natural talent

Arjen,

Now we are almost in agreement. Those collections of skills and abilities as you call them is the "natural" talent I'm talking about.

I'm of the opinion that every one can excel at something, you may never uncover the task that you can excel at but there's something out there that everyone can excel at. And that inanimate thing that allows you to excel is the natural ability you posess. Maybe it's in the genes I don't know. But even when I look at your response to the Yngwie example to me the fact that he is able to focus so intently on a task is part of his natural ability..it's all interrelated. There's something more than his desire..if it were that easy more people than him could play as fast as he does (I know he may not be the fastest)

It's a culmination of these all these things that equates to natural ability.

And I promise I won't respond to your reply.....unless of course you write something so intriguing I can't let it go...anyway this is all just a friendly debate!

Just so we are clear on this...I don't have any natural talent, nor do I posess any talent of any kind for anything...I don't have the dogged determination to sit in my room and practice arpeggio's for 10 hours a day and don't ever expect to be a great guitar player....I am and always will be a guitar hack..OK I said it and if I can play some tunes with my friends and have a good time doing this I'm OK with that. I know that was off-topic but I figured I had to say that.

I agree with Cnev and Arjen, especially that talent is actually composed of many other qualities, such as DRIVE (good point), love of music, musical intelligence, i.e., good mental ability at perceiving patterns aurally and visually, memory, imagination, confidence, good relative pitch discrimination. The list goes on and on. The more of those qualities you have, the more 'talented' you will appear to be.
I seem to have answered my own question even before I've asked it - which concerned Mozart's incredible musical ability.
Mozart had a highly intensive musical education from a very young age and produced works of genius in later life.
I was going to ask - "If, at the time of his birth, Ma Mozart had come home with the wrong baby, would that baby have also gone on to produce works of genius?" And the answer must be "extremely unlikely". Mozart's talent or "genius" actually consisted of all those listed qualities to a very great extent - and probably lots more that we haven't mentioned. A fake Mozart brought up with exactly the same education, is unlikely to have had, to the same extent, all those mental abilities that Mozart had.

A quote from J S Bach, though dismissed any notion at all of 'talent' when he said "Work as well (as I do) and you'll do as well. "Nooo - I don't think so J S - Some people might, but not me).

I'm reminded of teaching in a music school in London, in which one guy, a loud overbearing Elvis freak, enrolled his 9 year old son (whom he named Elvis) in classical and electric guitar, singing, theory and keyboard classes. The dad couldn't quite pull off the illusion of being Elvis himself due to having a thick Greek accent and no musical abilty at all. So he was going to make sure that his kid would achieve stardom not just as an Elvis impersonator, but as a worthy successor to Elvis with great musical skills. The poor kid had no time to play with friends as he had to study every night and perform for his dad - 7 days a week.
And all to no avail - He was a nice kid but he was no Mozart - or Elvis. His progress was average at best and fell far short of his dad's expectations, whose bullying and scorn caused the kid so much stress that we eventually refused to teach him - and threatened to inform Child Protection Services. We never saw them again!

That's because the kid had to want it. it's one thing for your father to want something for you, but you have to be in agreement. How do you explain someone like tiger woods?

as far as the yngie example is concerned, it was his desire, not anything else. he wanted it really really badly.

That's because the kid had to want it. it's one thing for your father to want something for you, but you have to be in agreement. How do you explain someone like tiger woods?

Yes - That's what we're saying. Drive and self motivation are essential ingredients of advanced ability. Tiger Woods obviously had that drive as a kid PLUS all the other qualities that have combined to put him at the top, e.g., focus, competetiveness, balance, control, etc, etc.

As for Yngwie - I don't think you can say it was nothing but his desire that led to his ability. Does he say that? If not, then how could anyone possibly know that?

no. this person said that about ynwgie a few posts above. unless i misunderstood him.

Arjen,

Now we are almost in agreement. Those collections of skills and abilities as you call them is the "natural" talent I'm talking about.

I'm of the opinion that every one can excel at something, you may never uncover the task that you can excel at but there's something out there that everyone can excel at. And that inanimate thing that allows you to excel is the natural ability you posess. Maybe it's in the genes I don't know. But even when I look at your response to the Yngwie example to me the fact that he is able to focus so intently on a task is part of his natural ability..it's all interrelated. There's something more than his desire..if it were that easy more people than him could play as fast as he does (I know he may not be the fastest)

It's a culmination of these all these things that equates to natural ability.

And I promise I won't respond to your reply.....unless of course you write something so intriguing I can't let it go...anyway this is all just a friendly debate!

Just so we are clear on this...I don't have any natural talent, nor do I posess any talent of any kind for anything...I don't have the dogged determination to sit in my room and practice arpeggio's for 10 hours a day and don't ever expect to be a great guitar player....I am and always will be a guitar hack..OK I said it and if I can play some tunes with my friends and have a good time doing this I'm OK with that. I know that was off-topic but I figured I had to say that.

music originates in a certain section of the brain, right?. so, if that part of the brain is more developed, then music will come more naturally to someone. if it is less developed, or is damaged, then it will come slower. there may be a million other things that can influence how that part of the brain develops, but some people will just have it easier than others regardless.

My point about Yngwie was that he didn't get there just because of his determination and also that his ability to focus that much on his playing is all part of his "natural" talent.

There are many different factors that make up "natural" talent. Even when people use the argument that it's just plain old determination that will get you there...well guess what 99.99% of the population DOES not have the ability to focus the way that people that excel do...When people say Yngwie got so good because he stayed in his room for 10 hours a day practicing and then try and rationalize how if any one did that they'd be just like him and I'm saying the won't. I've never seen anyone do it yet.

And the reason is just what I mentioned before, people like Yngwie have a certain "natural" ability to focus for hours at a time. Not everyone can do that...I know I can't.

music originates in a certain section of the brain, right?

No, or atleast neuro-psychologists haven't managed to find any evidence for it. The only real difference between long time guitarists and non-musicians is that the brainpart that deals with input from the fingertips is much, much larger. Probably to counter the increased insensitivity all stringed instrument players develop.
When people say Yngwie got so good because he stayed in his room for 10 hours a day practicing and then try and rationalize how if any one did that they'd be just like him and I'm saying they won't.

Funny you say that, this was practically the core of my propedeutic project for my -now cancelled- psychology education: mental skills like determination, focus, concentration etc are far more 'nature' then what people usually suspect. 'Free will/choice' is very much hyped.

If being technically profient on a fret board equates to being good then where does talent come in? Moving across a fret board is a motor skill, doesn't seem to have anything to do with talent to me. It would be like saying, since I can type really fast, I must be a good computer programmer. Well, just because I can write the code at at 50wpm doesn't mean it will be any better than the person that writes at 30wpm.

However, there are skills in music that don't involve motor skills so much. Like arranging music, writing lyrics and singing. I think more talent can be found there. Of course, those things can get better with practice.

OWA the point is although you see it as a purely technical skill no matter how much you or I may practice we will NEVER reach the proficiency of a Yngwie...Everyone can't just practice for 24 hours a day and be able to do this. is not just a function of time practicing, it's so much more than that, it's all the intangible "natural" talent that someone has that allows them to reach a certain level.

The people that have more "natural" talent have the potential to develop more than someone that doesn't.

My whole point in all of this has always been certain people have soemthing that allows them to excel and develop faster and farther than most people. This intangible trait is called "natural" ability. And this natural talent comprises many, many different skills, one is the ability to focus for hours on end and the ability to internalize everything you are practicing.

I do not beleive that everyone given the same circumstances will reach the same levl of proficiency and that goes for ANY thing you do.

You always hear the argument something along the lines of " If I practiced for 10 hours a day I'd be as good as so and so" Maybe for a few people that might be true, a very few, but for 99% of us we will never be as good as those people. I have yet to see anyone actually do it. It's easy to say it but no one ever does it. Most people don't even have the ability to sit and focus for 10 hours a day let alone become proficient at something that takes that long. The ability to be able to do that is part of natural talent.

How do you know Yngwie has talent? Maybe the reason he had to practice for that amount of time was because he didn't have any. All these people that are put onto pedistals. Are they gifted, or did they start out practicing alone like you, me or anyone else on here?

Anyway, these people aren't on some other level of playing. They are only human.

I have to say, guitar players facinate me. I took sociology so I notice these things. But I grew up doing visual art for the most part. Most people stepped back looked at the whole piece. Not once did someone say "those brush strokes must've been hard to do." And then all of the sudden think the piece was better. Nor did I have anyone tell me I can't be as good as <insert artist>. I wonder why music is different.

It's the same for anything but since we are talking music there are many areas of music that are more abstract such as song writing. How would you ever determine what a good song is..it's subjective.

I guess when I'm talking about guitar playing it's mostly tangible objective things which for the most part are physical attributes. You called them technical which is probably correct, but my thinking is the same. Just because you view play blistering fast solo's as a mere technincal task NOT everyone no matter how much they practice can do it...that's just a fact. So what do the people that can have that the rest of us don't. They have two arms, hands, ten fingers just like the rest of us, but for some reason they end up going farther playing faster whatever...it's that indescribale combination of many diverse things that make up "natural" talent.

I'm not trying to infer that having this "natural" talent will necessarily get you anything only that it exists and given two different people which one has more "natural" talent then the potential is greater for the person with this attribute.

Maybe another way to look at it is if your coming from the school of it's just a motor skill and so if I practice I can be as good as <insert name>, well thats not true, take Baseball for instance.

If you follow that idea to it's end then given enough practice any baseball player can be as good as Babe Ruth, Roger Clemems, Ted Williams ect..., well thats not true. Some poeople have better eye-hand coordination, genes that allow for better, faster, stronger muscle growth...more limber tendons(good for guitarists and piano I would think), or a combo of these things.

How about a natural ability to focus more, memorize stuff easier, all people have things they are better at than other people, maybe in these gifted athletes and musicians they have more of a combo of these things so that when combined with drive and determination it allows them to achieve levels of proficiancy that the average musician or athlete struggle with.

Thats my take on natural ability, it can get you to the top of the mountain easier, but you still have to have the desire to climb.

Scott

When I read this thread, here's the first thing that came to my mind: In a Health Sciences class that I took last year, we learned that muscles are made up of two types of muscle fibers. Fast twitch fibers can fire very rapidly but don't deliver much strength. On the other hand, slow twitch fibers cannot operate quikcly, but have about 10x the strength of the fast twitch fibers. Here's the catch though: it's not up to you what ratio of slow/fast fibers you have in your muscles. You can eat protein until your sick of it and lift weights all you want, but if you don't have the crazy number of slow twitch fibers that Arnold Schwarenegger has, you'll never be anywhere near as strong as he is. But at the same time, Arnold will never be able to run a 100 meter dash in under 15 seconds. I've never heard of it, but if muscles are this way, then I can only assume that the brain works in a similar way...it seems likely that there would be trade-offs between the strengths and weaknesses of the different parts of the mind.

So in this sense at least, there does exist some factor beyond our control that places bounds on some physical and mental capacities and allows for easier development of others. However, I think that people tend to focus way too much on these limiting factors. Take for instances the fast/slow muscle fiber argument from above. If your a runner and all you have are fast twitch muscles, then you will probably progress the fastest and farthest if you work on sprinting. Or if you have mostly slow twitch fibers, then distance running will probably treat you the best. But if your somewhere in the middle, you just have to find the race for you...something in between like a mile or half-mile might be your cup-of-tea (sorry I keep coming back to running...but I ran through high-school and into college, so I absolutely love it). However, the best distance runners in the world could still probably take most people in a sprint. Obviously not because that's their specialty...but b/c they practiced it over and over and over to help compliment their skills.

I guess, in the end, the point I'm trying to make is that, sure, everyone's body/mind that is geared toward a certain set of skills. But I think you have to reach a ridiculous level (attained only through practicing more than any of us care to even think about) before the intrinsic limitations of the mind and body are what seperates the good from the best. Someone wrote earlier that even if they practiced 10 hours a day, that they would never be able to play like Yngwie...I dare you to try it. I upped my practicing from 1 hour a day to about 3 hours a day last summer, and I couldn't believe how much more quickly I progressed. And have you ever noticed that all of the players that CAN play like Yngwie HAVE practiced for 10 hours a day for quite some time? And I haven't heard of too many people who have put in that kind of time and don't have something extraordinary to show for it. I know a lot of us have families and jobs and can't practice 10 hours a day...but that's not talent...those are just priorities...and there's nothing wrong with that. But just like the different distances that you can race, there are different ways of being a great guitarist: shredder (Yngiwe), songwritter (Lennon, Dylan), or pouring your soul out through your guitar(B.B. King). If you want to be great and are willing to put in the time, you'll find your niche and practicing extra hard will fill in the rest.

Maybe thats why you hear so many times that someone successful doesn't start a family until later in life, most of us just aren't willing to sacrifice friends/family ect.. to be the best at something, what you have to give up to get there is too much. Might also explain why so many performers have drug and achohol problems, could be looking for ways to fill that void in they're lives.

There just seems to be a lot of factors involved in getting to a level of virtuosity, I'm sure it's very rewarding in it's own way, but I'm not willing to make those sacrifices.

I just want to be able to change from C to G more smoothly.....dang, guess I'll sacrifice some nap time and work on that :)

Scott