Peeps who can't keep a beat

[honeyiscool]

Nurture, nature, sure, but nothing changes the fact that some people are just better at music than others, growing up in the household, born to the same parents, having the same practice schedules, etc.

It's obvious to me that your likelihood of becoming a Vladimir Horowitz or Victor Wooten is like becoming a Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson. You need a rare gift, and you need serious amounts of dedication. It's weird to me that people just accept that some people will be better and have natural talents at football, basketball, or golf, but switch the topic to something of the mind and the same people are so indignant by the whole prospect.

Anyway, 10,000 seems high. I know I had half that at 12 years old and I was speaking music more fluently than words by then.

 

[mambo4]

this thread has become quite informative.
It seems that at least some scientific research affirms that talent is acquired, not innate. I am humbly yet appropriately smug

(Edit: spellcheck made it NON scientific)

 

[IbanezSGfan]

I agree with the growing out of it theory and believe it is teachable, although it may take more time and effort than it may take others. My little brother started drums at 6 and is going through jazz technique and metal books like crazy and he's only 15. But it came through hard work and many lessons and not just by the grace of a gifted sense of timing or anything. Having said that, some people are born with it, and then they put learning (SKILL) on top of natural talent and become masters of their skill. I really don't think any child should be discouraged from playing even if they are tone-deaf, have zero hand coordination, and no sense of rhythm (poor kid ) But I feel this way because music, for alot of kids, is a way to keep them occupied and be filling their time with something worthwhile instead of getting in trouble or wasting their life on t.v. or the internet, (like we're all doing right now ) but anyway, it can be learned, may take a little longer and may never be fantastic but with hard work and dicipline it (along with other skills) are possible.

 

[Skitch it!]

this thread has become quite informative.
It seems that at least some nonscientific research affirms that talent is acquired, not innate. I am humbly yet appropriately smug

What is your take on Jaco's creativity, jus' saying, as a matter of interest?

 

[suraci]

I cannot read pages 2 or 3. I am redirected to an incorrect page.. thread ends HERE!!

My 2 cents. I believe in reincarnation, as did Henry Ford. Ford said this gives a person a very relaxed attitude... better yet, here is a quote from an extremely talented person: Mr Ford is quoted as saying "I adopted the theory of reincarnation when I was 26. Genius is experience. Some think to seem ( typo on net! ) that it is a gift or talent, but it is the fruit of long experience in many lives".

So there is more than one issue here. If a person can't clap, it is a very bad idea to break their spirit, saying stuff that will discourage them.. usually the vulnerable young. Discouraging another person, is a bad bad idea.
But to say that Mozart at 5, was not astronomically beyond the average person, is also quite untrue. Nurture nature, ought to be examined in the light of Mr Ford's wise words. Given enough time and effort, we will all have our hearts desire and more.

 

[suraci]

The culture we presently live in.. despises the idea that some folks are incredibly superior to other people. The idea of equality is shoved in our faces 24 7. It is a lie, whose roots I care not to know.
The difference between a Jaco and a tone deaf person is NOT just one or two lifetimes.
For one thing, part of talent itself, is a huge desire to practice. We all know the "eyes glazed over" when someone brings up a topic we don't find ourselves drawn to.. eg physics, sports trivia, insurance actuary, periodic tables, nursing, diatonic scales.
We are all very much the same, and very different too.
But part of talent is INTEREST in the topic, in everything about it. The so called tone deaf person ( actually this may be a fact ) will not only have to deal with his innate difficult with the subject chemistry, syncopation, the law whatever but he or she will be daily falling more and more behind the talented person, not to mention the genius. '
First day the non talented person will barely get in 1 hour of practice ( because he has endure his lack of aptitude ) while the talented LOVE the topic.
It is like comparing crawling to a distant point, to walking to driving to a space craft. The differences over time are huge. And this explains to me why Mozart at 10 is SOOO far ahead of a merely talented person, not to mention a tone deaf person.

I wrote this to help open eyes.. again, the powers that be, have their own reasons for teaching us equality rules. It's a nice idea, but not true.

 

[suraci]

It's obvious to me that your likelihood of becoming a Vladimir Horowitz or Victor Wooten is like becoming a Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson.
You need a rare gift, and you need serious amounts of dedication.

It's weird to me that people just accept that some people will be better and have natural talents at football, basketball, or golf, but switch the topic to something of the mind and the same people are so indignant by the whole prospect.

.

you are right on the mark, Mr Perfect ha ha

 

[dpbass66]

SURACI...right on!! +1

We coddle our children and tell them "everyone and everything is equal in life, and that life is always fair", we reinforce homogeneity in our education systems, political correctness is run amock so nobody's feelings can ever be offended or hurt (regardless of the truth.....).....

so what does this have to do with one side of this discussion....it seems some are determined to (yet again) champion the musically unfortunate. "its OK, anyone can do it...." Ya know, some people are talented, they are born with an innate predisposition for rhythm, sound, and artistry. They are hardwired. Others (most of us) fall somewhere in the middle, and get pretty good or even exceptionally good at music because we have a great work ethic. Others have no innate talent whatsoever, and no matter how hard they work at it, they will basically always suck.

Why does this offend some poeple? If I made that statement about architects or accountants or auto mechanics nobody would care, but becasue its music we all get bent out of shape.

I have observed friends who can take apart a radio or lawnmower and rebuild it....with improvements....or others who can draw a perfect likeness of anything they see...... in any pursuit there are those that have "something going on" as we say.

When I was at Berklee, it was apparent who had "it" and who didnt. In academic classes, in private lessons, in ensembles, some peeps just killed it, others had to drop out, and there were many in the middle, most in fact, that struggled on one level or another to make it happen.

Fact is, human ability is not black and white, it is a spectrum. We arent "either-or". This is the beauty of the human species. Our diversity is the result of eons of evolution that in a macro sense benefits us all.

I'll never be able to fix my own vehicles, and I am glad that there is someone who can do it for me.

 

[suraci]

SURACI...right on!! +1

We coddle our children and tell them "everyone and everything is equal in life, and that life is always fair", we reinforce homogeneity in our education systems, political correctness is run amock so nobody's feelings can ever be offended or hurt (regardless of the truth.....).....

so what does this have to do with one side of this discussion....it seems some are determined to (yet again) champion the musically unfortunate. "its OK, anyone can do it...." Ya know, some people are talented, they are born with an innate predisposition for rhythm, sound, and artistry. They are hardwired. Others (most of us) fall somewhere in the middle, and get pretty good or even exceptionally good at music because we have a great work ethic. Others have no innate talent whatsoever, and no matter how hard they work at it, they will basically always suck.

Why does this offend some poeple? If I made that statement about architects or accountants or auto mechanics nobody would care, but becasue its music we all get bent out of shape.

I have observed friends who can take apart a radio or lawnmower and rebuild it....with improvements....or others who can draw a perfect likeness of anything they see...... in any pursuit there are those that have "something going on" as we say.

When I was at Berklee, it was apparent who had "it" and who didnt. In academic classes, in private lessons, in ensembles, some peeps just killed it, others had to drop out, and there were many in the middle, most in fact, that struggled on one level or another to make it happen.

Fact is, human ability is not black and white, it is a spectrum. We arent "either-or". This is the beauty of the human species. Our diversity is the result of eons of evolution that in a macro sense benefits us all.

I'll never be able to fix my own vehicles, and I am glad that there is someone who can do it for me.

+1 to the 30th power.. ( I think that's still +1 only... but then again algebra was never my thing... ha ha )

Before I go OT... I agree with you.
I think we should be kind to the less talented but esp to the talentless. Then again who is totally without SOME talent at SOMETHING?

Late... I will be back later tonight

 

[BassyBill]

I guess I did make a bit of a blanket statement there...but I do think that 'natural talent' is a bit of myth. Some people are clearly better than others, but I don't think it's because of some magic 'talent dust' they were sprinkled with in utero.

Talent is acquired, not innate: Nurture, not nature.

I really think it's a combination of both.

Neary all variation in populations has a genetic component and I can't think of a compelling reason why musical aptitude should be an exception to this.

 

[BassyBill]

You are setting up a false dichotomy. Science is just organized observation and, if done properly, accounts for individual biases, statistical anomalies, etc. So it's not a matter of being sure or unsure of one's own powers of observation. Rather, it's using a proven method to greatly improve and enhance the quality and accuracy of your own observations.

Great post.

 

[polyrhythmia]

At the age of 30, I set out to learn how to play cross rhythms. When I started I could not even play the basic 2 against 3 rhythm. After several years of trying, I finally got the hang of it and now do such cross rhythms without much thought. I don't consider being able to play cross rhythms a talent, but rather it was something I earned.

I don't know if any of you have ever heard of Temple Grandin, an autistic woman famous for designing slaughterhouses. She says she can't find the beat and clap along with a song. It may well be that there are those who just don't have rhythm.

I have read that most people have some degree of absolute pitch recognition. Given a familiar song, most people can sing it close to the key it is in and even come close to the tempo and this is a capella singing. The karaoke song 'The Lion Sleeps Tonight' (at least the version I did once) demands you hit the right pitch because there is no harmony to guide you. Somehow I hit the right pitch for that, but I wouldn't say I have perfect pitch.

I wonder if there isn't something genetically different in Asians that led them to use tones in language in the first place.

I definitely agree that it's much better to start younger, but I didn't have that chance.

 

[fractiouslowend]

No. I'm saying you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

but you do need one to tell you how the wind will blow tomorrow

 

[fractiouslowend]

I'm sorry but that's BS.

Ever since the age of 5, I've been able to name every note I've ever heard. Before I even took piano lessons, I was able to do that. And it's not like my parents were professional musicians. They liked music, but I didn't have early exposure to music. And by the age 9, I could probably do dictations better than the majority of music majors despite never having trained in that skill because I never needed to. I've always just been able to do it.

My absolute pitch has to be a natural gift, and I have seen no evidence that people who do not possess this skill can develop it. Talent cannot be learned, and if it could, I'd have met people with my set of skills by now who acquired them through practice and can exercise that skill to the same level of proficiency as I can. But sorry, I just haven't met that.

That's just one example. Absolute pitch is not something that makes or breaks a musician but it can help make someone's musical life a million times easier, since I do not have to look up tabs, notation, or anything like that unless I want to learn specifics of a certain fingering. Simply listening to music is enough for me to acquire and learn it.

It's important to note that people can make up for the lack of certain natural talents with lots of hard work and practice but to say that natural talent is a myth? Find me someone who trained his ears to be as good as mine were at age 5, and I'll support your claim.

i find this very hard to believe. So you're saying that, even before you had any lessons on musical theory, you could identify a soundwave at 880hz and identify it as an 'A' note?
how did you know what the note was if you've never had any lessons?

 

[suraci]

i find this very hard to believe. So you're saying that, even before you had any lessons on musical theory, you could identify a soundwave at 880hz and identify it as an 'A' note?
how did you know what the note was if you've never had any lessons?

TALENT!!!, which, according to Ford, is simply experience... that is, PAST life experience. Once you consider that you have 10's of thousands of years ( incomprehensible, but my mind is open to this, and I do not use drugs!! ) to have your experiences... everything else makes sense.
honey said it, why doubt it?

 

[Tom_RCJ]

Talent, whether learned or not, is nice and all, but there's two other things I find of great importance; interest and fear.

I've seen some with disgusting levels of talent who didn't really care much about music beyond playing 3-4 tunes. It's fun for them, but not something they care enough about to invest any kind of work into. They play their tunes and go back to watching the game or hanging out with friends.

I've seen others who love music, and want to learn, yet fear keeps them from ever finding out if they have any talent at all. They lock themselves up at a certain point and don't dare take it any more seriously for fear of seeming silly, or maybe for fear of failing.

I'd even add physiology into the equation. Muscular and skeletal builds can certainly make things much easier. If the tendons in your hand are formed in such a way that there is no smooth transition from one position to the next, it will affect your performance. If some are born with physical builds that make it difficult for them to work certain "grunt" jobs, is it such a stretch to assume some would be at a constant disadvantage musically. If talent can be considered to be "innate", then should physiology not also be considered part of ones talent?

The question of "talent" just becomes too complicated and arbitrary for me. I say who cares about talent, just do what you love and love what you do. Whether you care about what others say about your talent level determines whether you see music as a form of expression or a form of communication. Both views are valid I guess, they just have different applications.

(It's late, sorry if this isn't written coherently, I did my best)

 

[doktorfeelgood]

IMHO, musical talent can be acquired many ways. You can be born with it in any number of ways and you can learn it in many ways as well. But rhythm, to me, is quite another story. I did many gigs in the Blues band I work in with a drummer that had a degree from Berklee and he had a good sound and nice drums but he didn't know what a groove was if he had fallen in it. It was very frustrating because he cold not improvise Blues feels and beginnings and endings and his tempo's were very erratic most of the time. It seems like I've been blessed with good time and I used to try to get him to just listen to me and follow what I was doing as well as dancing in his line of sight so he would have visual clues to the groove and that didn't work either. So my personal theory on drummers and rhythm is "Good Drummers Are Born, Not Made"... And everybody on any bandstand is responsible for the groove, not JUST the drummer. )-(

 

[suraci]

Talent, whether learned or not, is nice and all, but there's two other things I find of great importance; interest and fear...........

Suraci asks Why assume that INTEREST is not inextricably tied to TALENT?

Ditto for physiology????

I repeat, it is all about "we have all lived before" Crosby Stills

What I have gleaned from my life is: Life is about DESIRE, we come into life because of desire and the ramifications of DESIRE... aka karma. Big hands and fingertips are cool for bass. I have a hunch that strong, long held desire to play bass, CREATED those big hands.

Talent is a vague word when you analyze it, but the results of a talent are pretty amazing, and clear enough.
Take the most difficult talent in music... MELODY. How many great melodies have you heard? ( rhetorical )
If anything can't be taught it is writing a great melody... ok a generalization, but a darn strong one!

 

[Matthijs]

A big +1 on Tom's post.

Nobody doubt's the existence of talent, what is in question is how relevant it is when you want to acuire a certain skill. For a very small percentage their talent might be big enough to step outside the normal proces of learning, for the vast majority that's irrelevant. For them all their talent's outweigh each other, and in this I'm including the talent to work, the talent to focus for a considerable time, the talent to listen to someone else or take advise.

It also doesn't matter what the origin of all that talent is: nurture, nature, past lives, air spirits, .. What is important is not to take it as a predestination, because that just makes it into a reason for not having to learn and blame your upbringing, genes, forefathers or bad spirits.

In learning it's for most of us not the talent that predicts succes (exept for that extremely small minority) It's about making your 10.000 hours and most of all about managing fears: the fear to look silly, the fear it all will be in vain, the fear you won't live up to the expectations, the fear of predestination.

 

[suraci]

You have added many behind the lines, kind of emotions to this topic.
I quoted Ford as saying genius is experience. Genius tends to make these huge leaps, that normal people can't quite cope with. Genius is experience... period.
No one is holding anyone hostage to put 10000 hours in etc. I suspect it is more than a mere 10000 hours to go from below average to Mozart.. btw. My point is genius is experience.

And Tom said The question of "talent" just becomes too complicated and arbitrary for me. I say who cares about talent, just do what you love and love what you do. Whether you care about what others say about your talent level determines whether you see music as a form of expression or a form of communication. ....

This sounds good to me... except the who cares talent.. part. Talent is real. Without it, there is no music worthy of the name.
The part I agree the most with is " just do what you love and love what you do." THAT is the key to this whole topic. Follow your bliss.
BUT Talent, and genius ARE real enough.