If science can ever separate what a child learns, be it from the the environment, or from inheritance; I think that would be a good start.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Natural ability??
- Thread starter gai113
- Start date
nickbass79 said:
Yes. There are many things we can attribute to each. But at the same time, there are also many correlational occurrences in which environment and genetics cannot be separated, may it be a case of ethics or shear impossibility.
Anothony, I had no idea you were that deep man. I lobe science and philosophy. I think maybe I'll take a lesson from you just to pick your brain lol you have an awesome view of the world bro.
Blessings,
Shribs
Blessings,
Shribs
Ant Wellington said:
The original question was "Are People born with musical abilities?" You said NO, I said YES.
My point was that research has proven that every person is born with their own particular set of aptitudes in varying amounts. Some are extremely musically gifted, and most are so-so and make up for the ability by working hard and being diligent to become acceptably good. They will NEVER be as good as the skilled person that puts in the same amount of work. NEVER. Hard work is admirable, but you can practice for 100,000 hours and you will never paint like Monet or Michelangelo.
So, do you think the discussion in this thread has been confused between an ability:
1. the capacity to do something
2. talent that enables someone to achieve a great deal
(in the context of education) a level of mental power
a special talent or skill : much depends on the person's aptitudes.
(from my PC's dictionary)
and others talking about a 'natural' technical ability, meaning the educated and conditioned skills pertaining to a certain subject?
From all I have read, a natural ability, or mental capacity, only helps a person to condition and educate themselves in the chosen subject.
Yo Gio,
Tell me what 'musically gifted' means. Not a vague answer, but something specific. It's easy to be vague.
Tell me what musical ability Mozart was born with. What about Victor? Chick Corea? You?
Don't tell me 'fast fingers' that's not a musical ability. That's mechanical.
Like I said, be specific about musical ability. If you 'believe' that you should know what musical ability you were born with. Were you born know how to play scales. Did you know what a major 6th was? Could you sing? Solo over Giant Steps? Know the circle of 5ths. Double thump?
Enlighten me. I'm always open to change. But I have a ton of evidence that totally contradict what you say.
By the way,...have you read any of the books I mentioned?
-anthony
-anthony
Tell me what 'musically gifted' means. Not a vague answer, but something specific. It's easy to be vague.
Tell me what musical ability Mozart was born with. What about Victor? Chick Corea? You?
Don't tell me 'fast fingers' that's not a musical ability. That's mechanical.
Like I said, be specific about musical ability. If you 'believe' that you should know what musical ability you were born with. Were you born know how to play scales. Did you know what a major 6th was? Could you sing? Solo over Giant Steps? Know the circle of 5ths. Double thump?
Enlighten me. I'm always open to change. But I have a ton of evidence that totally contradict what you say.
By the way,...have you read any of the books I mentioned?
-anthony
-anthony
Gio S said:
Well I have no formal training in this area apart from a few undergrad educational psychology subjects, but this is the Internet where everyone is allowed an opinion.
I reckon that with practice your ability to perceive pitch improves. Can't prove or explain it, I just believe I've seen it in myself and other players I know.
I fully accept that some people are born with different levels of innate talent, but I also think determination can overcome limitations. If that's wrong, how did Douglas Bader fly aircraft after his accident? Or closer to home, how did a deaf man create the aching beauty of Beethoven's later symphonies?
Sometimes I think it's all about how bad you want something.
- Apr 24, 2004
- 1,359
- 53
- Disclosures
- Designer Fodera Guitars/Michael Pope Design, Inc., Trickfish Amplification
As I understand it, the bottom line is that people who are brilliant players/musicians use their nervous systems in a particular way that is different from most. That might be because of how they think, or how they are chemically made up, or what they've experienced, or how they were raised, or a combination of many factors.
But the one thing that I keep seeing is that there seems to be a tendancy to separate "mechanical" aspects of playing music from the "musical" or more abstract aspects. However, the reality is, our abstract musical minds, and our hearts and what have you, can't play the bass no matter how hard they try. We need some part of our bodies to do the actual mechanical playing. And that mechanical playing must be MUSICAL. Musical mechanics. You can't avoid it unless all you want to do is sit around and conceive music you can't play.
We perform mechanical tasks with our motor-nervous systems. And the motor nervous system is ALWAYS in between our conscious selves and our movements. In fact, we do not have any DIRECT conscious control over the movements we make. We have conscious WILL, and we delegate mechanical tasks to our motor-nervous system. We may feel like we're controlling our movements, but in reality our motor-nervous systems have gotten so good at making them, and our consciousness has gotten so comfortable with the MN system's ability to do it that it feels "second nature". We think it, and it happens. The problems happen...the sensation that we're "over-thinking"...when we start trying to consciously control movements that the MN system hasn't learned how to do well enough yet. And by consciously trying to control it, we inhibit the MN system from being able to learn it. The movement always feels labored and heavy inefficient...because it is.
There are also a PRE-conscious actions. Actions that take place in response to stimuli without any concious intervention. i.e. experiences I've had MANY times where I play something in response to something I've heard and only retroactively am able to comprehend what I've played...even though what I played was precisely what I intended to play. I think many players have experienced this. These pre-conscious actions can be learned. Lot's of people call it "muscle memory", but that is a total misnomer. Muscles don't remember things...they're not part of the nervous system. It's called "motor learning". This is a nervous skill that can be learned and it's not exclusively musical in scope. Learning how to do this is an important part of playing music well.
Mozart was said to have been able to compose a whole symphony in his mind in it's entirety before he wrote it down. First of all, is that really actually true, or did he have most of it worked out and the details came as the pen hit the paper? Second, if he COULD do this, it's more a feat of memory than music. Give me a day and I can show you 10 guys who can fully conceive of a bar, or 4 bars, of a whole symphonic score. Really not a big deal. And Mozart's music was most often not particularly "complex" when you compare it to Chopin after him or Bach before him.
Anthony, you may not feel like there is any such thing as natural ability, but I would assert that natural ability is simply too vague a term to prove or disprove. I think what natural ability actually is, is largely a propensity to learn in a way that is conducive to playing music. You obviously know how to learn that way, and so working your ass off has yielded great results. But someone else who practiced just as much as you, and practiced the same stuff, might not be as good, or might be a lot better, because of a natural resonance with the kinds of thought processes that tend toward making good music on a particular instrument. The way we think and our interface with the world appears to be something that is just "there" in us. Some newborn babies are naturally curious, some naturally careful, yada yada. And I think these traits have as much to do with how good they might or might be at music as anything else.
But the one thing that I keep seeing is that there seems to be a tendancy to separate "mechanical" aspects of playing music from the "musical" or more abstract aspects. However, the reality is, our abstract musical minds, and our hearts and what have you, can't play the bass no matter how hard they try. We need some part of our bodies to do the actual mechanical playing. And that mechanical playing must be MUSICAL. Musical mechanics. You can't avoid it unless all you want to do is sit around and conceive music you can't play.
We perform mechanical tasks with our motor-nervous systems. And the motor nervous system is ALWAYS in between our conscious selves and our movements. In fact, we do not have any DIRECT conscious control over the movements we make. We have conscious WILL, and we delegate mechanical tasks to our motor-nervous system. We may feel like we're controlling our movements, but in reality our motor-nervous systems have gotten so good at making them, and our consciousness has gotten so comfortable with the MN system's ability to do it that it feels "second nature". We think it, and it happens. The problems happen...the sensation that we're "over-thinking"...when we start trying to consciously control movements that the MN system hasn't learned how to do well enough yet. And by consciously trying to control it, we inhibit the MN system from being able to learn it. The movement always feels labored and heavy inefficient...because it is.
There are also a PRE-conscious actions. Actions that take place in response to stimuli without any concious intervention. i.e. experiences I've had MANY times where I play something in response to something I've heard and only retroactively am able to comprehend what I've played...even though what I played was precisely what I intended to play. I think many players have experienced this. These pre-conscious actions can be learned. Lot's of people call it "muscle memory", but that is a total misnomer. Muscles don't remember things...they're not part of the nervous system. It's called "motor learning". This is a nervous skill that can be learned and it's not exclusively musical in scope. Learning how to do this is an important part of playing music well.
Mozart was said to have been able to compose a whole symphony in his mind in it's entirety before he wrote it down. First of all, is that really actually true, or did he have most of it worked out and the details came as the pen hit the paper? Second, if he COULD do this, it's more a feat of memory than music. Give me a day and I can show you 10 guys who can fully conceive of a bar, or 4 bars, of a whole symphonic score. Really not a big deal. And Mozart's music was most often not particularly "complex" when you compare it to Chopin after him or Bach before him.
Anthony, you may not feel like there is any such thing as natural ability, but I would assert that natural ability is simply too vague a term to prove or disprove. I think what natural ability actually is, is largely a propensity to learn in a way that is conducive to playing music. You obviously know how to learn that way, and so working your ass off has yielded great results. But someone else who practiced just as much as you, and practiced the same stuff, might not be as good, or might be a lot better, because of a natural resonance with the kinds of thought processes that tend toward making good music on a particular instrument. The way we think and our interface with the world appears to be something that is just "there" in us. Some newborn babies are naturally curious, some naturally careful, yada yada. And I think these traits have as much to do with how good they might or might be at music as anything else.
Haha, I Have not read everyone's response, and even if I did, its sometimes a little ambiguous to fully grasps some of the people's point of views on what seems to be a pretty abstract concept.
I do see a major trend though. The comparison of skill, talent, practice and hard work. Your computer's definition is a bit misleading. It says the capacity to do something, then goes a head to give two meanings involving talent. Perhaps the word "ability" is misleading and not so much the computer definition. I have the ability (capacity definition) to perceive what we understand as "colors". When I say something is red, most people can generally agree that is red, or at least a type/shade of red. That is not a special skill or talent really. Although some people are deficient in this, it does not mean I have a special talent to understand red. I merely have the capacity to understand red, and other colors.
But TO understand red... is that "natural" ability? Well, maybe.. maybe not. I was born without being color blind. So my genetics say I am able to see color. However, "what is red" can be seen arbitrary, or scientific. I grew up being told that when I see a color of a certain characteristic, I was taught how to identify it by giving it a name (red, green, yellow). That was a learned ability (identifying red) based on genetics (I use genetics to describe my whole being without breaking it down by each system, like attributing credit to a functional occipital lope and cones of my eyes and what not.).
Think of this... Color (as a noun) is defined: "The property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way it reflects or emits light." (Googled "What is color") So what if we have a can of paint... the paint is open and we clearly see what we perceive as red... but then we close the paint can... There is no light, and no eyes to see the paint... Is it still red? (If a tree falls, and nothing is around to hear it.. Does it make a sound?) Granted, I highly doubt the chemistry of the paint changed, but there is no light (or eyes)... So maybe an essential ingredient was removed...... (I put this scenario together because it seems to show that one can understand red as a color, understand red as a result of light, understand red because I was taught what "red" is, and because it shows I have the capacity to try and negate red really exists [in the absence of light] )
So back to topic here... Along with the sense of sight, I was fortunate enough to be born with a sense of hearing. Like seeing different shades of red, I can hear different sounds. Maybe I can see and hear differently, perhaps "better" then another individual based on my genetic make up. Perhaps I can see and hear worse then another individual.
But why? Well.. It can deal with my brain and how my sensory perception developed. This is nature.
But at the same time, at a very young age I was constantly surrounded by music playing on my grandmas radio. I now have a deep love for Irish/Celtic music. Also, on long car rides, I remember hearing certain songs. These songs left a permanent nostalgic feeling. Most times when I hear Billy Joel - Piano Man, I am taken back to a point deep in my memory where I was sitting in my grandpas blue car, I believe in Manhattan (I remember being in the right or middle lane of the road approaching/ about to go under the L. (To those not familiar: L means Elevated Train, frequently found in nyc) Then my memory jumps to being in McDonalds and something involving a man in costume dressed with a quarter moon as his head.. He was a piano player... (weird now that I try and explain it instead of thinking about it..) These are examples of the environment playing an effect on my understanding of music. If I hear that opening scale run of piano man, I can pretty much recognize it, even out of context. (As in, I can associate that pitch/ scale to that song, and then recognize it out of the song... Like I can it is played in C Major, and I can more readily identify C Major because of it. Well, that song and because C major is the easiest scale in music.. it "The People's" Scale as I once heard, and I played it so many times in my piano classes.) That is nurture having an effect on my understanding and perception of sound.
Thats mostly about understanding music, and hearing it and what not. I doubt a child is born with the ability to pick up a guitar and just start strumming what he hears in his head. He has to learn what noise strings make, and at what fret as well. However, that child can have a predisposition, such as good "muscle memory," and a body type that more easily build up strength, dexterity etc (general motor ability stuff, functional nerve impulses that dictate what the muscles are supposed to do and such). These together is what I think people are calling "natural ability" It does not have to mean a natural ability to play music, but it seems like inherent qualities that facilitate the understanding of to how to hear and manipulate certain sounds.
I hope I didn't bounce around too much... I was kind of just rattling off what the voice in my head is telling me to say....
This is great! This is what forums should be about. We should've able to bounce around our ideas and thoughts without anyone being offended. We should all be willing to grow because if this because the growth and experience comes from exploring all possibilities.
I wonder if drummers have these kinds of discussions.
peace,
anthony
"Smells Like Funk"
I wonder if drummers have these kinds of discussions.
peace,
anthony
"Smells Like Funk"
Ant Wellington said:
My attempts at disguise are less than convincing.
Enjoyed the book myself. Been trying to employ the visualization techniques when I need to remember something important.
Does anyone think it takes a certain kind of personality that draws people to pick bass as their beginning instrument? Or is it other factors (environment / chance)?
Essentially this is what I'm trying to say. My sister and I were both surrounded with music. My Mother is VERY musical, my dad is not at all. My sister missed this predisposition to hear tones, match them to make harmonies and melodies.
My mother has a recording of me when I was about 3 or 4 months old. She would coo to me, and I would match in the exact tone and the same melody. I mother tried to teach my sister these traits, with piano lessons, drum lessons, singing..etc...etc. She just can't assimilate, but she is an amazing accountant with a true gift for math. I didn't need this, because music and hearing tones came naturally, or easily to me.
Like I said, I think people have taken the understanding of 'Natural Ability' to mean a more technical ability, not the inherent quality to understand and manipulate sounds.
I agree with you and would say that the "natural resonance" is immersion at a young age. Some folks' natural ability is really nurture that you're not privy too. Kids who are immersed in musical language during the time they are learning language stand a great chance of having an easy time thinking musically, especially if it's encouraged outright.
This is an immense advantage, provided your musical will is something you or anyone would want to hear.
The artistic parts of musicmaking are in between all the things that you can measure.
What about singing? I don't believe any amount of vocal lessons or practice is going to change the tone of my voice; which isn't good. lol
You can't change de tone of your voice but you can improve your technic and intonation. Like on bass, you can't change your tone that much unless you play a bass with different p/up configuration or fretted vs fretless.
- Apr 24, 2004
- 1,359
- 53
- Disclosures
- Designer Fodera Guitars/Michael Pope Design, Inc., Trickfish Amplification
The artistic parts of musicmaking are every bit as quantifiable as the mechanical ones. When you can do something artistic the same way, every time, with consistency and predictability, it is quantified. It's non-verbal knowledge and it's just as real and legitimate as verbal knowledge. Problem is, in many cases it takes as much skill to listen and comprehend that art as it does to play it. So it's a small audience.
I know, from playing a lot of classical piano lately, that the skill required to play a high level classical piece on piano far exceeds the skill required to play anything on the electric bass. There is a level of athleticism mixed with EXTREMELY FINE motor skills that doesn't happen on, I think, any other instrument. I've not reached, nor will I reach, a concert pianist's level, but I've spent enough time with it now (many, many, many hours) to know more about what it really takes than the vast majority of people who are NOT pianists. One thing I learned for sure, anytime someone says "classical music is so much easier than jazz or other improvised music because all you have to do is read what's on the page", you can be sure they've never actually played classical music in any serious way.
