Peeps who can't keep a beat

[Drifta]

What would take one 'talented' person 1 hour to learn, could take a not so talented person 50 hours. So 50 hours of practice for Charlie parker could add up to a lifetime of practice for someone who is musically challenged. Can somebody with an IQ of 90 become a doctor? Maybe, if they had the desire, will and time, but I guarantee it would take a whole lot longer and be whole a lot harder than it would for someone with an IQ of 140.

Exactly, it's all about will and time, there are probably many musicians that I have more innate ability than but I have no focus, and don't put enough time to be where I want , so the dude who has worked his whole life at it, everyday, structured is going to run circles around me. And that's how all the good bassists I've met are; they are schooled, trained and put their life into it. I can't even judge their talent because their knowledge is so vast, and knowledge is a learned thing.

 

[mambo4]

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.

IF talent is defined as "innate ability" the obviously it cannot be earned or acquired. On your advice, I looked it up.
I found that "talent" is not necessarily defined as innate, depending on your source. Mirriam-Webster provides both "natural endowments" and simply "special aptitude." One definition seems to support your point, one mine.

As mentioned in an earlier post, it seems the term "talent" (like "groove" and "time") is actually rather fuzzy, meaning different thigns to different people.

So it kinda boils down to definitions.

 

[suraci]

What would take one 'talented' person 1 hour to learn, could take a not so talented person 50 hours. So 50 hours of practice for Charlie parker could add up to a lifetime of practice.

The whole tenor of this thread ( aside from the " you have to have talent" crowd) is strikingly naive.
Have any of you spoken to an MD, and what they had to do to make the grade during the long, expensive, near-ordeal, of becoming an intern, etc?

A person with a 90 IQ is not likely to do this for more than one reason.. just think about it. How would he gain entrance into the schools with such a low IQ? The med students with the 140 IQ's, struggle to make the ordeal of study, and sleep deprivation etc. I wonder if there is such a thing as a 90 IQ Doctor, if there were, would you bring your child or spouse to that Dr?

NOW, the Charlie Parker part is preposterous.... 1 hour for a talent versus 50 hours for a lesser talent, is entirely untrue. I admit my belief in miracles, I suppose nothing is impossible, but that is my idealistic side, not my practical side. You have heard of "God jokes",, I like the idea of God fooling we humans. I sound like an arrogant person here, don't I !

What is missing in this whole thread is the awareness that there is a w-i-d-e hierarchy of musical ability.
One fallaciously diminishes the greatness of the acknowledged great talents of this world by making a mere 1 to 50 of "time spent in practice" ratio. And this is simply untrue.

We are talking about a huge talent versus minimal talent. There is a loooottttt of space between the two. I strongly reject the 10000 hour theory, if it suggests that with 10000 hours of practice a meagerly talented person can transform into a great musician. Never going to happen. 10000 hours will greatly greatly help, but NOT make a genius.
I think this is called dichotomous thinking, or a cognitive dissonance, or a fallacy. With this dichotomy, you have a simplistic polarity eg. the dual ( di chotomy: di means two or dual ) polarities are: "no talent, and talent". So with this model you are comparing just these TWO. But reality ( my experience with musicians, common sense, and innate knowledge of music ) tells me that there is a wide gamut of talents, never just the aforementioned TWO. ( look how awkwardly I am writing this, I do not have a great talent for writing ! But I am not illiterate either. ) Besides, ( controversial opinion warning !! ) music is a deeper more complex subject than math, writing, being a Doctor , or I am referring to the true greats in music. Charlie Parker, Bach, Beethoven are examples of greats in music - again think HIERARCHY as applied to talent, NOT Dichotomy.

And one more nail in this coffin, don't you think plenty of musicians HAVE put the 10000 hours in already? Btw, 10000 hours is 5 hours a day for 5 and a half years.
My personal knowledge of certain famous musicians is they put even more time in than 5 hours daily. Jam sessions were a part of the picture. And you learn at least as quickly ON a bandstand as in the practice room. These stars in music, were constantly playing or writing, not just 5 hours a day.

One last opinion. I know many fine musicians who commit the following fallacy. They are given to stating that there are "many many great musicians". I don't argue with them, but I believe the word great or genius is reserved for a few.
Playing in tune, all the correct notes in the key, scales, chords, with grooving nearly metronomic time, with a big repertoire of memorized melodies and counter melodies, only BEGINS to encompass what greatness in music is. Think Hierarchy, and keep practicing.

 

[sleepytime]

IF talent is defined as "innate ability" the obviously it cannot be earned or acquired. On your advice, I looked it up.
I found that "talent" is not necessarily defined as innate, depending on your source. Mirriam-Webster provides both "natural endowments" and simply "special aptitude." One definition seems to support your point, one mine.

As mentioned in an earlier post, it seems the term "talent" (like "groove" and "time") is actually rather fuzzy, meaning different thigns to different people.

So it kinda boils down to definitions.

Many people will use talent and skill rather interchangeably, but in my experience, when knowledgeable people speak in the context of both, talent refers to innate ability and skill refers to learned ability. I'm sure there are many people who are unaware of the shades of meaning. I was at least into my 20's before I saw the meanings of talent and skill differentiated. It is useful, IMO, to differentiate between the two. Clarity is important, and blurring the distinction reduces the effectiveness of communication.

 

[Joe Nerve]

The whole tenor of this thread ( aside from the " you have to have talent" crowd) is strikingly naive.
Have any of you spoken to an MD, and what they had to do to make the grade during the long, expensive, near-ordeal, of becoming an intern, etc?

A person with a 90 IQ is not likely to do this for more than one reason.. just think about it. How would he gain entrance into the schools with such a low IQ? The med students with the 140 IQ's, struggle to make the ordeal of study, and sleep deprivation etc. I wonder if there is such a thing as a 90 IQ Doctor, if there were, would you bring your child or spouse to that Dr?

NOW, the Charlie Parker part is preposterous.... 1 hour for a talent versus 50 hours for a lesser talent, is entirely untrue. I admit my belief in miracles, I suppose nothing is impossible, but that is my idealistic side, not my practical side. You have heard of "God jokes",, I like the idea of God fooling we humans. I sound like an arrogant person here, don't I !

What is missing in this whole thread is the awareness that there is a w-i-d-e hierarchy of musical ability.
One fallaciously diminishes the greatness of the acknowledged great talents of this world by making a mere 1 to 50 of "time spent in practice" ratio. And this is simply untrue.

We are talking about a huge talent versus minimal talent. There is a loooottttt of space between the two. I strongly reject the 10000 hour theory, if it suggests that with 10000 hours of practice a meagerly talented person can transform into a great musician. Never going to happen. 10000 hours will greatly greatly help, but NOT make a genius.
I think this is called dichotomous thinking, or a cognitive dissonance, or a fallacy. With this dichotomy, you have a simplistic polarity eg. the dual ( di chotomy: di means two or dual ) polarities are: "no talent, and talent". So with this model you are comparing just these TWO. But reality ( my experience with musicians, common sense, and innate knowledge of music ) tells me that there is a wide gamut of talents, never just the aforementioned TWO. ( look how awkwardly I am writing this, I do not have a great talent for writing ! But I am not illiterate either. ) Besides, ( controversial opinion warning !! ) music is a deeper more complex subject than math, writing, being a Doctor , or I am referring to the true greats in music. Charlie Parker, Bach, Beethoven are examples of greats in music - again think HIERARCHY as applied to talent, NOT Dichotomy.

And one more nail in this coffin, don't you think plenty of musicians HAVE put the 10000 hours in already? Btw, 10000 hours is 5 hours a day for 5 and a half years.
My personal knowledge of certain famous musicians is they put even more time in than 5 hours daily. Jam sessions were a part of the picture. And you learn at least as quickly ON a bandstand as in the practice room. These stars in music, were constantly playing or writing, not just 5 hours a day.

One last opinion. I know many fine musicians who commit the following fallacy. They are given to stating that there are "many many great musicians". I don't argue with them, but I believe the word great or genius is reserved for a few.
Playing in tune, all the correct notes in the key, scales, chords, with grooving nearly metronomic time, with a big repertoire of memorized melodies and counter melodies, only BEGINS to encompass what greatness in music is. Think Hierarchy, and keep practicing.

I just read this all and I have no idea what you're trying to say? Sounds like you agree with me, but say what I said is preposterous. My main point is that there are people who are more talented than others. Period. What one person can accomplish in very little time, can take another person a lifetime. The specifics I noted were quick generalized and possibly exaggerated examples.

If you could rephrase and sum up what you wrote in a sentence or 2 that would be great, cuz I'm curious.

As for everything else in this thread, I think it morphed into something more interesting than my OP. All I really wanted to know if there was any hope for people who don't have any rhythem or sense of beat.

 

[suraci]

I don't know how to sum this up in a paragraph. I already tried and failed.
I said genius is experience Henry Ford.
I said there are many levels of talent, not just 2, talentless and talented.
I said, practice regardless of talent.
I said, genius is rare, and is more than merely practicing 10000 hours.
Do you think there are only 2 degrees of talent?

 

[Joe Nerve]

.
Do you think there are only 2 degrees of talent?

No. You somehow formulated that out of something I said.

 

[maturanesa]

people who cant keep a beat, clap in time with a song, generally arent interested in learn music...

I dont know any case of a dumb like that with a lot of passion for playing an instrument or singing...

 

[suraci]

No. You somehow formulated that out of something I said.

I was trying to cover all the bases with my question. I am not sure what anyone thinks here.

I was saying that i believe there are degrees of talent. like a rheostat, not a toggle switch eg On OFF, Talent- No talent.

Music has been called a gift. The gifts vary with each person. And each person attends to or neglects his gifts as he wishes.

The gifts are not all the same, some have gift for rhythm, harmony, arrangements.. melody writing, singing, improvisation. And rare people have many more gifts than the average. IF such a gifted person also hones his skills, he or she will become a great musician.

The question came up, if someone is slow in music should they study? I don't see why not. It is up to them.

If faulty information is on the net, I wish to get more accurate info out there.. that is my goal here.
The lower talent person should understand a few things.
Music, when separated from a vocation and the pressures of that, is great fun, and you work on it as you please.. hard, or easy or any way you or your teacher see fit.

They should know, music is a tough life as a livelihood... even if quite talented. Over the decades it proves to be tough.

High Talent usually includes ( not always ) a strong desire to succeed in music, and therefore the person devours music 24 7 for a period of years. He will get work quickly, he will be tempted to give all his attention to music as a career. He probably will too.

Anyone not possessing high talent has to overcome more unless they have other compensating, society nurtured, talents, like beauty, marketing, people skills, drive and ambition. Again, Madonna comes to mind.
She has low talent for music. But she worked on her career, using all she had, and now we have her!

Which brings another false idea up, the most successful are not necessarily the most talented... often far from it.
One of the most talented in the world was JS BACH, He was not "all that", in his time. He became popular a century later.

Music and other things in life, we hear, are purely a matter of opinion, purely 100% subjective. I only partially think life is subjective; there are other criteria including the opinions of the greatest artists. In other words, if John Doe says such and such is the greatest music, that is the end of the topic for John. But John may not know much about music and is living purely in his imagination and in his feelings.
He would do well to seek out other ideas from older people, teachers and highly talented people, to deepen his understanding about life and music.

 

[suraci]

people who cant keep a beat, clap in time with a song, generally arent interested in learn music...

I dont know any case of a dumb like that with a lot of passion for playing an instrument or singing...

+1 you hit the nail on the donkey!

 

[BluesBear]

One last opinion. I know many fine musicians who commit the following fallacy. They are given to stating that there are "many many great musicians". I don't argue with them, but I believe the word great or genius is reserved for a few.
Playing in tune, all the correct notes in the key, scales, chords, with grooving nearly metronomic time, with a big repertoire of memorized melodies and counter melodies, only BEGINS to encompass what greatness in music is. Think Hierarchy, and keep practicing.

In my not so humble opinion, there ARE many, many great musicians. but very few really innovative musicians.

 

[suraci]

In my not so humble opinion, there ARE many, many great musicians. but very few really innovative musicians.

It makes sense- great, / innovative.

How many great musicians in your area?

 

[fractiouslowend]

We agree, it can be learned. But jaco cannot be learned by a person who has no beat and or is nearly tone deaf.
More importantly.. what did you change from, and TO what, that makes you love practice now???
I promise I won't tell a soul.

with enough practice, any skill that does not push you beyond your physical or mental capabilities can be learnt.

I'm not really sure exactly how i changed the way i practiced, i kind of just stopped overanalysing what i was playing, and just turn my brain off and play

i've found that doing that, i write a song everytime i pick up the guitar and play for a couple of hours, sure they're not all keepers, everyone makes mistakes, but art is knowing which mistakes to keep.

 

[suraci]

Fractiouslowend Great, analysis is fine, AWAY from performance or composition. 2 thumbs up for your new break through in practicing and being more musical. I admire that ability to practice and be creative at the same time.

Theory and analysis occurred AFTER the naturally talented, made their offerings to the world... THEN intellectually inclined people came up with ideas about the creations of the forerunners, pioneers, for the rest of us. We owe a debt to all before us, whether Jimi or old Bach, we owe a debt to their discoveries, NOT to theorists. Now theory is cool and helpful, I suppose; under certain circumstances ( styles of music ) it is helpful. But I can also picture a player or composer relying on his instincts and his ear and will, and coming up with beautiful original music. My latest favorite composer is Sean Callery, who did the music for "24" and for some of the "Bones" shows. He is amazing.

 

[BluesBear]

It makes sense- great, / innovative.

How many great musicians in your area?

More than I imagined. when I first visited. In fact, that's the number one reason I permanently relocated here a dozen years ago.
Heck, you can't swing a dead cat around here without nearly hitting someone who plays with at least a modicum of proficiency.

But even though there are many good musicians in the area, I am constantly mystified by the dowright p!ss poor musicianship exhibited by so many of the not so good PERFORMING ones. (I guess that's why they play for nothing or next to nothing.)


However...

I am also utterly amazed at the sheer brilliance I so often encounter out here. There are some world class players here.
And luckily I get to hang out with several of them on a regular basis.

But then the Seattle area is one of those places where many differing genres of music just seem to thrive.
And even though the economy has taken its toll here too, live music is still heavily supported.

 

[suraci]

More than I imagined. when I first visited. In fact, that's the number one reason I permanently relocated here a dozen years ago.
Heck, you can't swing a dead cat around here without nearly hitting someone who plays with at least a modicum of proficiency.

But even though there are many good musicians in the area, I am constantly mystified by the dowright p!ss poor musicianship exhibited by so many of the not so good PERFORMING ones. (I guess that's why they play for nothing or next to nothing.)


However...

I am also utterly amazed at the sheer brilliance I so often encounter out here. There are some world class players here.
And luckily I get to hang out with several of them on a regular basis.

But then the Seattle area is one of those places where many differing genres of music just seem to thrive.
And even though the economy has taken its toll here too, live music is still heavily supported.

Very cool. I have an old drummer friend who spent time in Seattle, who speaks very fondly of that place and the musicians there, esp mentioning Blues.
But forgive my investigative reporter tone ( ahem !)
you said there are some brilliant musicians too.

1. Is brilliant- brilliance, more or less the same as genius, or greatness?
I have no opinion, just asking yours. I have been wondering about all these terms that are bandied about for decades.
Here are some.. musicianship, talent, genius, great, brilliance, and oh yes, skill.

2. Be honest now, how many cats in Seattle do you suppose are truly genius/ brilliant/ great/ level? Guys who could play on the same stage with some of my American jazz heroes.. eg Ray Brown, Jaco, Herbie H, Benson, Metheny, Chick Corea, Sonny Rollins, Elvin, Gadd, Carter, Miles, John McLaughlin, Bird, Armstrong Getz. Not just play on stage with them, but match their colossal prowess.
Older guys, but their brilliance is unreal.

I personally think that a player can be just short of greatness.. still more amazing than almost anyone, BUT those acknowledged ( always small in number- and that is my point or opinion) greats. I think in terms ( this is not math, so it can get a little subjective ) TOP tier players, then another group of amazing players SECOND Tier , who any one would love to play with. Then a third tier, etc.
It is easy to mix neighboring "tiers".
I am sorry for splitting hairs, but honestly, I feel it is important for younger players to hear these kinds of thoughts.

 

[BluesBear]

1. Is brilliant- brilliance, more or less the same as genius, or greatness?

2. Be honest now, how many cats in Seattle do you suppose are truly genius/ brilliant/ great/ level?

1. It's what I usually refer to as "World Class". To me they can hold their own (for the type of music they play) with anyone, anywhere, anytime.

2. Five come to mind right away.
Now I don't want to start war here but to be brutally honest there is at least one name in your list that I absolutely cannot stand.

That's why, to me at least, music MUST be classified as an art form. And as such is extremely open to interpretation.
For example I consider Monet to be one of the greatest painters of all time. But I have met folks who compare him to an out of focus photograph.
All too often I see people who are so caught up with such poppycock as which musicians that think they are required to like because so many claim they are genius.

Music, like many art forms, is a historical progression. One person "invents" something musical and then a bazillion lesser talents copy it note for note. The only thing really separating the genius (originator) from the lesser talent (copiers) is the ability to imagine it in the first place.
But then many of the so-called musical genius' in all actuality are doing nothing more than reinterpreting (reinventing?) something previoisly done.

For example, at heart I am a blues guy. Even though I appreciate many other types of music, I'm a blues guy. (Yeah, I know, hard to imagine ain't it?)<scarcasim
But as a blues lover I often incure the rath of the "BloosFools" when I say that I do not, have never, and will never like Robert Johnson.
Personally I don't believe he really wrote all of those songs. I believe (and this is 100% my personal opinion and if you disagree with me I simply don't give a rodent's rectum) he was merely singing "folk" songs written by others and sung for years (perhaps generations even) by many, wandering, womenizing, whiskey drinking, minstral types. What DID happen is that Lomax discovered Johnson and recorded him thereby enshrining him in some pseudo hall-of-fame for entenity.
Listen to Robert Johnson perform "Crossroads Blues" and then listen to Cream with Eric Clapton perform "Crossroads". To me (again, just me personally) for Clapton and Bruce to take Johnson's out of tune, rhythmically inept, trainwreck and transform it into such a brilliant performance... to me that is the real genius. (A few of the better musicians I ocassionally perform with turns out a very respectable, funkified verson of it and while I consider it extremely entertaining it certainly is not genius)

Newton didn't invent gravity or motion. But he is the first one known to actually quantify them in terms the average schmuck in a peathut could understand.


I'm not sure of the proper name of it, or who first offered it, but there is a theorum out there that says that the human mind is incapable of deliberately creating something it isn't already aware of. (for example try to invet a new letter of the alphabet)

Now, on the surface that seems plausable. However, IF it is true that we cannot, with deliberation, completely invent anything/something totally new then where do "new" things come from?
I understand that accidents can (and do) create new things. But most of the "new" stuff in our lives is nothing more than a reinvention of a previous product/idea. Ever hear of a Facsimilie Telegraph? That 19th century invention eventually became known as the wirephoto machine and was later reincarnated as the fax machine.

Music history is a subject that can be taught. How to play a musical instrument is a skill that can be taught. It's how the individual human mind then PROCESSES what has been taught that determines genius. Songbirds have beautiful calls. It's in their nature (heredity) to sing them. But I don't see any whiporwills writing any new tunes. So it has to be more than natural talent.

Another example, back in highschool, I recall a few of the best horn players from school, (all were first chair - most were all-state or all-county band members - some with scholarships) all excellent sight readers, asked to play with a band I was in. (Chicago, Blood Sweat & Tears and such were VERY popular then.) It was a disaster every time. NONE of them could comp. Every single one had the same blank look on their face when it came time to really play. They all asked, "Where's the music?" or "What notes do I play?" They had all heard the songs. But without it being written out for them note for note they were clueless. Evenwhen told thechord progression they were stymied.
Did that diminish their talents? They were still very capable musicians. They just had zero creativity.

I recall when guitar TAB came along. You would have though the Bible had been reduced to a comic book. (No wait... that HAD already been done with less conflagration)
"Real" musicians who could read music were complaining that now any idiot could play music. And Tabbists were proclaiming that there was no longer any reason to learn how to read music. In some ways both sides were correct and in many ways both sides were wrong.
Sort of like how a Chinese to English translation program makes it superfluous to speak Chinese (or English - depending on your point of view). Except when it comes to trying to read the packaging of your new remote controlled, all-in-one, lawn trimming, sausage stuffing, back scratching, personal navigational device. Only then do you try to understand how the Proudly acquisitions of monetaries exchanged to the sharp object causing discomforted blindness of the central earlobes on weekdays ending with Q when the previously assembled light of the enjoyable muffler reaches the removed toadstool, that you realize that perhaps, personal interaction as well as individual interpretaion is still, and will always be, needed for the maximum pleasure of the operations peoples.

It only took one Morris Alber to record "Feelings" and thus temporarily illustrate how the rest of us were incapable of articulating our emotions. But it only took 97,371 lounge singers to regurgitate it and thus make it suck forever.

 

[martyman5000]

This is a really good question. I really don't enjoy dancing and I think that some people just are naturally good at it or can take the time to learn, I think that applies to music in general. I spent years watching friends play drums and would struggle and mess around, it wasn't until I had my own kit did I really figure it out.

 

[suraci]

BluesBear, I did not follow ever nuance you entered, but I liked the overall tone. Your thoughts on creativity were helpful, thought provoking, with the potential to cause a shift in my paradigm ... and I hope others reading it.
I am thinking it is possible you met my blues based drummer friend... Willie !
Especially if you are an American, I think the Blues is the basis for Sooooo much American music. There is one fellow on my list of great musicians who does not esp personify the Blues. I don't want to say his name. For at least 2 decades, I intensely disliked his playing. One night I played with a "disciple" of his, a guy with a reputation of note. After playing with him, I had a mini shift in my perspective.. and this led the way to my suddenly liking the playing of this fellow on my list. You can PM about it!
What I just indicated was an example of a talented feller, me, disliking someone, and then suddenly changing my mind. A paradigm shift, I suppose. I had the same experience with Louis Armstrong, except I never intensely dislike Mr Armstrong. A friend would speak glowingly about Louis, and I would have a certain reaction you may be aware of.." Oh yeah, Louie is great " except I did not truly get it, I was sincere, but deceiving myself. Well one day, decade or two later, it hit me like a ton of bricks. I now know that Louis was amazingly great. I KNOW it. I can still hear what I used to hear in Louie, and I am amazed at my blindness to the real truth of it.
These 2 famous musicians, Louie and that other guy, are highly instructive to me. I have come to the conclusion that when a person is ready, he will suddenly have that "aha experience", therefore if a famous musician is not your cup of tea, keep the mind open, someday you may suddenly realize something wonderful that has escaped you for decades. Now "famous" has to have conditions put on it,, esp in todays pop environment. A person can be famous for reasons I deem not legit, HYPE, Media, money, things that are altogether NOT related inthe slightest to the Truth of the Blues and other music, worthy of the name. In Greek, there is musica majoris and musica minoris. Ought we ignore this? I don't think we should, I think majoris and minoris are very real. EDiT I cannot find the terms a teacher gave to me on Google. The words mean a classification of 2 kinds of music, one from ego, the other more broad, cosmic, universal.
BlueBear
1. Ok, cool, World Class is a nice term.
2. Ok, FIVE, five guys in Seattle. I don't think 5 is a high number, do you?
I have a hunch you are speaking about Blues drenched genius types, am I off?

Dancing and playing music are related. Most musicians I play with do not "dance" all that.

 

[BluesBear]

BluesBear,

2. Ok, FIVE, five guys in Seattle. I don't think 5 is a high number, do you?

I have a hunch you are speaking about Blues drenched genius types, am I off?

I only said that five came to my mind right away. Since them I have thought of about six more who are world class, jaw dropping players. And also bear in mind that even thougg a couple of them are well known, semi-household names, I am referring to people that I actually know. Not just someone who I only saw or heard play from an impersonal distance who happen to live in Seattle.

And yes you are off, only about half of them are blues drenched. And even the half that are, they are so much more than just blues musicians.


I feel that as we as humans get older and mature (or in my case simply get older) our personal tastes change regarding many things. For most of my life I couldn’t stand catsup on my french fries. But in the past decade or so I have found myself actually enjoying them that way 3 or 4 times a year. Now I seriously doubt that Heinz has recently revamped their catsup formula so it has to be me that's changed.
Also, for many, many years I only liked large curd cottage cheese. Not I vastly prefer the small curd stuff. And I don't really know why. I just do.
And much to the chagrin of all of my friends I still to this day prefer, and therefor make, my tuna salad with Miracle Whip instead of mayonaise. Hey, just more for me that way.


And I understand what you're saying about shifting musical tastes too.

As far back as I can remember I have always like the music of Hank Williams.
Back in the ‘60s I even liked Hank Williams, Jr. Then in the ‘70s and most of the ‘80s I didn’t care much for Jr’s music anymore. But somewhere in the 1990s it all started sounding better to me.
However, I have always felt that Hank Williams, III is a talentless buffoon who should be prosecuted for stealing oxygen.
I have noticed quite often than many people who liked rock when they were young begin to like more country music when they get older. Sort of like metal-head teenagers becoming 40 year old blues afficionados.

If you really want to start a fan war, instigate a discussion over which was better;
Van Halen with David Lee Roth
or
Van Halen with Sammy what's-his-name.

The correct answer is... It doesn't matter, because Eddie was the real genius. <<<

Back in my 20s I really liked Slade. (And I still feel that Noddy Holder isn’t given the respect he deserves for his influence.) And while I still occasionally listen to them in small doses I can no longer tolerate rocking out to Slade! Alive! three times in a row.
However my affection for Brownsville Station is just as strong today as it was back in 1970. (I guess I’ll never get over the passing away of my dear friend Cub Coda.)


It’s only human for our likes and dislikes to change over time. In fact, I guess you could say that’s one of the traits that makes us human.

And to me that’s the true definition of human evolution.