-
No it's not fair at all, you are 100% right.
Originally Posted by Tal_175
I think that's why it's so important to see music as an internal process. You can ask yourself - am I enjoying this?
With Wes you are looking at someone that had undeniable musical gifts (but then should we surprised? He came from a very musical family) but no one can deny he put in the work. I also feel that with Wes, like Charlie, his style was so specific there wasn't such an attempt to become a virtuoso in the classical sense. He could not, for instance, do everything Johnny Smith could do. But he knew exactly what he wanted to do. In his words:
'I don’t know that many chords. I’d be loaded if I knew that many. But that’s not my aim. My aim is to move from one vein to the other without any trouble. The biggest thing to me is keeping a feeling, regardless what you play. So many cats lose their feeling at various times, not through the whole tune, but at various times, and it causes them to have to build up and drop down, and you can feel it.'
He also said:
'To me, all guitar players can play, because I know they’re getting to where they’re at. It’s a very hard instrument to accept, because it takes years to start working with it, that’s first, and it looks like everybody else is moving on the instrument but you. Then when you find a cat that’s really playing, you always find that he’s been playing a long time, you can’t get around it.'
-
04-24-2019 06:39 AM
-
Actually it occurred to me I know a young lady who was BBC Young Musician of the year a few years ago, who perhaps could be said to have some natural talent. As I understand it, her parents are amateur musicians only, but she started playing recorder at school at age 4 and as it became clear she had aptitude for music, she switched to her main instrument a couple of years later.
But she then started practising for hours every day, starting at 5 am before going to school. She told me she found this hard but knew she had to do it. Her parents also made sure she had lessons with some top teachers, even flying to Russia regularly for a lesson! All this time she still attended the local school where my kids went and did normal lessons.
So I think the early talent is only one part of it, it must then be followed up by years of truly hard work and dedicated commitment. Also this person has a great ability to communicate via music, I don’t know where that comes from but it was (I think) the main reason she won the competition, given that all the finalists were incredibly gifted technically on their instruments.
-
I'll chip in with my experience as an educator. Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
Some people just get it.
Some people really don't.
My interest is, of course, why. Partly selfishly; I think it makes for more interesting lessons if I try and work out why they aren't getting it.
What are students doing when I'm not teaching them. Obviously quantity of practice is important, but I think quality of practice is absolutely important. That's why I am a bit skeptical of the whole Gladwell 10,000 hours thing. Pat Metheny's 10,000 hours is not like everyone's.
Looking back at the way I learned, for instance, I think others would consider a naturally talented technician on the instrument. People always complimented my chops. I developed quickly as a lead player could play faster than guys who had been hacking away for years, including my teacher. I was seriously lacking in other more important areas, but I think people would have called me a 'natural' back then.
Given the development of muscle memory and so on is so important to the guitar I think I actually learn physical things quite slow (I'm a big clumsy oaf), but I think I had an intuition as to how to solve physical problems, and a realisation that I had to practice things consistently and get the feel of the movement. I honestly don't see this in a lot of students. (BTW I have never really needed to practice slowly to develop speed.)
So while I don't think intuitive high quality practice is the whole picture, I do think it's terribly important, and as an educator I think it's something I can address.
-
Well, remember the 10,000 hours thing is not just 10,000 hours. Its 10,000 hours achieved within a relatively short time frame at a young age. And then, it's a commonality among people who are great at something, not a recipe...
I don't believe in big blanket talents like "he has a talent for playing guitar." What I believe in are smaller, definable aptitudes or physical advantages, which can add up to something--and usually the thing that they add up to is that the hard work needed to become great at something...well...isn't so hard. Maybe it's even fun. And the person wants to...maybe even craves or simply "has" to do the work.
-
By the way my friend had an experience when he taught violine to a boy of about 13 years old... in his opinion it was total diaster, there was no chance.... but the kid was stubborn, he wanted to play... it did not work out.
But I always wondered what is behind such an ambition? I think I was lucky because I mostly could do what I wanted to (sometimes too easily even which made me think that the wish is the only power you need to accomplish things... it was tough to discover that - not always).
In this world most people are moved by the opposite: they actually grow and do not know what they really wish.
As a result they wish only what they can mostly... of rather what possibilities the circumstances provide them (truely poorest, weakest possible option for a human being, but human is weak).
They easily substitue wishes with circumstances. It is easier to live this way.
It is like their soul is formed by the oustside world.
Much less people live from their wish and ambitions - really live - their soul pushes the oustside world, they try to make the whole world themselves. not that they have an illusion of it... and there is great quantity if those who know what they wish .. but they cannot do it (not becasue of circumstances)
But how is that that people passionately want to do something but just do not have natural disposition for that? How come it happens? I never really knew this feeling and some people are overwhelmed with it?
I do not even speak about if it is fair or not... but how to control it? how to help them out? Or is it just what they have to deal with?
Besides there is one very important moment anbout gifts and possibilities. There were times when I said to my friends about things that were important in my life: I think I do it wrong way, I think it does not work with me... the way I come to it is wrong probably.
And the closest best friend told me: the things you speak about... it's not how to fix a broken door knob or buy a newspaper...
who knows what is the right way about it?
What I am trying to say... Karl Gustav Jung said: Every human person is a new unique experiment of ever-changing Life: an attempt to find new solution.
(I am new solution of Life! )
And while this unique human person is alive the experiment is going on, right now, every single moment it can take an unexepected turn that never ever happened to any other person in the same circumstances before, chances are being there right now.
To be honest I was wrong when I said that people are split into these groups ... even those who do not know their wishes still have them spmehwere deep - they come out in the most intimate moment of their lives.
Jung was right - every human, every human is unique. I just do not have the right to say so, who knows maybe this mediocracy is on half way to revelation... maybe it is his trial? We can only make judgements on what is gong on now but we should not look to much forward about other people.
But sometimes I get tired of people and I begin to tell things like: no, you are no new solution of Life, you are one of those solutions that already happend so many times...
-
It's sounds like the OP was describing Oscar Peterson, who was said to have a "phonographic" memory. It is said he could remember past conversations verbatim that he had with people years prior.
-
do you mean jazz natural talent?
-
I remember Randy Vincent saying somewhere (I couldn't find it with a little searching) that when he taught Julian Lage as a kid/adolescent, Lage would just completely digest each week's lesson and come in hungry for more. The ability to internalize and assimilate all that information is certainly a talent, and one I don't have. It takes me forever!
On a different note, I have noticed that some people use the term "talent" to mean skill. Not anyone in this discussion, but someone might hear a person play music well, or watch a kid pitch baseball, and say, "Wow, he's really talented." But to me, talent is something innate that has to be developed, and when you see someone perform well, you only see the result of that development. Without knowing their background, and how much they worked, you don't really know how "talented" someone is/was. And ultimately, it may not matter that much!
As someone without all that much musical talent who works fairly hard (for a hobbiest), this distinction is pretty interesting to me.
-
I'm sure natural talent in music generally isn't tied to a genre. However this is jazz forum and jazz is one of the musical styles I'm most intimate with. That's why I was focusing on qualities associated with jazz. But possessing natural musical awareness, instincts, imagination and memory, I'm sure pays of in any musical activity. Originally Posted by kris
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
This is hugely important. I think one of the most important talents in music (or in any skill) is to have good insights into how one learns. This cannot be understated. How to get most out of practice time (with or without the instrument) is far from obvious. The more you get music and learn about yourself, the better you get at teaching yourself. Everything one learns after all is self taught. No one can teach you music, but a good teacher can help you practice better. They can teach you how to teach yourself. Originally Posted by christianm77
Like the old Chinese proverb, teacher can only open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
-
Probably didn't mean it, but one interpretation of that is the conclusion it is Chopin that is the "he" that sucks. Maybe I'm just reading that in because I myself never cared for Chopin, but I could deliriously listen exclusively to Bach, forever. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
That's a real story? Too bad, I love both, but I can't see why anyone would hate Chopin... Never heard a bad piece of music from him. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
In the meantime I can live my life happily never hear Tchaikovsky again. Total anti-jazz, brrrr.
-
"Talent is God's gift to you. What you do with it is your gift to God." - the best singer I ever worked with. She could (and did) break your heart with one note.
-
Well I think talent means you can develop a required skill faster than most. So yeah, if I see a kid playing well, nice and fast and groovy or whatever, Id say that kid has talent. Because comparatively, like with some adults, who may play for 20 years and still dont get it, that's what it is. Talent is a speed with which you're learning. Or easiness. Originally Posted by dingusmingus
-
I've been described throughout my career by other players as a "natural", which, to me, is the essence of "talent". Along with the natural feel for the skill one is developing, talent adds the drive to excel. As a pro player for 5 decades, I have several acquaintances that have skated by on their talent for years, never really putting the time or thought in towards real mastery, and always wondering why they didn't get a "break".
For Wes, the fact that his home was full of music gave him a head start on being familiar with the language of American pop and jazz styles; I was from a similar background, where really good music was played in my house, my dad being a decent drummer and very good harmonica player, with a liking for Oscar Peterson, Mel Torme, Stan Getz, Toots, and classical/flamenco guitar. As a result, I was familiar with the sounds of relatively advanced musical concepts long before I was given a guitar. So the 10,000 hours started very early for me, without my active participation, and once I had a guitar in my hands, it felt right and real, and my life changed completely within a few weeks, and within a year or two I was gigging and teaching, still in high school. That hunger to learn has never diminished, as is the case for most of the really great musicians and artists I have met. While I never pursued stardom or riches, I have been living a life of joy and freedom in playing music on the guitar, and have accepted that I have a talent for it, but I have no clue as to where it came from. As for the OP's requirements, I can meet some of them some of the time. I feel very lucky.
-
As a guitarist (string oriented musical world) I tend to most really like the great composers' violin concertos. Many of them only wrote one because they poured it all into a single work (tends to represent their best work) of which Tchaikovsky's one and only violin concerto is one of my favorites; have you heard it? Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
<span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">
-
It's OK, but no, not a fan. Hope Beethoven told him the news, though. Originally Posted by pauln
-
Because he practiced hours and hours every day. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Other really talented guitarists in jazz: Joe Pass, Jim Hall, Julian Lage, Pat Martino, Johnny Smith- all of whom began playing before age 10 and had put in thousands of hours before anyone knew who they were. In Hall's case, he also got a BA in music and most of a Master's.
People with "natural" music talent- who can play proficiently practically from the first moment they touch the instrument- tend to be savants. Some people seem to be born with perfect pitch and can just hear the notes like other people can see blue, green and yellow (people with synesthesia may hear music as colors). It's as much curse as blessing.
-
it is not much about bad or good music, Gould never denied Chopin's gift. But the gifts can be different.That's a real story? Too bad, I love both, but I can't see why anyone would hate Chopin... Never heard a bad piece of music from him.
With all the eccentricity of Gould his viees are never just poses. If one takes enough time and effort to get deeper he will find that there is always experience, sencitivity and argument behind it
About Chopin, it is aesthetical opposition.
And I would say that Gould understood Chopin much better than many of his admirers.
I had a short period of deep interest in Chopin when I played (what I could of course) listened everything he composed (I was about 14), I remember that it is with Chopin I discovered the idea that he actually had developed some kind of code with which he managed to completely keep himself in his music. It is a cliche that the artist stays in his work.
But with Chopin it is literally so, when you play his music you can really feel his presence, I even think he did it almost conciously.
He is undisputable genius (but genius for me does not always mean that his music is human and responds me).
I always felt that so-called 'passion' of Chopin is extremely cold and almost cynical... he seems to always look a bit from aside to everything.
Besides - modern admirers today often miss very important aspect of his music - it is music born in salon aesthetics of early 19th century Paris... we are too far from it today to really feel it, but it is all soaked in pretencioussness and snobism of some sophisticated kind.
Gould definitely felt it.
Andy day I would prefer Schumann who though was not that gifted naturally mangaed to discover the depthes of humanity in msuic, to research the human soul.
(And by the way Gould loved Schumann)
Well... I do not know what anti-jazz would mean... (he should not be jazz)))In the meantime I can live my life happily never hear Tchaikovsky again. Total anti-jazz, brrrr.
but with Tchaikowski the problem is that he is mostly misunderstood too really...
Due to his prolofic melodicism and also yes sentimental aesthetics in general - later generations easily turned him some kind of pop-composer of the day.
But he is one of the greatest musical dramaturgist (his operas) and novelist (his late symphonies).
And also - though I am not a big fan of a bellet - even I can understand how he managed to transcibe dance language into music.. even his non-ballet music reminds of ballet.. for example violine concert is practically a ballet for a violine.
It's an off top here though - sorry - just do not discard him... he is a whole universe... my receptopn was quite early (from 6th symphony) but I know quite many people who came to this thing much later.. I think it is especially difficult for Russians because he became sort of cultural cliche which is not easy to overcome
-
The "natural" talent.. those seem to automatically make it a performance whenever playing anything. In practice also. From the 1st new note. Emphasize on "automatically". Even when just noodling or pondering
-
He (Wes Montgomery) probably did. But he also had a full time job at a factory when he was learning guitar. He would practice at night after long, tiring physical work days. He didn't have the luxury of a teen or a music student who can get up fresh and practice 13 hours a day. Originally Posted by Cunamara
-
A book that I am currently re-reading, that I really highly recommend, is "The Talent Code".
The book is about how some people seem to progress very quickly and get to a super high level of work. It's been the single most useful non-fiction book I've read.
-
Chris Potter. This live track was recorded when he was just 14:
You don't get that out of hard work only. No way.
I happen to believe that raw talent is way more important than hard work. I think it's possible to be a world class player within just a few years. Bireli comes to mind too.
DB
-
This is almost inarguably true. The book I recommended is really about "what is raw talent?", what does it mean? Originally Posted by DB's Jazz Guitar Blog
I knew Chris socially for a while (he used to date a very close friend) and I do think people tend to underestimate how single minded an focused some of these people are from a very young age. Pat Metheny has said over and over again that jazz music has been his obsession from an extremely young age, he basically practiced instead of actually going to high school. Tony Williams was super young when he joined Miles but said he knew all Miles' music, all of it, backwards and forwards. This is not something that he was born knowing.
The book also points out there's a huge variance in different practice strategies and the results they produce, and some of "raw talent" may be due to someone adopting a particularly effective practice strategy early on that allows them to make leaps in progress that would not be possible otherwise.
I cannot recommend this book highly enough for folks who are interested in thinking a bit more deeply about what raw talent is.
-
Sounds a bit self help pop sciencey from the title, but if it's well evidenced would certainly be of interest. Originally Posted by pcsanwald
Reply With Quote
Thomastik-Infeld Jazz Swing 112
Today, 02:35 PM in For Sale