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.
Peeps who can't keep a beat
- Thread starter Joe Nerve
- Start date
Fixed.
Do you know the difference between a pilot and the weatherman? If the pilot's wrong the pilot dies. If the weatherman's wrong, the pilot dies.
Edit: As a side note, I thought it was humorous that it said the ones that practiced less became teachers, who's opinions were used to determine which students were most likely to succeed.
Where are all the "scientists" on this board that are always ready to point out the faults in studies?
Pat Martino, Rufus Ried, Jim Hall, Mick Goodrick, Ron Carter and many others are teachers. I guess they should practice harder.
Absurd. Some people's brains are naturally wired for talent of one kind or another; some to an extreme, giving us savants. It's not called talent dust, it's called genetic predisposition. When you see a five-year-old playing Bach on the piano, you'd better believe there's a lot of natural talent behind it.
"Keeping a beat" can be taught to anyone as long as the student is willing to put in the effort. Here is how you do it: break down any rhythmical passage into its smallest underling rhythmical unit. So if the smallest unit in 4/4 time is, for example, a sixteenth note, then isolate each sixteenth note into groups of four sixteenth notes (regardless of ties/syncopation/etc.). The first sixteenth of each group of four is your beat. This can be done with other time signatures and underlying smallest beats. This all must be processed very quickly, so this method of locating beats must be practiced and one does have to have a functional understanding of musical structure. If you just try to "feel" the beat, then you get into these ridiculous debates where those than can are talented and those can't are not. Find the underling smallest rhythmic unit and group them according to the time signature.
ILIA said:
Ilia's point is close to my thinking. I belive most musical ability is acquired by practice. At first the new ideas/techniques must be broken down into explicit building blocks, and conciuosly processed to execute the music. Over time, with practice, these concious elements transform into unconcious ear and muscle memory....we "feel" the music.
This reminds me of an earlier thread asking if "groove" can be taught, with responses falling along similar lines. Although "keeping a beat" is much more precise (and therefore teachable) concept than the nebulous "groove".
On the point of genetics and brain wiring: there is research to suggest that early environmental factors (like exposure to music in infancy) influence the formation of brain "wiring" , but can also influence the expression of certain genes as well. (I'm not a scientist, just and avid reader of science books) It seems to me that nature and nurture are perhaps more interconnected than it may seem at first, and blanket statements about either don't stand up to deeper examination.
I see you " scientists " are having your way here on this topic.
I agree that ( correct ) practice is the way. But also playing with others. Practice alone will not suffice. The devil is in the details. If a person is not a natural for things rhythmic, he will be WAAAYYY behind his more talented brethren. He will therefore not be in bands, where his more talented elders will be. If he can hang in there though, who can say. This is where love and will come in. I say love and will ARE A PART OF TALENT. Talent, that some of you are a little wishy washy about admitting is a very real thing. A thing based on tremendous heart and "guts" ( grit willpower perseverance ) aka "dues paid" over a very long period of time.
Practice with a metronome or recording is a help, but you still have to play with others to make it a part of your process. Playing metronomically even for a talent, takes a LOT of work... meaning UNTOLD HOURS.
Add to that time, the ability to groove, because who wants to play with a grooveless person. Basically the talentless will get there, but they have very large obstacles.
The odds are very heavily against a person lacking ability in rhythm to ever get to play bass ( bass especially ) with decent players, let alone groove players.
BUT, I strongly encourage and applaud any effort to try. Improvement, expansion, is the best thing we can do; regardless if we are a small or large duck in our pond.
The thing about music ( and life ) is it is vastly hierarchal. The difference between a MAster and a low talent is greater than we imagine. But a strong indomitable will, is nothing to sneeze at.
I agree that ( correct ) practice is the way. But also playing with others. Practice alone will not suffice. The devil is in the details. If a person is not a natural for things rhythmic, he will be WAAAYYY behind his more talented brethren. He will therefore not be in bands, where his more talented elders will be. If he can hang in there though, who can say. This is where love and will come in. I say love and will ARE A PART OF TALENT. Talent, that some of you are a little wishy washy about admitting is a very real thing. A thing based on tremendous heart and "guts" ( grit willpower perseverance ) aka "dues paid" over a very long period of time.
Practice with a metronome or recording is a help, but you still have to play with others to make it a part of your process. Playing metronomically even for a talent, takes a LOT of work... meaning UNTOLD HOURS.
Add to that time, the ability to groove, because who wants to play with a grooveless person. Basically the talentless will get there, but they have very large obstacles.
The odds are very heavily against a person lacking ability in rhythm to ever get to play bass ( bass especially ) with decent players, let alone groove players.
BUT, I strongly encourage and applaud any effort to try. Improvement, expansion, is the best thing we can do; regardless if we are a small or large duck in our pond.
The thing about music ( and life ) is it is vastly hierarchal. The difference between a MAster and a low talent is greater than we imagine. But a strong indomitable will, is nothing to sneeze at.
To the question of whether or not the ability to understand and execute rhythm in a musical context can be learned - I have personally seen a person who has both had the benefit of school music education, private music education and logged easily over 10,000 hours of practice time and to this day still cannot both play and count.
He can do one or the other separately - count 1, 2, 3, 4, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 3, 4, etc... OR play a previously defined phrase perfectly without rushing or dragging - but ask him to manufacture a bit of improv in 4/4 and demonstrate that he knows where he is, time-wise, nope.
No matter how hard he tries - and he is fully aware of his deficit - he, when playing, cannot simultaneously acknowledge where the bars are. He can play 'in' time - in that he does not rush or drag - he can play a pre-existing piece of music and correctly appear to negotiate the bars - but when he's faced with being spontaneously creative AND demonstrate awareness of time signature, he simply cannot do the two things at once.
He is a highly intelligent person who was able to make it through college level math. He is literate and aware. He is equally aware that he has a fundamental disconnect with how to count within the context of a time signature and has tired many different ways to overcome it unsuccessfully. He's learned to compensate by playing in bands he either forms himself and surrounds himself with people who are OK with this and provide him a vehicle to do his thing where his time deficit disorder is minimized - but he really does have such a deficit and it appears that he really cannot overcome it.
So - long winded as that was - I've seen at least one person who should be able to lean it - has taken all the steps one can take to learn it and has not been able to incorporate it into his DNA. Rare as he may be - I know that even with hard work and assistance, some people just cannot connect those dots.
He can do one or the other separately - count 1, 2, 3, 4, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 3, 4, etc... OR play a previously defined phrase perfectly without rushing or dragging - but ask him to manufacture a bit of improv in 4/4 and demonstrate that he knows where he is, time-wise, nope.
No matter how hard he tries - and he is fully aware of his deficit - he, when playing, cannot simultaneously acknowledge where the bars are. He can play 'in' time - in that he does not rush or drag - he can play a pre-existing piece of music and correctly appear to negotiate the bars - but when he's faced with being spontaneously creative AND demonstrate awareness of time signature, he simply cannot do the two things at once.
He is a highly intelligent person who was able to make it through college level math. He is literate and aware. He is equally aware that he has a fundamental disconnect with how to count within the context of a time signature and has tired many different ways to overcome it unsuccessfully. He's learned to compensate by playing in bands he either forms himself and surrounds himself with people who are OK with this and provide him a vehicle to do his thing where his time deficit disorder is minimized - but he really does have such a deficit and it appears that he really cannot overcome it.
So - long winded as that was - I've seen at least one person who should be able to lean it - has taken all the steps one can take to learn it and has not been able to incorporate it into his DNA. Rare as he may be - I know that even with hard work and assistance, some people just cannot connect those dots.
I understand you believe that. I don't, although I don't pretend to know the actual answer either.
This is close to the truth, I think. It's worth clarifying that for expression of "certain genes" or alleles to be influenced by environmental factors (and there certainly is solid evidence to support this idea), the genes have to be there in the first place - which also means that some people will not possess them.
okcrum
in your chest
Part of it is that you need good enough ears (and enough humility) to hear what you're missing. There's a local drummer who consistently will drop random beats, but he can't hear that. He thinks he's doing fine.
Tzer aka Teaser +1
Musical ability is a deep subject that must involve many "understandings" . ( I am speculating )
I have occasionally "marveled" ( been almost shocked ) at different kinds of abilities and disabilities I have encountered in one or another individual player, during my long career in music business. I am not able to note the really interesting ones, they are subtle and sadly ( the details, but not the over riding Fact ) forgotten.
( And these are professionals not beginners ! )A certain player will have a well developed whatever ( choose a few musical attributes- pitch, lively performer, wide repertoire ) yet some other aspect will be conspicuously absent in his playing. Each player is different,,, singers with excellent voices and no "meter" are legendary... on and on it goes. Even on the other extreme, the genius, one can find interesting disparities. The only known ( to me ) case is Beethoven. ( whatever you make of this is subjective I suppose ) Unlike Mozart or Tchaikovky, Beethoven "struggled" ( we should all be so lucky!) with Melody. There are records of his notes where he keeps rewriting a melodic idea dozen or more times. Other composers with that special gift for melody , will be much more apt to "hear it" in its perfected form, right from the start...
Note: I think a talent for melody is the rarest talent., even "gift".
Music is MORE than the well known generalizations melody, contrapuntal, harmony, rhythm, timbre, form, and what used to be called orchestration .
Having spent my whole life playing with talented, not so talented, and even a rare genius a few times, I can tell you, it is deeper than the intellectuals and theorists may know. It encompasses math, yet is beyond it. It can be view through a scientific point of view, but it is most definitely more than science, or anything science can say about it.
There is a trend in society ( maybe there always has been, in all societies- characterized by the expression "mind your own business "!) for those in one area of expertise to assume, to presume they know what is best for persons in another area of expertise. I recall the Dirty Harry movie where Harry has to take a female cop ( brilliantly played by Tyne Daly ) as his partner!! She both garners his respect, and sadness at her death. I think these people are called social engineers. I dislike anyone NOT in my area of knowledge and experience, telling me much of anything about it about my business. Now this is a thread, where opinions are welcome, well now you know mine! Thank you
Musical ability is a deep subject that must involve many "understandings" . ( I am speculating )
I have occasionally "marveled" ( been almost shocked ) at different kinds of abilities and disabilities I have encountered in one or another individual player, during my long career in music business. I am not able to note the really interesting ones, they are subtle and sadly ( the details, but not the over riding Fact ) forgotten.
( And these are professionals not beginners ! )A certain player will have a well developed whatever ( choose a few musical attributes- pitch, lively performer, wide repertoire ) yet some other aspect will be conspicuously absent in his playing. Each player is different,,, singers with excellent voices and no "meter" are legendary... on and on it goes. Even on the other extreme, the genius, one can find interesting disparities. The only known ( to me ) case is Beethoven. ( whatever you make of this is subjective I suppose ) Unlike Mozart or Tchaikovky, Beethoven "struggled" ( we should all be so lucky!) with Melody. There are records of his notes where he keeps rewriting a melodic idea dozen or more times. Other composers with that special gift for melody , will be much more apt to "hear it" in its perfected form, right from the start...
Note: I think a talent for melody is the rarest talent., even "gift".
Music is MORE than the well known generalizations melody, contrapuntal, harmony, rhythm, timbre, form, and what used to be called orchestration .
Having spent my whole life playing with talented, not so talented, and even a rare genius a few times, I can tell you, it is deeper than the intellectuals and theorists may know. It encompasses math, yet is beyond it. It can be view through a scientific point of view, but it is most definitely more than science, or anything science can say about it.
There is a trend in society ( maybe there always has been, in all societies- characterized by the expression "mind your own business "!) for those in one area of expertise to assume, to presume they know what is best for persons in another area of expertise. I recall the Dirty Harry movie where Harry has to take a female cop ( brilliantly played by Tyne Daly ) as his partner!! She both garners his respect, and sadness at her death. I think these people are called social engineers. I dislike anyone NOT in my area of knowledge and experience, telling me much of anything about it about my business. Now this is a thread, where opinions are welcome, well now you know mine! Thank you
i have to disagree, sorry mambo. talent is acquired and it does require nurturing, yes, but the ability to acquire a talent is vastly different for people. like 7 or 8 year olds who can play complex classical music...there's no way they weren't born with a natural aptitude for it and the ability to learn it way quicker than most of us mere mortals. some have to work much harder to acquire those skills while it comes to others with ease. like my father and brothers have a natural aptitude for fixing anything mechanical or electrical while all i have the aptitude for is breaking stuff. i wanted to do it because i saw them doing it at an early age, but as hard as they tried to teach it to me, i just sucked at it.
so while there's a certain amount of nurture, nature cannot be ruled out by any means imho.
Was Freddie Mercury good because he was left alone with big fat fanny and she was such a naughty nanny?
From my pov... nurture and nature are essentially the same thing, the only difference is time and place. Henry Ford made the seemingly absurd leap, by stating genius is experience. No matter how you cut it, the ability to paint, fix it, sing, be suave in unsuave situations aka diplomacy ( I have next to zero of suave gene ), run, aptitudes for sciences, no exception .. oh yes, the ability to write ha ha I am pretty low in that too , it ALL comes from perfect and relaxed and enthusiastic practice. Nurture has to happen, latter on, in a new body, it gets called nature, but that nature was previously nurtured. I will not argue this, so do not try.. just an opinion.
I do think some people, whether it be genetics or voodoo, are born with a natural ability to do something that other people might not be able to do so easily. My niece could wing a baseball at you accurately from across the room at age 2, could run with abandon at a very early age when other kids her age would be taking faceplants and today is a gifted soccer player.
Her ability to be athletic was obvious to everyone and believe me, no one was teaching her this stuff before age 5. It was apparent to us all that if she chose to be a jock, she'd probably have a pretty easy time of it - and that proved to be true.
Her ability to be athletic was obvious to everyone and believe me, no one was teaching her this stuff before age 5. It was apparent to us all that if she chose to be a jock, she'd probably have a pretty easy time of it - and that proved to be true.
I would say you are correct in disagreeing, since talent is defined as "innate ability". "Acquired ability" is the definition of skill. Perhaps mambo4 needs to hit a dictionary and reword his statement.
For the benefit of anyone here, who might feel slighted, discouraged, insulted, etc: I want to reiterate that talent for music is definitely not a dichotomous situation.. aka "either you've got it, or you don't" . In some situations, this unpleasant reality does sadly apply ( making an audition ) , but I insist that there is a very wide, diverse, hierarchy of degrees and kinds of talent.
Take vocal talent. Rare people have a great gift for voice... the tone of their voice is head and shoulders above other singers.. true... but, take Louis Armstrong, while he was a giant in his trumpet improv, his voice was not of the best quality. But his great musical talent was able to turn a sub par voice into a superstar singing and playing event. Louis "was huge" in his day. He had a great gift for musical improv, for entertaining others, but his voice was nothing to speak of. He was able to sing in spite of his vocal inheritance.
Similarly Bob Dylan has no special vocal ability, to me he sounds anemic, but his writing of lyrics was is his gift.
I hope no one gives up, because they have trouble with music. I say, keep at it, regardless of the results. Keep at it, IF you actually enjoy the process of musical learning. You see, music is a high art, and in some way it requires a sort of humility ( even if a great artist you know of, is not apparently humble ) to hang in with all that goes with it- paying dues... no work, criticism of others, no encouragement,etc etc. In other words if you can't play a beat, BUT you enjoy the process of TRYING, of PRACTICING, By all means, I strongly urge "you", never ever quit. Music like science, is a pure thing in its essence. You must do it with an attitude of enthusiasm and not too concerned about what others say about you. Of course you listen to a qualified teacher, but don't beat yourself up, or listen to others who wish to bring you down. That said, remember there is an immense hierarchy of degrees of talent.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with an imperceptibly slow steady positive daily habit of practice. Just do it for your own private pleasure.
Take vocal talent. Rare people have a great gift for voice... the tone of their voice is head and shoulders above other singers.. true... but, take Louis Armstrong, while he was a giant in his trumpet improv, his voice was not of the best quality. But his great musical talent was able to turn a sub par voice into a superstar singing and playing event. Louis "was huge" in his day. He had a great gift for musical improv, for entertaining others, but his voice was nothing to speak of. He was able to sing in spite of his vocal inheritance.
Similarly Bob Dylan has no special vocal ability, to me he sounds anemic, but his writing of lyrics was is his gift.
I hope no one gives up, because they have trouble with music. I say, keep at it, regardless of the results. Keep at it, IF you actually enjoy the process of musical learning. You see, music is a high art, and in some way it requires a sort of humility ( even if a great artist you know of, is not apparently humble ) to hang in with all that goes with it- paying dues... no work, criticism of others, no encouragement,etc etc. In other words if you can't play a beat, BUT you enjoy the process of TRYING, of PRACTICING, By all means, I strongly urge "you", never ever quit. Music like science, is a pure thing in its essence. You must do it with an attitude of enthusiasm and not too concerned about what others say about you. Of course you listen to a qualified teacher, but don't beat yourself up, or listen to others who wish to bring you down. That said, remember there is an immense hierarchy of degrees of talent.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with an imperceptibly slow steady positive daily habit of practice. Just do it for your own private pleasure.
