"Some people are just born with it" - BS

[Jason P Bass]

There are some savants who literally picked up music within a few days. Others that can hear even the most complex piece one time and instantly recite it note for note as if they were a human tape recorder.

To me, these people demonstrate that natural talent can and does exist, but maybe too much of it is a bad thing as these people cannot otherwise function well on their own

Yeah, but is that what we're talking about when we say "talent"? Does that describe Victor Wooten? Billy Sheehan? Paul McCartney?

To me, the people you describe do not represent "natural talent," rather they represent the infinitely amazing potential of the human brain. What people call "talent" is still, in my opinion, thousands of hours of practice.

 

[SeaBassTheFish]

Maybe it's Maybeline!

 

[Sundogue]

Yeah, but is that what we're talking about when we say "talent"? Does that describe Victor Wooten? Billy Sheehan? Paul McCartney?

To me, the people you describe do not represent "natural talent," rather they represent the infinitely amazing potential of the human brain. What people call "talent" is still, in my opinion, thousands of hours of practice.

I've been a professional artist for over 30 years. I've given private lessons and have conducted many workshops over the years, and I can say with some authority that "talent" is an overused and misunderstood word.

I agree completely with the assessment of the infinitely amazing potential of the human brain. I happen to also be a very spiritual person so my take on it will differ from those who are not and that's cool. But there is so much more to what is going on with these so-called "talented" people than the word "talent" can explain.

And it is NOT limited to only a select few people on this planet. We ALL have this amazing potential. The real key is unlocking it and energizing that part of the human brain and spirit. There is so much that goes into what a person becomes. Even from the time they are in the womb. From sounds we hear before we are even born to the kind of nutrition we receive from our mother. How our brain develops, along with what our Soul wishes to experience in this lifetime goes so far in explaining why some people seem to be "born with it" and others do not.

I have witnessed first-hand, many, many times over the years those with gobs of talent and those who seem to have none. And I can tell you, I have managed to bring forth the very "talent" these people seemingly seemed to not have.

Not once have I ever taught any one of my students how to draw or paint. My focus has always been on inspiring them to find that part of them that lies deep within ALL of us. You'd be amazed what one can accomplish when they discover it.

Some are just lucky to discover it earlier than others. And some of these savants, due to their brain's dysfunction in some areas allow their brain to be extremely "open" in these other areas that allow them the sole focus of playing an instrument like a virtuoso, even having never played it before.

Regardless. Whatever one wishes to call "talent" will only take one so far. I've seen first hand, people with so much talent it seems unfair...yet they get surpassed by others who only needed someone to trigger that same impulse and desire to nurture what they too already had.

In the end, only practice makes perfect. Some just need more than others.

What talent really is, is inspiration. With that one can accomplish anything.

 

[aborgman]

I would agree that reaching a world class level requires a certain motivation and desire that not everyone has. But that motivation and desire is what makes thousands of hours of practice possible instead of insane. But motivation and desire are not talent.

And being tell helps for basketball, but that is not talent.

Ummm...

Talent - 1) the natural endowments of a person 2) a special often athletic, creative, or artistic aptitude.

 

[Muttleybass]

If you think those children got to where they are without:

1) A decent instrument to get started on
2) Some lessons to point them in the right direction, and
3) Lots and lots of practice

You are, in my humble opinion, delusional and grasping for excuses for your own work ethic.

There is no such thing as "natural talent". There is only practice, practice, and practice.

For what it's worth, I started at 7 years old in the school orchestra. I had a decent instrument, some formal lessons, and thousands of hours of practice later, people frequently tell me that I'm "talented". It's BS - if I'm so talented, I must be a fool for wasting thousands of hours on practice.

There is no such thing as "natural talent". There is only practice, practice, and more practice.

Okay, so I screwed up on the math. Forgot a zero.

Exactly how many hours do you think a 4 year old has had to practice? The first 18 months of their lives, they don't even have the dexterity or coherency. That leaves 2 1/2 years. How many hours a day in 2 1/2 years have they had to practice? You tell me... Ever delt with a 2 year old? They have the attention span of a goldfish.

The parents may have had an instrument kicking around and encouraged them, but I really can't see a 2 or 3 year old practicing 8 hours a day.

I stand by what I said. There's a seed you need to be born with.

I think different people have different seeds. Some in music, some in athletics, art, math... (insert talent here). As they get older, they try different things and when their seed starts to grow they nurture it. Some people, as in my examples find their seeds early, some never. Some have better seeds than others. I also believe we sometimes get our seeds from our parents.

Believe what you want. As a parent of 2 children, I did my best to encourage my kids with music. It stuck with the son, although not as natural as my examples, and the daughter is a pretty talented fashion designer, with little interest in music at all. Different seeds.


...And what do YOU know of MY work ethic?

 

[Tony In Philly]

Sundogue, your original post is very interesting and "blues icon" indeed seems like a real jerk. What I found fascinating was trying to imagine what the whole episode sounded like and I imagined you and the drummer sounding like a Steely Dan type rhythm section and him sounding loose and bluesy in both playing and singing a la John Martyn -- a total clash of styles if there ever was one. If that's the case he's probably better off just playing solo or finding some guys who play really loose because they are out there. Conversely there are also guitarists that play rhythm off the pocket as well and I suspect that is probably what your current guitarist is doing. Anyway, this was one of the most interesting posts I've read here in a long time.

 

[Sundogue]

Sundogue, your original post is very interesting and "blues icon" indeed seems like a real jerk. What I found fascinating was trying to imagine what the whole episode sounded like and I imagined you and the drummer sounding like a Steely Dan type rhythm section and him sounding loose and bluesy in both playing and singing a la John Martyn -- a total clash of styles if there ever was one. If that's the case he's probably better off just playing solo or finding some guys who play really loose because they are out there. Conversely there are also guitarists that play rhythm off the pocket as well and I suspect that is probably what your current guitarist is doing. Anyway, this was one of the most interesting posts I've read here in a long time.

Yeah well, the whole concept of the band, from the choice of material to our marketing approach, is all about the groove...the pocket. We want to move people, not simply be backup to the "lead guitar" player. Nobody dances to guitar. Nobody gets their groove on by the melody. We are all about the groove.

I suspect there are other rhythm sections that play as loose as he does. I can't imagine how that works unless everyone is a mind reader (and I mean that in the literal sense).

 

[Tony In Philly]

We want to move people, not simply be backup to the "lead guitar" player. Nobody dances to guitar. Nobody gets their groove on by the melody.

So you're current guitarist plays alternate chords and lead/melody depending on the moment I take it? Is it still a three piece instrumentally or have you added more instruments?

I ask because I have often found I need to play differently in a three piece scenario when a guitarist is taking a lead break or solo as opposed to playing chords.

Anyway, I hope you're having a lot more fun with your current band configuration!

 

[Sundogue]

So you're current guitarist plays alternate chords and lead/melody depending on the moment I take it? Is it still a three piece instrumentally or have you added more instruments?

I ask because I have often found I need to play differently in a three piece scenario when a guitarist is taking a lead break or solo as opposed to playing chords.

Anyway, I hope you're having a lot more fun with your current band configuration!

Yeah we are just a three piece instrumentally. And yes, we all have freedom and can take liberties (within the structure of the song of course). I have no problem with improvisation...that's what makes it fun!

What I had a problem with was a guitar player who could improvise, but got so far off time and went so far out of the structure of the song that the drummer and I didn't even know what song he was playing.

 

[Tony In Philly]

What I had a problem with was a guitar player who could improvise, but got so far off time and went so far out of the structure of the song that the drummer and I didn't even know what song he was playing.

Yikes, that's rough. That would drive me up a wall.

 

[JimmyThunder]

I was in a blues band with a drummer that just couldn't get it, despite the guitarist and myself (both have played in blues bands prior) trying to help him out.

We ended up taking him to a blues club one night. During the set breaks, he and the band drummer were talking it up. Next rehearsal, our drummer got it.

In college, I got paired with a roommate who played guitar. Fate! Unfortunately I was in a diehard Clapton/Beck/Moore phase and he was all about metal...but wanted to play blues with me. No matter what he just could not "get it". The notes were there but the timing and feel were way off.

So I started nailing his girlfriend while he was at class.

He finally understood the blues!
Guitar playing was still lousy tho.

 

[boynamedsuse]

. . . .

So I started nailing his girlfriend while he was at class.

He finally understood the blues!
. . . .

It was a tough job, but someone had to do it!

 

[KingRazor]

Doesn't matter if you ARE born with a guitar in your hand. A bad attitude is a bad attitude.

 

[sohamorrohit]

Have you ever wondered that MAYBE he DID have a point? I'm sure you're very good but it is possible that he is thinking on a completely different and unheard-of level and he's not being able to communicate that to you two. You've said it yourself that he sounded very good in his solo shows. Maybe you two were going in totally different directions and that's why it didn't work. Of course, his outburst was unacceptable.

 

[delta7fred]

A few years ago I was in a 3 piece playing rock covers, we were approached by a blues harp player to start a blues side project. This is something that the guitarist and I had wanted to do for a long time. He sent us a CD with a few songs on, he sounded pretty good so we agreed.

As a previous poster said "the drummer just did not get it" and did not want to continue after the first rehearsal so our guitarist brought in one he had known from school (we were all in our 50s).

It soon became obvious that "God's gift to the blues harp" was not as good as we first thought. He either would not or could not learn any new chops so just used the same few on everything. He could only play standard I IV V songs and then ignored any subtle differences in the IV and V parts.

He walked all over the singers lines and guitar breaks and no matter how many times we stopped mid song to correct him and wrote out songs with it highlighted in red text where he should play.

We later found out that he had joined or formed numerous other bands and they had all disintegrated or thrown him out. The CD he presented us with was recorded with his son's band backing him. We know his son now and he refuses to play with him anymore.

He still believes that he is right and does not need to practice or copy other harp players "you need to be individual" was his excuse for not learning anything new. 3 of us put in a lot of work and he just rolled up to rehearsals having not even listened to the songs and relied on his "creativity", or lack of.

I could rant on about him for hours, there is more, but won't bore you with the details, I am sure you get the picture.

 

[Billnc]

Yeah, I agree. I just can't handle hearing Redhouse, Pride and Joy (insert standard I IV V here) anymore because every lead sounds the same (unless it's Duane Allman).

I'm with you, but I got a job to do. The blues of the 20's and 30' to maybe 40's is pretty sophisticated. I hate that the genre got locked so dreadfully into those two songs. (let's face it it's either a slow or fast I IV V for most blues). I love it when I get to play some Piedmont blues on bass (not much of a road map there except Cassidy and I think playing lines like Hot Tuna is fun! There is a lot of tricky stuff out there that could keep the genre alive and breathing.

One of the bands I'm playing gets put on blues or jazz stages, now that one is fun.