Innate inability?

[Bruce Lindfield]

In this case, I say it just comes down to how much time effort and determination you are motivated to put into it!

Find the best teachers, spend every minute of your life studying and practicing composition etc. etc. - then there is nothing to stop you writing a great symphony - many have done who were blind, deaf or had many other physical disadvantages .....

 

[dancing_chris]

"You're born with a spark... to search the truth, for the best you can be. Practice. Discipline. Preperation. Try and try again. Then one day you're on top and they say you're an 'overnight success,' a 'natural.' You smile, you know." (Anonymous)

 

[nonohmic]

But all this stuff about athletes is totally irrelevant anyway, as what was under discussion was the idea of an innate inability to compose a tune - which requires no physiological advantages and no skill whatsoever as a player!!

There is no reverse racism, I am talking from a purely scientific point of view.

OK, I agree I got off topic with the mechanics.

But using that as an example, just as genetics dictates physical features, hypothetically there could be genetic switches that provide a person with an innate ability to write songs. And if a person is without the encoding, the ability is absent.

 

[MegaSwing]

There are very few Mozarts. There are also idiot savants that can hear a complicated piece and then play it note for note. I'm more along the line of idiot nonsavant---but I work hard and I get better. Having said that, I KNOW I can't sing and have been frequently reminded of that fact. In fact, it is illegal for me to sing in most states (although I am allowed to hum softly in most). Keep fighting the battle daily and you'll win the war.

The problem with idiot savants is that it is usually impossible to separate the idiot from the savant, usually making them a real pain in the ass to work with. See: Mozart, Beethoven, Jaco, Mingus, Miles Davis...the list is long. Nobody gets everything, that's for sure.

My thing is that if you can play what you're hearing in your head with just enough technique to get it out, then you're way farther along as an artist than someone who has all the theory and technique in the world with little or nothing to say. It is incredible to me how many supremely skilled classically-trained musicians cannot improvise at all. The percentage is high.

At the end of the game, music --as are all the abstract arts I can think of-- is primarily an emotional exercise. If you cannot make an audience feel something, if you cannot connect with it on an emotional level, what it hears goes largely for nought, and might as well be numbers on a bank statement.

Edward G.
Baltimore, MD

 

[WillPlay4Food]

My thing is that if you can play what you're hearing in your head with just enough technique to get it out, then you're way farther along as an artist than someone who has all the theory and technique in the world with little or nothing to say. It is incredible to me how many supremely skilled classically-trained musicians cannot improvise at all. The percentage is high.

If I could do this on my 4 string bass I wouldn't care how much theory I did or didn't know. In fact, I have a much easier time playing a 1 string wastub bass then I do a 4 string fretted bass.

I could play any line I thought of on the washtub bass after about 2 hours of playing it. I've been playing the electric bass for 4 years and still can't play what pops into my head without recording me humming it, then playing it back and picking it out in groups of notes on my bass (theory knowledge helps this part go faster).

At least I know what I want out of bass. Just gotta keep working at it until it becomes an amplifier for the music playing in my head.

 

[nonohmic]

Find the best teachers, spend every minute of your life studying and practicing composition etc. etc. - then there is nothing to stop you writing a great symphony - many have done who were blind, deaf or had many other physical disadvantages .....

This is true. If you are not born with an innate ability to compose then you can put in the work and create a masterpiece.

BUT. Your work will be coming from methodical, logical path. If you learn enough, then you will know what constitutes a great symphony and you will be able to piece one together. I think that is different to a great composer feeling his way to a symphony.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

My thing is that if you can play what you're hearing in your head with just enough technique to get it out, then you're way farther along as an artist than someone who has all the theory and technique in the world with little or nothing to say. It is incredible to me how many supremely skilled classically-trained musicians cannot improvise at all. The percentage is high.

At the end of the game, music --as are all the abstract arts I can think of-- is primarily an emotional exercise. If you cannot make an audience feel something, if you cannot connect with it on an emotional level, what it hears goes largely for nought, and might as well be numbers on a bank statement.

Edward G.
Baltimore, MD

I agree with a lot of what you say but have a couple of bones to pick.

First, just being able to get out what you hear in your head with just enough technique does NOT make you farther along as an artist *unless what you want to say is worth hearing* (however one might judge that). It doesn't matter if you can get your ideas out if they don't move anybody.

Second, you seem to be implying that classical musicians who can't improvise have little or nothing to say. If that's what you meant, it's way off base. (If it's not, disregard the following.) There is absolutely no necessary connection between improvising and having something musical to say. None. Zero. In that genre, the performer's artistry is in the execution and the interpretation, and you can say a great deal with that. The idea that someone of the level of Rubinstein or Zukerman or Segovia has little to say is IMO not reality-based.

 

[ras1983]

the ability to improvise is the ability to listen to your emotions, and then to tell others what your emotions are saying. everyone has emotions, so everyone has the foundations to improvise.

BUT, there are some who can listen to their emotions far better than others, and there are some who can put that into a musical context far better than others.

i know of several classically trained musicians who can't do any of that, not because they lack the ability, but because they have never spent time PRACTISING the above. as jazz or rock musicians, a lot of time is spent on improvising and communicating with others through your instrument, and this is an opportunity that many classically trained musicians don't spend much time on.

But thats all it is, a matter of practice, because the art of improvising and being musical is inherent in every human being.

 

[MegaSwing]

I agree with a lot of what you say but have a couple of bones to pick.

First, just being able to get out what you hear in your head with just enough technique does NOT make you farther along as an artist *unless what you want to say is worth hearing* (however one might judge that). It doesn't matter if you can get your ideas out if they don't move anybody.

Second, you seem to be implying that classical musicians who can't improvise have little or nothing to say. If that's what you meant, it's way off base. (If it's not, disregard the following.) There is absolutely no necessary connection between improvising and having something musical to say. None. Zero. In that genre, the performer's artistry is in the execution and the interpretation, and you can say a great deal with that. The idea that someone of the level of Rubinstein or Zukerman or Segovia has little to say is IMO not reality-based.

I have no argument with anything you say. Those guys clearly are extraordinary talents.

Interpretive skill is the ability to connect emotionally with an audience. (If your ideas are mundane, how exactly are you going to do this?) How you get there technically has infinite variations. Some people just get it; others never get near. I know some very skilled, highly trained players who are just not fun to play with or listen to, but they sure are fun to watch just because they are so dexterous. But it can be like having a gourmet recipe prepared by a chemist instead of a chef.

Having nothing to say --however you define it-- is the biggest curse of all. (No --check that-- not knowing you have nothing to say is the biggest curse of all.) Fortunately, everyone who tries hard enough seems to find an audience somewhere.

As for myself, all I want is to make people dance.

Edward G.
Baltimore, MD

 

[Marcus Willett]

I believe some people are simply willing to put more time, effort and love into their playing....I would say any person who puts music first will be able to reach the highest level of musicianship because they will never fail to try anything to get better.

In my experience (don't ask me for evidence; ain't got none but I know what I know) I think this is somewhat true, but the original premise postulated by Zerozeddy is also somewhat true.

I've seen way too many guys who practice their butts off, listen to all the right stuff, know all their stuff and even play pretty well, but even after years and years there's still something missing. And it's a consensus of people I know, not just my personal taste.

I've also seen the opposite; one guy in particular. Guys who just can pick up stuff immediately, have an almost immediate intuitive grasp of playing things with minimal thought or effort.

I think both things are true to an extent. Anyone can get better with hard work. Some people are more "gifted" (for lack of a better word) than others as well. This doesn't mean the former person is doomed to mediocrity any more than the latter person being guaranteed greatness. But I do think it's true that some will have to work much harder to achieve a level of musicianship that for others will just come naturally.

Nobody ever said life was fair, and if they did...they were lying to you.

Having said all that, so what? Be the best musician you can be, and that's all that matters in the end. Music should never be a competition...there's way too much of that in music already.

 

[FaithNoMan]

If I could do this on my 4 string bass I wouldn't care how much theory I did or didn't know. In fact, I have a much easier time playing a 1 string wastub bass then I do a 4 string fretted bass.

I could play any line I thought of on the washtub bass after about 2 hours of playing it. I've been playing the electric bass for 4 years and still can't play what pops into my head without recording me humming it, then playing it back and picking it out in groups of notes on my bass (theory knowledge helps this part go faster).

At least I know what I want out of bass. Just gotta keep working at it until it becomes an amplifier for the music playing in my head.

+1

How true.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/innate

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

This is true. If you are not born with an innate ability to compose then you can put in the work and create a masterpiece.

BUT. Your work will be coming from methodical, logical path. If you learn enough, then you will know what constitutes a great symphony and you will be able to piece one together. I think that is different to a great composer feeling his way to a symphony.

How do you know this - do you know how every great composer worked?

I've read many biographies of symphonists and what is remarkable is how differnet every one is !!

I would say that Mahler is the master symphonist drawing inspiration from nature and getting out of his head what he wanted to say and expressing it perfectly.

But many people prefer Brahms, who to me has no individual inspiration and his first symphony was a blatant copy of Beethoven - he even "lifts" melodies.

It's quite clear to me that Brahms was just studying and working hard - analysing what made Beethoven great and making his own music from that...

I would say that he has no innate ability - but he worked very hard to produce complex work and occasionally - like with the German Requiem he touched genius...

And I believe many well-know composers had no innate ability - they were motivated by family and situation to work hard and study...

 

[nonohmic]

I have to say Bruce, that I am out of my depth.
My knowledge of classical composers is minimal and I cannot hope to form an argument against you.

My original point was only to say that just as genetics can provide individuals with advantages, so can they do the opposite.

And it is POSSIBLE, that this can apply to songwriting.

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

I have to say Bruce, that I am out of my depth.
My knowledge of classical composers is minimal and I cannot hope to form an argument against you.

Why make unsupported and unresearched statements as if they are facts, then...?

Just because you would like something to be true, doesn't mean it is the case...

SEE : "Creationism"

 

[Zerozeddy]

Why make unsupported and unresearched statements as if they are facts, then...?

To spark debate, to take part in debate, to question the validity of sacred cows' sacredness, to rile those who are better informed. Stuff like that.

 

[nonohmic]

Fair enough, but I also explicitly stated.......I think.......hypothetically........in my opinion...etc etc.

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

To spark debate, to take part in debate, to question the validity of sacred cows' sacredness, to rile those who are better informed. Stuff like that.

But then you can't expect not to be "called out" on this....