Natural talent. What is it?

**Tal_175** · 04-23-2019, 04:36 PM

Do you personally know players who you consider to be extremely gifted? The context is of course jazz musicians. Are you one of them?
What qualities do you think distinguishes them from the average musician? Are all these qualities really relevant in making them better jazz musicians?
Here is my definition of the ultimate natural talent. This is more a theoretical definition, I don't know if such a person exists:

A person with no musical training who only needs to hear a new tune once and all aspects of the tune is forever committed to their memory. Harmony, melody, rhythmic ideas complete with all the details and subtleties of the composition and performance. The person then can perform improvisation over the tune IN ANY key, WITHOUT backing of a rhythm section. Strictly relying on aural imagination. Pre-hearing lines, let's say, 8 bars in advance. Lines that are freely but deliberately going inside and outside all the while telling a griping story with strong melodic ideas. Chorus after chorus. Even years after the tune is heard. All this without knowing the first thing about the harmony. Purely by aural awareness and musical intuition.

Does this person exist? What is your conception of natural talent?

EDIT: I'm not setting the bar for natural talent to the extraordinary qualities described above. What I described above represents the theoretical limit of abilities that I consider relevant to jazz musicians. As a limit it's probably not complete. So I want to hear what other people consider natural talent is. And if you know musicians who posses very strong natural musical talent.

**fep** · 04-23-2019, 04:44 PM

I would consider someone in the top 15% of the population in Talent to be naturally talented, visualizing a bell-shaped curve. I believe that's about one standard deviation

You're definition is way out in left field in my opinion. You describe someone who' if I had to guess is at about the 99.9999 percentile. If indeed someone like that actually exist.

**Tal_175** · 04-23-2019, 04:50 PM

I agree, the person I described is rather hypothetical. 1 in several millions if at all exists. My point is to get peoples ideas about what types of abilities they consider signs of natural talent. Yes by definition those would be statistical outsiders, but I'm interested in qualitative descriptions. Moreover I'm interested in hearing about the abilities that are useful to jazz musicians. Not abilities that are just impressive as circus acts.

**christianm77** · 04-23-2019, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Tal_175

Do you personally know players who you consider to be extremely gifted? The context is of course jazz musicians.

Yeah loads.

Are you one of them?

That is such a funny question. No musicians I know would identify this way.

Thing is if you are that talented (like I dunno, Jacob Collier) all you know is that's the way you are. You'd probably get confused as to why some people are so bad at music I suppose. Compared to you.

What qualities do you think distinguishes them from the average musician? Are all these qualities really relevant in making them better jazz musicians?

What is an average musician? The guys who work in pits and sessions can read fly shit and play any style. What the fuck are you talking about when you say average players? Youtube guitar gear demonstrators? Your uncle who plays in a bar band?

You know this is such a vague question it's impossible to answer. Maybe: some players, who may or may not be the best musicians or technical players have a presence about their playing. Makes them stand out. I tend to like those guys.

Here is my definition of the ultimate natural talent. This is more a theoretical definition, I don't know if such a person exists:

A person with no musical training who only needs to hear a new tune once and all aspects of the tune is forever committed the their memory. Harmony, melody, rhythmic ideas complete with all the details and subtleties of the composition and performance. The person then can perform improvisation over the tune IN ANY key, WITHOUT backing of a rhythm section. Strictly relying on aural imagination. Pre-hearing lines, let's say, 8 bars in advance. Lines that are freely but deliberately going inside and outside all the while telling a griping story with strong melodic ideas. Chorus after chorus. Even years after the tune is heard. All this without knowing the first thing about the harmony. Purely by aural awareness and musical intuition.

Does this person exist? What is your conception of natural talent?

Only 8 bars?

Look, there's a rich diversity of musicians in this old world. But it's interesting to me that what you identify is the aural imagination, because I think you can have that and not be able to play an instrument at all, and be able to play an instrument to a very high level and not be that great an audiator.

The aural imagination has a bit of a mystique attached to it, but really it's a muscle that develops like any another. Some people have it more than others. Used to be more commonly exercised in the centuries before recorded music.

I think it's certainly the thing that could do with being developed more in most musicians.

To have ALL of that. Yeah I know some musicians who fit the bill.... But even then it's possible to lack the spark that might make a lesser musician more effective a musical communicator. Capability is not enough on its own.

**Tal_175** · 04-23-2019, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by christianm77

Only 8 bars?

May be that's relatively conservative. But remember we are talking about actual, specific lines that are "queued" to be played 8 bars in advance. Also not licks and cliches, original, improvised lines. I was tempted to say a chorus in advance but 8 bars is pretty good.

Originally Posted by christianm77

Look, there's a rich diversity of musicians in this old world. But it's interesting to me that what you identify is the aural imagination, because I think you can have that and not be able to play an instrument at all, and be able to play an instrument to a very high level and not be that great an audiator.

Those would clearly violate the definition of natural talent that I posted.

Originally Posted by christianm77

Furthermore just because you have a photographic memory and can audiate entire symphonies in your head doesn't mean they won't be derivative, forgettable slush.

Again those would be disqualified from being considered natural talents according to my definition.

**Tal_175** · 04-23-2019, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by christianm77

That is such a funny question. No musicians I know would identify this way.

Thing is if you are that talented (like I dunno, Jacob Collier) all you know is that's the way you are. You'd probably get confused as to why some people are so bad at music I suppose. Compared to you.

Yeah not really. People who are extraordinarily talented in any field, eventually realize who they are. Not when they are children perhaps (some do even as kids). They are not that naive. They learn the difference between what others can do and what they can do.

Originally Posted by christianm77

What is an average musician? The guys who work in pits and sessions can read fly shit and play any style. What the fuck are you talking about when you say average players? Youtube guitar gear demonstrators? Your uncle who plays in a bar band?

You know this is such a vague question it's impossible to answer. Maybe: some players, who may or may not be the best musicians or technical players have a presence about their playing. Makes them stand out. I tend to like those guys.

To be fair this is not a value question. It's not implied in my post that people who aren't extraordinarily gifted aren't likeable as musicians.
By average I mean average gigging musician. Such qualities as average aren't trivial to define, but they aren't controversial notions. They do exist. There is such a thing as an exceptionally talented musician.

**christianm77** · 04-23-2019, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by Tal_175

May be that's relatively conservative. But remember we are talking about actual, specific lines that are "queued" to be played 8 bars in advance. Also not licks and cliches, original, improvised lines. I was tempted to say a chorus in advance but 8 bars is pretty good.

Those would clearly violate the definition of natural talent that I posted.

Again those would be disqualified from being considered natural talents according to my definition.

I realised that and re-parsed my post, have another read. Hopefully addresses the question a little better.

TBH I think this question is a bit abstract. Pretty much all jazz musicians use licks and vocabulary to some extent, Parker certainly did, and if he wasn't a natural talent (no music tuition, self taught) then I think we are into some woo woo abstract angels on heads of pins shit.

Hendrix, while not a jazzer, I think had the skills you describe.

I certainly know players who are fantastic jazz musicians and have very advanced audiation skills similar to what you describe. However, they tend to be highly schooled musicians, because if you are that good, you tend to get sucked into the music education system.

I have heard of some people who can audiate music really well without playing at all, and if and when they do start to play they make rapid progress.

**rlrhett** · 04-23-2019, 05:31 PM

I read once a description of “talent” as simply being a predisposition to doing something over and over again without becoming frustrated. I’ll look for a citation and link it if I can.

That rings true to me (obviously, or I wouldn’t be repeating it.)

When I was a teenager I had a friend everyone believed to be “naturally talented”. He seemed to play effortlessly, and not just guitar. I didn’t question that he had a “gift”.

But it is funny what thirty years can do. I have since discovered that he has an obsessive borderline dysfunctional personality. His mother told me how at age ten and eleven he would play the same pentatonic scales on guitar all night. She would find him still awake in his room playing guitar when she got up for breakfast. By the time he was fifteen it seemed effortless for him to imitate SRV or Eric Johnson.

In his mid twenties he became obsessed with something else. Since then he hardly plays the guitar. He still has some chops, but he really isn’t all that impressive anymore.

Where did all that “natural” talent go? Wasn’t he genetically predisposed to play guitar? Apparently not. If it is true that “talent” is merely a predisposition to practice, that would sure explain it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

**christianm77** · 04-23-2019, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Tal_175

Yeah not really. People who are extraordinarily talented in any field, eventually realize who they are. Not when they are children perhaps (some do even as kids). They are not that naive. They learn the difference between what others can do and what they can do.

Maybe, but I've never heard a musician refer to themselves in that way, even famous players tend to be humble (well aside from Jarrett.) So asking the question that way is funny.

What they might say is - like Miles - 'I have x quality which comes very easily.' For instance Mike Stern says 'I think I must have always had good time, because people were always complimenting me on it, and hiring me.'

Everyone is always working on something. No good musician is static, even those with tremendous gifts. So there's always a sense of endless improvement. Talent in a way is kind of a fixed, anti-growth idea really, quite alien to the jazz musicians I've met who tend to be growth oriented, even the very top echelon. Those guys are often in awe of someone else!

To be fair this is not a value question. It's not implied in my post that people who aren't extraordinarily gifted aren't likeable as musicians.
By average I mean average gigging musician. Such qualities as average aren't trivial to define, but they aren't controversial notions. They do exist. There is such a thing as an exceptionally talented musician.

I think how this talent is evaluated is subjective - that is an interesting question. Musicians often evaluate their colleague's talents in terms of capability and craft, for instance. Audiences care less about this.

**grahambop** · 04-23-2019, 05:59 PM

I don’t know what natural talent is because I haven’t got any (everything I’ve got was learned the hard way!).

**Tal_175** · 04-23-2019, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by christianm77

Maybe, but I've never heard a musician refer to themselves in that way, even famous players tend to be humble (well aside from Jarrett.) So asking the question that way is funny.

Yeah, most exceptionally gifted musicians don't walk around saying hey look at me, I'm so talented. Because in most cultures that's considered a very assholish thing to do. Although I've heard of exceptions to this, but that's not the point.
Of course musicianship and jazz is not all about talent. There are other qualities, individual sensibilities, drive for growth etc. that are important. But this thread is about natural talent. It's certainly not the least trivial and insignificant thread subject this forum has seen

**christianm77** · 04-23-2019, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Tal_175

Yeah, most exceptionally gifted musicians don't walk around saying hey look at me, I'm so talented. Because in most cultures that's considered a very assholish thing to do. Although I've heard of exceptions to this, but that's not the point.
Of course musicianship and jazz is not all about talent. There are other qualities, individual sensibilities, drive for growth etc. that are important. But this thread is about natural talent. It's certainly not the least trivial and insignificant thread subject this forum has seen

No I think it goes deeper than that. I also actually think a lot of really good musicians aren't necessarily socially aware enough to make that call. They might be assholish in other ways in fact!

It's a perception thing - they hear more.

I'm no great talent of course, but the better I get, the more I hear. The more I hear, the more I realise there is, and the more it makes me realise how little I know.

Now imagine someone who can hear amazingly well.

(If you are lucky you might listen to some music with them, and they'll point out things you never noticed.)

Anyway 'natural talent' is just code for someone whose practice you can't see. A prodigy is someone who started their practice in early childhood.

**mr. beaumont** · 04-23-2019, 06:47 PM

Hot take: talent is an excuse developed by those who haven't put in the work and need to explain why they suck.

**sundogg52** · 04-23-2019, 06:59 PM

My definition, simply stated: The willingness to do the work.

**Tal_175** · 04-23-2019, 07:19 PM

You guys are such hopeless romantics.
Wes Montgomery picked up guitar when he was 19. He had no problem surpassing those who started at much earlier ages.
Guitarist usually start around the age of 12-13 but in the classical world it's very common to start music at a very early age. So much so that 7 is sometimes considered to be too old to start (violin especially). There are still child prodigies and kids that suck in music. Gifted kids continue to be recognised and distinguished in later adult ages.
Natural talent isn't everything, but let's not pretend we live in such a fair and egalitarian universe where it's really all about who puts in the hard work.

**neatomic** · 04-23-2019, 07:36 PM

from one of the best films ever made about a musician..and a great one at that

32 Short Films about Glenn Gould

#2

cheers

**Jazzstdnt** · 04-23-2019, 08:23 PM

I wouldn't over-complicate it. Something like the following:

With all things being equal (such as experience, age, training etc.) - Someone who moves ahead of others quickly, gets new material faster than just about everyone else, performs better and more easily. Runs circles around the rest of the pack, with the rest of the pack being fully competent.

Such people are often referred to as being "a natural".

That said - if you're talking about some rare genius or freak.... I guess that would be the above squared, or something like that.

**Irez87** · 04-23-2019, 08:36 PM

Wes Montgomery started playing guitar at 19, but does that include his time spent playing the tenor guitar. I heard that he learned all of his Drop-2 chords on the tenor guitar.

I don't believe in inherit talent. I believe in fascination, early on, and lots of time really honing a craft. I also believe in being brought up around the right people. IE, the people who could really cultivate a person's craft early on. Wes came from a very musical family, he was raised in that environment.

Even Mozart was brought up with a strict musical upbringing--his father had him take violin lessons religiously at a young age. Does starting young automatically mean child prodigy. Heck no. The difference is that while most kids are fascinated by baseball, video games, and Hollywoo Stars and Celebrities What Do They Know? Do They Know Things?--these "gifted" kids are more interested in music and keep at it out of joy--not because mommy and daddy said they had to do it.

And Neo, if you're gonna post it, might as well post it right:

All kidding aside, my dad brought me up on that stuff. Too bad I got fixated on video games at a young age instead of music... and I had shitty music teachers after my first acquaintance with the guitar (Bach makes me all formal)

Neo, what's your favorite Gould rendition?

**Sam Sherry** · 04-23-2019, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt

Someone who moves ahead of others quickly, gets new material faster than just about everyone else, performs better and more easily. . . Such people are often referred to as being "a natural".

That.

A gift, musical, intellectual, physical or otherwise, is a quality which gets somebody from Point A to Point B a lot quicker than most.

Once a gifted person has reached Point B they have to start working just as hard as the next person. Itzhak Perlman's Point B is a place I will never reach, but apparently he works his tail off.

I have met fine, valued musicians who had no significant musical gift but simply would not take 'no' for an answer. They worked so hard that they get to Point B and keep going.

**neatomic** · 04-23-2019, 09:43 PM

erez...his 2nd recordings of the goldberg variations 1981...mature and magnificent..and so free!!...no shizz given!!!..

alchemical! turning bach to gould

cheers

ps- he also did modernists like schoenberg with a true understanding

**Hep To The Jive** · 04-23-2019, 10:00 PM

Natural talent absolutely does exist. I thought I had one before I went to college and meet some guitar players who were younger and sounded ahead of me played less years. One particular guy I swear couldn't sound bad even if he tried, he naturally had such a great feel you just can't learn. Even before he had developed full jazz vocabulary. He got nicknamed 'Drunken Benson', because his groove and swing and touch was unmistakably Bensonesque, but he obviously was too young to be as mature. Top player in Russia these days.

But ultimately the name of the game is finding a niche. You gotta have some talent. Hard work +talent can get you somewhere.

**mr. beaumont** · 04-23-2019, 10:19 PM

Gould hated Chopin, therefore he sucks.

See how easy that is?

**neatomic** · 04-23-2019, 10:54 PM

he only liked the solid spruce chopin..the laminated 3 ply maple top chopin left him dry...haha

cheers

**tonedeaf** · 04-23-2019, 11:29 PM

Only thing I know is that it is what I don't have.....

**Jonah** · 04-24-2019, 03:59 AM

Yes, I personally know players (musicians/composers) who were obviously extremely gifted fromn early years and managed to grow as exceptional adult musician....

I was not exceptionally gifted, but I was very musical, that was noticeable...

You see for musicinas there are also special physical requirements...

some people are handy on some instruments... some can play clear polyphony... some have very good ear... some have very good conceptional hearing (they hear contents of music)... etc

Mostly all these things when they are done really good require more than just one skill... to play clear poliphonic structure it is important to have a touch/physical ability - but also one has to have good hearing of a form, of semantics .. becasue it effects phrasing.

I gave an example hear how Horowitz made untuned paino sound in tune? This is a combination of all these factors controlled in smallest nuances...

So when we speak about natural gift - what do we mean? I knew a guy who could improvize 5-6 voices fugues having very short formal education... it was obviously his gift.. becasue he could not do anything else.

Is it a musical gift I am not sure, it was a bit scary actually... he can play improvize 5 voice fugue on any given theme with exposition development and all... bt he could nto comp a simple coutry tune by ear.

Everybody said: what a musician! what a gift... yes, gift.. but is it musical? what is music then?