cuz I taught them both. Great memories!

 

[Basslice]

Not only is his groove on point, but his bass face game is well beyond his years.

That Chyle has some serious stink face! What a great player!

I heard mama and papa talkin'
I heard papa tell mama let that boy boogie-woogie
It's in him and it got to come out... John Lee Hooker​

 

[Basslice]

I wonder if he's ever climbed a tree? Played some sandlot after school ball until dark? Spent time on a camping trip? Hang out with friends?

While I marvel at the way he, and other young prodigies play, it's at the cost of a significant part of being a kid. I find this somewhat bittersweet.

Puh-Leese! I see his face and don't doubt for a second this is way more fun for him than climbing a tree.

 

[Rip Van Dan]

LOVE IT!!!!! And you're right, not only is his bass playing right on, his bass faces are just as good!

 

[ClusterFlux]

Dude.... he's already better than most of the people on this website. He's going be head shoulders above his peers for a long time.

Or, not.

I was nowhere near as good as him at 9 years old, but I could certainly memorize and play more complicated pieces than that on a harder instrument (violin) when I was 12 or 13. And I was pretty average. I'm quite confident that if I had started bass at age 7, and spent 4-6 hours a day at it, I'd be fairly close to the kid in the OP.

Keep in mind that "ludicrous amounts of practice" is a common recipe for prodigies. Mozart, for example, was basically forced by his father to practice relentlessly. Lang Lang started at 3 1/2 years old, and had a grueling regime of practicing as a child; at age 9, his father told him he should commit suicide due to a "lack of talent."

Also, I've been around and know child prodigies. They only get better.

Oh, well that settles it. We can just ignore actual research on child prodigies because... you met a couple of 'em.

 

[wes stephenson]

Or, not.

I was nowhere near as good as him at 9 years old, but I could certainly memorize and play more complicated pieces than that on a harder instrument (violin) when I was 12 or 13. And I was pretty average. I'm quite confident that if I had started bass at age 7, and spent 4-6 hours a day at it, I'd be fairly close to the kid in the OP.

Keep in mind that "ludicrous amounts of practice" is a common recipe for prodigies. Mozart, for example, was basically forced by his father to practice relentlessly. Lang Lang started at 3 1/2 years old, and had a grueling regime of practicing as a child; at age 9, his father told him he should commit suicide due to a "lack of talent."



Oh, well that settles it. We can just ignore actual research on child prodigies because... you met a couple of 'em.

Okay, stud.

 

[Old Fart]

.
I.e. it's a bit silly to suggest that Salieri "didn't have It" based on Shaffer's play.

In the movie, this was Salieri's conclusion.

 

[David Jayne]

I hate to break it to you, but "Amadaeus" is rife with inaccuracies.

Shaffer and Foreman weren't even trying to be accurate. They deliberately played up the drama and fabricated events because it made for a compelling story.

Salieri and Mozart were rivals, but it was mostly about competing for the same work. They were generally friendly; Salieri supported Mozart's career during and after his life, including conducting his operas; and certainly had nothing to do with Mozart's death.

Salieri wasn't touring at age 10 like Mozart, but at age 16 he was able to impress Emperor Joseph II with his musical abilities. Salieri was successful and influential during his career. Some of his works (like "Tarare") were more highly regarded than some of Mozart's at the time. He was the opera director for the Habsburgs, and his operas were performed all over Europe. His students included Beethoven, Liszt, Schubert (and Mozart).

The process of canonization and vagaries of history also vastly exaggerate Mozart's contributions, and downplay the role of others, in the European musical tradition. Mozart was not working in total solitude, making radical changes without any input from anyone. He was listening to, learning from, and responding to his contemporaries and the context of his time.

Many who proclaim Mozart's genius have never listened to, let alone analyzed, works by his contemporaries. I'm fairly confident that most listeners, and probably some classical performers, couldn't tell if a composition they hadn't heard before was written by Salieri (or Kraus, or Vogler, or Cimarosa, or many other 18th century composers). And of course, if I play two pieces and tell you "the first is Mozart and the second is Salieri," all those years of being told that "Mozart is better than Salieri!" will undoubtedly cloud your judgment of the quality of the piece.

I.e. it's a bit silly to suggest that Salieri "didn't have It" based on Shaffer's play.



Maybe, but maybe not.

The majority of prodigies have an early head start, but in almost all cases, their peers catch up in a few years. At that point, learning is less about talent, and more about grinding out incremental gains with lots of hard, repetitive and boring work -- which doesn't always suit someone for whom skills and attention were acquired fast and early.

Point taken but he's got WAY more feel now than some guys I know who have WAY more chops. And that can only improve. I think that's what was meant by 'it.'

 

[fdeck]