natural talent

AH yes. I remember all those days and nights studying this subject or that subject in school, working hard, writing, rewriting, flash cards, memorizing etc. Go into class take a test, test results come back in a day or two when results are posted and usually I have a good grade. Somebody else in the class would ask me what I got, and if I told him there would be eyes rolling and anguish and then the statement - 'ah man, you're just some kinda genius, I just couldn't understand anything' It wouldn't matter if I tried to explain exactly how much work went into getting that 'genius' grade, the other person would never actually hear that part, no, it was always easier, and it still is easier, to say that I'm just a genius cause the other option is to say that if dude would take some time, study and study hard he could make a better grade. Most folks don't want to put in the effort so anyone who is better than them is a genius and born that way and nothing can be done to change grades.

With the guitar someone else can have longer, quicker fingers, a better ear, more ability at a given time to understand the musical concepts and generally an easier time of learning to play the guitar. For that guy and for me as well we both need to put in the effort and time to get better. I may never get as fast and as accomplished as the next guy but I know that every day I know more and I do get better. If I felt otherwise I'd have never gotten up out of the crib in the first place. And even now, less than a year of guitar someone will hear what little I know and say to me, 'man, I could never figure that guitar stuff out, I'd like to play but I have no talent' and of course the ultimate excuse for not trying 'you're just talented'

For what it's worth: A study done among thousands of violin players, both amateur and profession, in the US yielded the following results: the only predicator for actual skill level and succes was the total ammount of hours practiced. All top-quality violin players had been practicing 10.000+ hours whereas all the 'worst cases' had spend the least time practicing. None of the proffessional players showed any kind of musical genius prior to beginning their training program.

Ofcourse, that still doesn't mean anything about the existence of talent since you can still argue that the ability to put in the time but who cares. Bottom-line is that Nick was right: work as hard as you can and you'll get rewarded. If you put in the 10.000 hours (five hours a day, every day for the next decade) then you'll be a great guitar player. Put in less time and you'll be less good.

Note that in GuitarLand people are very much focussed on speed: let a seven year old kid rip shoddily through some scales and most people will think it's amazing. With other instruments I notice a more general approach at music: yes you can learn to play scales fast within a year, but no that doesn't make you a genius or special. Technique, theory, proper posture, general sense and knowledge of music: these are aspects your average trombone player is well trained in but your average guitarist is not. To determine whether someone is a genius you have to look at the total time spend on practicing and the total ammount of skills acquired. And looking at that I don't think Mr. Malmsteen got anything more then he deserved.

From personal experience, I'm going to go with the "Natural Talent" camp. A family friend (for the UK lot, his name was Don Sillers and he owned the company that made Sillers prams, a well-known brand in it's day) had natural musical talent. He could play a keyboard instrument with the best of them. You only needed to hum or whistle a short piece of a tune and he'd play the rest - not necessarily 100% original, if he hadn't heard the tune before, but you'd swear he'd been playing it for years. He'd never had one lesson and couldn't read a note, he played everything by ear.
In North Yorkshire, there is a church organ, that allows recognised organists to play - you had to book 1/2 hour several weeks in advance (sometimes the queue was months long) and only people on their list were allowed to play. Don was one of those - a great honour in anyone's language, as he'd had to prove to them that he was capable of playing a 3 or 4 register church organ to their standards, which he, obviously, did.
No natural talent? Don't talk wet, the man had it in spades.

Arjen,

That doesn't suprise me, a study that found the more people practice the better they get at a task....it's perfectly logical. But that was never my argument, I beleive that myself.

One of the reasons at least I use the speed thing as an example is because it's one of the only objective criteria you can use. Otherwise how would you rate a guitarist? By the melodies he creates? Most of the other aspects of guitar are abstract and very subjective so for purposes of this discussion I've used speed.

An this study is of professionsl musicians...that's a huge group....probably none of which are well known. So yes you can get to a professional level with practice but that doesn't put them in the "elite" category...those musicians didn't make it either.

Don't talk wet, the man had it in spades.

The ability to play a tune someone whistled can be learned. The ability to take a theme and have him finish the entire piece can be practiced. And it can't just be practiced, it is practiced in Jazz conservatoria all over the world. That your friend didn't had any lessons hardly matter: it's very, very much possible to train your ear and knowledge of theory on your own. So the real big question is: how many hours had he played music before that moment?

Or let me put in my personal experience: four years ago I couldn't hear whether one note was higher or lower then another. I was your stereotype of a 100% non-musical person. Now, after three mere years of mostly private practicing I am able to write down basic melodies I hear in notation without having an instrument at hand. I can play those tunes on a number of instruments, I can add harmonies to it and turn a melody into a 'song'. I have no talent whatsoever in any shape or form yet in three simple years I've learned a fair bit. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the things you mentioned are well within grasp of me and anyone else who feels like practicing. Just give me another decade and I'll be your natural talent.

Cnev: it was a study of both amateur and professional violin players, and let me assure you that to be a 'decent' professional player you need a fair ammount of speed. And playing fast on a violin is infinitely harder then shredding on a guitar. It's a basic skill that is considered to be trainable, and you are expected to train it if you want to become a professional. Remember that guitar is one of the few instruments where you can be a professional without reaching the standard that's expected of you in more classical settings. If you are allowed to play the lead in a violin concerto in an orchestra of any name I would definitely consider you to be atleast as 'elite' as Malmsteen and the likes. At the very least.
One of the reasons at least I use the speed thing as an example is because it's one of the only objective criteria you can use.

The problem is not too many genres of music call for 25 notes a second, so the objective criteria isn't very relevant to many, many players. Maybe Clapton could have learned to shred like Malmsteen, all we know is he has never shown any interest in doing so. You are right, other criteria are worse. But if we ignore the extreme situations: people like Gilmour and Clapton (both make music I like a lot) are not playing in a way that's beyond what most of us could ever learn. Make a list of the most succesfull guitar players and I don't think many of them play 25 notes a second on a daily basis.

Ah who cares. We both agree that natural talent exists, one way or the other, and we both agree hard work can get you very far regardless of talent. So I think we mostly agree on this subject. :D

Arjen,
the fact that someone has played an instrument before, does NOT under any circumstances mean that he has no talent merely practice. Your denial of natural talent is, in my opinion, puerile. I can't see a way to make the point to you, you're just going to wheedle around and say it's practice.
You are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine (even though there are those who would deny me that) and we shall remain at opposite ends of this discussion.

Oh, I didn't say he had no talent. (or atleast I didn't mean to) I don't know the man so I can't judge him. I have already said that I do believe natural talent exists. But the things you mention *can* be archieved through practice, whether he did so or not. So regardless of the existence of talent (in which I do believe, to some extent), I believe anyone could reach that level of proficiency. Which is the only point I'm making, and basically the only thing that matters from my point of view. I don't particularly care how the great from the past got where they got, all I want to know is if the average Joe can reach those levels of proficiency by hard work, compensating any natural talent that might be missing. And I believe that is possible. And that's really the only opinion I have.

And you're more then welcome to disagree with me. Who knows, maybe I could be wrong. :shock:

Arjen

I agree with Greybeard. In fact, it sounds to me like you have a lot of natural talent for music. You simply weren't involved with music. But once you started you found you had a good ear and sense of rhythm. Trust me, MANY people do not have these qualities and wish they did.

I think I was somewhat of a natural at guitar. I am not fast or technical like Yngwie, but I have a good ear. From day one I could pick out melodies on guitar. Within a month of starting, I could probably play at least 10 songs note for note. I am not bragging, but many people have been surprised by my ability to learn songs by ear very quickly. And many songs I did not even have to hear to learn. I could (and still can) think of a song I heard 5 years ago. I can hear the song in my head and copy that on guitar. And many times I have even amazed myself by playing along to the song later and finding I was playing the song note for note, and in the proper key.

So this is the one natural ability I had from the start and it helped me to get pretty good on guitar very quickly. I didn't have a lot of natural physical ability for guitar, but I do have a good musical ear. And again, many people do not have this.

Wes,

I totally beleive your story about your ear etc., and Ive known or read about other people with this talent but just hearing the notes in your head, how did you get your fingers to the right places on the neck if you never picked up a guitar? How did you know that you just heard an A and knew where to play it? I always wondered how people do.

And in that first month the songs you learned note for note, we're you playing pieces that involved sixteenth notes etc? Which would imply that not only did you have a great ear but you also must have had a pretty good physical grasp of playing if you could recreate rhythms in the first month.....

I know you can PLAY cuz I've heard you so I'm not doubting just wondering...and yes you are bragging..Ha Just kidding.

I hear things in my head sometimes.......but they aren't notes....hehe :)

Scott

I've always had fairly good ears....... obviousely when you first pick up a guitar it takes more time to figure out a melody/chord but I've always been able to do that (once I learn't my chords). It's basically something you do by feel and once you get more familiar with your instrument it gets easier every time. P.S I'd say you need some sense of rhythm to develop on any instrument, so if that counts as natural talent then I think you do need some. I wouldn't say it makes it impossible but if you struggle with timing/rhythm then it is something that is much harder to teach/learn.

Just a friendly reminder that it's okay to have two different opinions. I have them all the time.

Feel free to post what you think but don't feel the need to convert anyone to your way of thinking.

Deja vu. Did anyone else see that black cat?

The throughts on violinists, Malmsteen, Clapton etc. are really interesting.

Last night I re-read part of Copland's great little book "What to Listen for in Music". He starts out by saying that music exists in three 'planes':

The sensual plane - for the joy of listening
The expressive plane - for the 'meaning' of the notes
The musical plane - for the notes themselves

He then comments that most musicians (that's classical musicians) are too hung up on the musical plane, and tend to ignore the others... that is, technique ahead of everything. And that most non-musicians get too hung up on the expressive plane, trying to decipher meaning from music.

Then I thought about a conversation I had with another guitar teacher the other day. We were talking about blues, and I mentioned I had tickets to see B.B. King next month. He said "He doesn't play many notes... but he sure makes each one count"

Back to this thread... I think there are lots of different areas of 'talent', and that different genres focus on different dimensions of music. Objective measures are impossible, even speed - because that may not be the important measure for a genre. Malmsteen = the musical plane (the notes), King = the expressive plane. I haven't heard either one do anything astounding outside of their areas of focus.

Just like any other endeavor, there will be 'naturals' and those who have to really struggle. But just like any other endeavor, even the 'naturals' have areas they need to work on. If you're a natural with a baseball bat, you still need to learn to field the ball.

Copland mentions 'talent', and he tells of someone who can go to see a musical play, return home, and repeat the theme of every song at the piano. He calls that "a certain musicality", but then argues it is different from musicianship, because that person will probably lack an understanding of the other factors of music. All it shows is that they play a bit of piano, have a good ear and possess a decent memory.

Musicality/musicianship. Talent/practiced ability. 'Talent' may be a head start in the journey, but it's not a free pass.

I didn't vote. But I believe in natural talent, but the lack of it can be overcome. I have felt natural talent. We all have our natural talents. Mine is NOT guitar, but I love it anyway. Maybe I can overcome this, but who cares. I play for fun.

Interesting Topic tho.

Great discussion - interesting to read, to say the least.

I've weighed in on my thoughts in previous threads, so I won't bore you with more.

An interesting observation from my guitar teacher recently... I guess I have a "knack" for strum patterns... once I get settled in I can start strumming the correct pattern (more or less). My teacher recently told me that he has soooo many students that just can't get the right hand correct. In fact, he asserts that guitar is all in the right hand (or left, for you southpaws). Most non-musicians think it is the left hand that is more important (as did I) since the notes and chord shapes are made with the fretting hand. He believes it is the opposite. Someone with a good picking/strumming hand can make 3 simple chords sound intricate, while someone who can't keep time - but fret perfectly - sounds like a beginner. Interesting.

Anyway... my other natural talent is hitting the string above or below the string I WANT to hit the majority of the time...