How good or how bad are we, really?

[digger]

The idea of talent, natural or otherwise, is like a strong magnet that pulls these threads off track. Here, if I understand it correctly, the question is about one's own perception of one's ability; not the talent - or lack of - that garnered you that ability. Are we accurately defining and/or measuring ourselves at our current level?

I know I can't improvise, or play rapidly, or come up with nice melodies or reharmonizations, or even play with much swing (I'm working in this). But drummers tell me I have good time, and I've never been late for a gig, on occasions folks seem to like my tone, and I iron my shirts before shows. I think I know enough about music and gigging to put myself in the basic player category, but what I am able to play, I play at a decent level of proficiency and professionalism, if that makes sense? To me, there are an awful lot of pop/rock players (many superstars amongst them) who are basic players too, but play that basic stuff very well indeed, and conduct themselves very well in the process. i.e playing and performing basic music at an excellent level.

Jazz is different, by nature of the form, one will be playing intermediate level stuff (at least) and also need to do it at an excellent level, alongside everything else about being a good musician.

But how does one measure this stuff?

Feedback from peers? Checking the level of the course / book / DVD that one is currently working with (are you flying through that book or struggling to get beyond chapter two?). Transcribing and being able to play complex solos at tempo and also to come up with your own improvisations? The musical academic level you have achieved? University courses aside, even "home" jazz players now have, if they choose to take them, exams grades much like classical players. Say, grades 1-4, basic, 4-8, intermediate, above 8, expert?

Or is it as simple as listening to Jimmy Bruno play at his best and being honest with oneself? Let's mark Jimmy as a master and then mark ourselves, via comparison, below that ( or, indeed, above it).

I don't know. But put all this together we all ought to be able to figure out where we are individually.

Derek

[RJVB]

How would you have any idea about Wes’ innate talent

I do think that experienced musicians can sense whether another musician has a lot of innate talent (or at least that they could tell the difference between someone who does and someone who doesn't).

And you can undoubtedly replace "musician" by almost any other profession.

After all, people with some experience in teaching also develop a talent to detect future/potential brilliant pupils, no?

[pamosmusic]

Which part? If I was a vocal coach, I'm sure I'd need to understand how to develop my singing ability (other than than just singing) but I never did that. I was speaking only from the performance standpoint.

Being a singer takes a lot of work. Or being a good one does, anyway.

[pamosmusic]

After all, people with some experience in teaching also develop a talent to detect future/potential brilliant pupils, no?

Yes. I’ve taught two who I think were genuinely talented. One is ten and the other one was in high school and never practiced.

I’m not convinced talent has much more to do with being good than “IQ” does with being successful.

[pamosmusic]

If I were to guess, the biggest advantage is probably that it makes it more immediately rewarding when you practice.

Someone like Wes or Pat Metheny couldn’t be one of the best dozen or so jazz guitarists out of hundreds of thousands or a few million or whatever without being talented and an incredibly hard worker.

More interesting to think about people who are just really really good players … I don’t know … top ten percent of folks playing or whatever

[Django Johnson]

Being a singer takes a lot of work. Or being a good one does, anyway.

I've been singing and playing since I was a teenager. My parents forced me to sing as well since just learning to play guitar licks wasn't entertaining enough for them.

I can sing and play guitar well enough to front my own little blues trio for a few years. We'd do three one hour sets. I did all the singing and guitar playing. I've busked on the streets for hours singing blues, jazz standards and folk tunes. I hosted acoustic open mics for years. I've been doing it for so long it's just second nature to me. I've never considered my self a real "singer" just a guitar player that sings.

However I am a really bad jazz guitar player.

[Doctor Jeff]

Somewhat apropos to this conversation--a former colleague of mine went to Phillips Exeter. He was brilliant, but a rather humble and unassuming (and probably somewhat neurodivergent) guy.

He showed me an article in a magazine--might have been the PE alumni journal--looking at the careers of graduates of a certain class, lets say 1975. A surprising percentage were failures. These were people with every advantage in life, and most of them very intelligent (yes there are always the few legacy slobs who slip in through admissions).

And yet...they didn't put in the work, became enticed by drugs or alcohol, got into extremely risky enterprises, or had bad luck.

Intelligence and by extension natural talent early in life is a bit of a curse. It tells you you're better than everyone else, and don't have to put in the work that others do to get the same results. It takes a great deal of luck and perseverance to escape it.

[Mick-7]

Being a singer takes a lot of work. Or being a good one does, anyway.

I can only say that hasn't been my experience with singing - with guitar, yes.

[SOLR]

However I am a really bad jazz guitar player.

The very Conundrum right here

S

[lammie200]

I can only say that hasn't been my experience with singing - with guitar, yes.

One point, however. Singing is relative to range. Lou Reed could sing. He had next to zero range.

[AllanAllen]

One point, however. Singing is relative to range. Lou Reed could sing. He had next to zero range.

Lou Reed sang his own songs, using his voice as a tool for his art.

I feel like that’s different than being able to sing jazz repertoire which has established melodies.

That being said, I’m a big fan of solo Lou Reed and the Velvet Underground.

[AllanAllen]

I guess to wrap up my thoughts with Deacan… I think I’m speaking out of my experience in the conversation and if I gave lessons I might feel differently.

If you were to come back and say, “Allan, you don’t know what you are talking about” I’d reply with “that’s quite possible.”

So thanks for opening my perspective.

[pamosmusic]

I can only say that hasn't been my experience with singing - with guitar, yes.

Singing might be a test case in the limits of natural talent, actually.

Because so much of it is based on the physical equipment -- someone whose voice finishes developing at age 16 is going to have a massive advantage in college auditions and whatnot over someone whose voice won't finish until they're 22 or something. And there's nothing you can do to control that.

But oh my dear sweet lord -- hearing those big beautiful voices absolutely butcher a diatonic solfege exercise in freshman ear training was unreal.

Singers who were absolutely murdering high school repertoire because they had natural talent were often totally unequipped for something they actually had to work to get.

A lot of great singers have considerable natural advantage, but I'd bet talented singers are just as like to wash out of the professional world as succeed in it. Honestly probably more likely.

[rpjazzguitar]

Malcolm Gladwell, writing about Canadian Hockey, pointed out that the kids who were identified early as having potential were put on a much different track. Better teammates, better coaching, better opportunities.

I think music is like that. If you can get to a certain level, somehow, you get opportunities. You then have to perform adequately, which is going to require a combination of talent and hard work.

One top pro mentioned to me getting a gig (near daily, many hours for a couple of years) backing different singers. Had to play all kinds of tunes in any key, without charts.

He had the ability to make that work. Not everybody does. But, it pushed him further up the mountain.

Some players can hear the first chorus of an unfamiliar tune and play it on the second chorus. Seems to me there's some natural talent involved in that, since I've been trying to get there for decades and can't do it unless it's a very simple tune.

Which brings me back to the mountain. We're all climbing a mountain. You can look down and see people who aren't as high up, or you can look up and see brilliant players in distant clouds above you. Are you any good? Which way are you looking? What are your goals?

[deacon Mark]

That is a great way to look at it, what are your goals? I have no real goals other than to keep playing and hopefully be able to do that till the Lord takes me. I was a long-distance runner for 41 years and now I cannot run but only walk. Not an injury but a balance problem and it has taken me a long time to accept that reality. I don't want that to happen to the guitar playing. Strokes and health issues all are among us and most of us on the forum are not young.

When I broke my collarbone almost a year ago and 2 metacarpals on my right hand, I could still actually play the guitar. Not for long periods without pain but I could manage. That taught me a valuable lesson and more than one lesson in fact. Play the guitar is important gets more important when you cannot at all or your fullest potential. Do not take it for granted that you will have all your faculties for playing.

The other lesson was be damn careful on the road bike and watch out for loose gravel. Better to go slow and keep riding that quick and down for the count.

[pamosmusic]

Some players can hear the first chorus of an unfamiliar tune and play it on the second chorus. Seems to me there's some natural talent involved in that, since I've been trying to get there for decades and can't do it unless it's a very simple tune.

Okay this specific example is helping me formulate a thought.

I’ve been working on this for years too and only recently has it clicked a bit for me — like maybe the last two or three years or so, hearing actually the way Christian talks about being able to work on hearing chord progressions.

So maybe some things are innate — but I’ve had so many experiences where something seemed inaccessible until the right perspective came along or until I stumbled down the right path by chance.

So I think part of the reason I bristle at people who say “they just don’t have the talent” or who marvel at other people who do, is that it sometimes seems to me like pride masquerading as humility.

As in: if this were possible for me, I’d be doing it already, so it must not be possible for me.

I see this in a ton of students. I have one now who says she is 100% sure she can’t improvise blues stuff. And I’m like. Yes you can — you’re just going to sound bad for a couple weeks. I’m not sure yet if she’s going to be up for that, but we’ll see. This happens all the time, usually with folks who are older than me. Not sure if it’s an age thing generally, like they’ve bought into the old dog new tricks thing — or if it’s that I’m comparatively young and that’s a weird dynamic. Not sure

On the other hand, I’m sure I can come off as a little self assured or cocky now and again (ONLY NOW AND AGAIN) and it might seem like I’m saying anyone could do anything given the right parameters. But I think generally it’s because I want to learn stuff and am confident that other people have something to offer in that respect. My experiences have born that out.

It seems counter intuitive but “knowing your own limits” is kind self assured and cocky in its own way. You’d have to be pretty confident in your own knowledge of what’s out there to be sure you can’t learn to do something. Right?

[Stringswinger]

I am going to ruffle a few feathers here: Joe Pass once said that if you don't hear it, don't play it. Letting your fingers do the walking on the fretboard is not jazz improvisation, it is musical instrument masturbation, something that could be done by a child or a chimp.

One gets close to being a good jazz player by intellectually choosing to wiggle one's fingers over scale forms or patterns that one has learned will sound OK over the underlying changes even though the notes are not deliberately chosen.

If I am describing, you, the reader of this post, instead of getting pissed at me, I suggest going into the woodshed and working at it. If you have a modicum of talent (And some cats simply don't sadly), you CAN develop the hearing skill. And developing your ears is the key. If you work at it hard enough, you can learn tunes on the fly (complex tunes like say a Wayne Shorter composition take more time, nobody except cats like Bruce Forman or Howard Alden can learn that kind of stuff quickly).

[AllanAllen]

I am going to ruffle a few feathers here: Joe Pass once said that if you don't hear it, don't play it. Letting your fingers do the walking on the fretboard is not jazz improvisation, it is musical instrument masturbation, something that could be done by a child or a chimp.

One gets close to being a good jazz player by intellectually choosing to wiggle one's fingers over scale forms or patterns that one has learned will sound OK over the underlying changes even though the notes are not deliberately chosen.

If I am describing, you, the reader of this post, instead of getting pissed at me, I suggest going into the woodshed and working at it. If you have a modicum of talent (And some cats simply don't sadly), you CAN develop the hearing skill. And developing your ears is the key. If you work at it hard enough, you can learn tunes on the fly (complex tunes like say a Wayne Shorter composition take more time, nobody except cats like Bruce Forman or Howard Alden can learn that kind of stuff quickly).

This is literally the same point I made about Wes learning Charlie Christian solos vs the theory guys who blame their lack of talent.

[deacon Mark]

When I was in college and doing a lot of practicing and teaching, I had scales and speed on the brain. I studied with the late great Fred Rundquist in Chicago. I remember him saying like it was yesterday, " think in 4 bar phrases and then expand to 8 bars. Always have control of the situation and play simply within the chord." Naturally he was a buddy of Joe Pass and Joe says always know the chord you are playing out of in the tune. Fred said to not worry about complexed things and burning speed but take those 4 bars and make a statement.

It was over 40 years ago but wow does it make sense now. Talent has nothing to do with being slow to learn and grasp what a master is telling you. Right now my practice centers around playing and tune and playing it in sections. So I think either 8 bars, 12 bars, 16 and focus on getting through it in 4 bar increments. Like Larry said I am climbing the hill..............in 4 bar intervals.

[zephyrregent]

Innate talent vs. working hard? It's a combination of things. Some can be described, but there are other things at play that are indescribable. For example, Wes had the ear for jazz, a great desire to play it, mastered the mechanics of it, and played with his brothers all the time. He worked hard at it. He developed his ear, learned things from Charlie Christian's solos, extended that musical knowledge and had the musical imagination to create something new. The direct experience of playing with his brothers and sharing musical knowledge can't be overemphasized in its importance. He didn't study book theory, although he knew the commonly used theory of the time, similar to what Barry Harris teaches about chords and progressions. I'm not an anti-theory person. I've learned many things from books over the years.

I would say that he had both innate talent and worked hard. There is no specific formula to reach the heights. Everyone is different. Some people learn slowly, some don't hear as well, etc. and all we can do is work at it. Sometimes something opens up internally that allows us to absorb knowledge faster or more deeply and progress faster. Geniuses come along only once in a while. Maybe it is something innate and built in to a person. Maybe it is a case of "special function" people, born with special abilities. Stay Tuned!

[Mick-7]

But oh my dear sweet lord -- hearing those big beautiful voices absolutely butcher a diatonic solfege exercise in freshman ear training was unreal.

So you're saying their musical hearing was undeveloped? If so, I would not say they have vocal talent, good pitch control is essential to that (and it's mostly innate), having a pleasant sounding voice is not nearly enough.

Okay this specific example is helping me formulate a thought. I’ve been working on this for years too and only recently has it clicked a bit for me — like maybe the last two or three years or so, hearing actually the way Christian talks about being able to work on hearing chord progressions.

It's simply pattern recognition, the same or similar chord changes occur repeatedly in popular music, the more you practice identifying and playing them, the better you can hear and improvise over them. Those who have tin ears can't improvise at all, so the very fact that someone can recognize chord changes proves s/he has a talent that can be developed.

[Kirk Garrett]

Malcolm Gladwell popularized the idea (someone else’s idea) that putting in those 10,000 hours is the end all, be all. Ever since, a lot of people have played down the existence of talent.

Which is silly. The sports references in this thread should illustrate the importance of giftedness.

Other bands besides the Beatles gigged for thousands of hours. But only the Fab Four had a guy who was writing songs like “World without Love”, “I’ll Follow the Sun”, and “When I’m Sixty-Four” (the music, anyway) in his mid-teens.

[Christian Miller]

Did they sit their butt down and learn solos by ear, or did they try for 5 seconds, give it up and noodle over Allman Brothers Live At The Fillmore?

Wes knew the Charlie Christian solos decades before Wolf Marshall made his book. So we know Wes put in the hard work. That’s literally all I’m going on, that and the anecdote that he played with his thumb so he could practice as his family slept. So he was putting in the time. Not watching pedal demos on YouTube and calling it practice.

I’m not saying this is what you do. I’m saying, the things a typical guitarist calls practice is hardly anything at all.

It’s taken me a surprisingly long time to realise this is essentially the truth.

One of perennially popular videos is me talking about my four utterly nondescript gigging guitars. It’s 45m long. Why?

Why do people watch this bilge? Don’t they want to be better players?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

Malcolm Gladwell popularized the idea (someone else’s idea) that putting in those 10,000 hours is the end all, be all. Ever since, a lot of people have played down the existence of talent.

Which is silly. The sports references in this thread should illustrate the importance of giftedness.

Other bands besides the Beatles gigged for thousands of hours. But only the Fab Four had a guy who was writing songs like “World without Love”, “I’ll Follow the Sun”, and “When I’m Sixty-Four” (the music, anyway) in his mid-teens.

Also worth noting that the 10,000 hour concept in general is nonsense

[Christian Miller]

10,000 hours isn’t enough anyway

Though that too might be a me issue

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk