Playing fast - natural talent or hard work?

[C.A.JO.]

Hello,

I've seen many threads on this site about developing speed picking, fast licks, runs, and scales. In all those threads I see some people who thinks that this ability only is for the very few, who has the natural ability to play fast. I used to be one of those guys, but that changed when I started practicing picking technique very thorough and very focused. The more I practiced the faster and cleaner I was able to play....

By fast I mean 16th notes at 160 bpm+, sixtuplets at 100 bpm+.

I've also found a website about "the secret of shred guitar"... it is about a documentary about that the speed picking technique has a secret, which we haven't discovered. The only ones who knows it are the ones who are able to play fast. But they don't know that they know it! That one does something unexplainable with the right hand. The argument is that almost everyone practices with metronomes and increasing the tempo bit by bit, but only very few ever get above the mediocre level. The site mentions that many of the virtuosos developed the technique over a short span of time.... Including Paul Gilbert, Rusty Moore, Michael Angelo Batio. The site is found here:

http://www.troygrady.com/code.php

It is my opinion that the technical ability to play fast can be learned but anyone who practice it correctly. The has been my own experience. I had played guitars for 8 years before I really sat down and got my s*** together. And all the guitarists I know who can shred and play fast have all dedicated a lot of time and practice to reach that skill level. None of them believes it is a "gift" for the chosen few. I'm not speaking about tasteful and musical fast note runs. And not rock, jazz or any genre. Only the physical ability the set the "neck on fire"! The musical skill to pick the good sounding notes when improvising at fast tempos are another skill, and NOT the topic here.

So lets hear it, what are your opinions and experiences? Can anyone learn to play fast seen from a technical point of view, or is it a utopia for the many who practices scales for years and years to the metronome without ever getting it?

P.S.
I hope that this thread not will get any of the "speed-hater", "speed is not music", "there's more to technique than speed", "difference between rock or jazz speed" -kinda replies. That was not the intention. I only ask about developing the technique and not what genre you use it in, or how you use it.

[Jake Hanlon]

To be able to play fast, it only takes the determination to want to work it out on your instrument. It's like working out in the gym, you can't be 240lbs of raw muscle and strength unless you work at it. Technique is the same thing.

However, having the ability to play fast is only one part of the story. Playing something interesting is far more valuable and the truer test of a musician. I bet you can train a Chimp to play guitar at fast tempos, but that Chimp won't be able to create anything worth hearing other then the novelty of it all.

I think that some people posess an aptitude for very focused practice allowing them to zone out or be capable of highly repetitive tasks like speed picking, 6 string sweeps, 2 handed tapping. I wouldn't call it a talent, talent means creativity.

I also suggest that Technique is different then Speed. Jim Hall technically very seldom makes mistakes with what he plays, his technique suits his playing style. He might make a record with Pat Metheny (a great record mind you) and Pat can out play him in a guitar race, and Metheny would be beaten by Mclaughlin, Mclaughlin bested by Holdsworth etc etc etc... all have different levels of speed, but all have equal technique.

Technique, I'm saying is relative to what it is you want to play. Speed, blazing speed is just a means to an end... Therefore I am never, ever impressed by someone who can play a million notes a second, in and of itself. If you can play that many notes, and make each note mean something and have power then I totally dig it.

Hence why Coltrane will always be one of, if not the most iconic and imitated Musicians in the Jazz world, and yes I know you are talking about things that transcend genre of music, but we can all agree for the most part that Trane was the ultimate in expressive emotion meeting absolutely formative Virtuosity on his instrument.

In fact today, not 5 hours ago I was practicing and was very frustrated with certain technical aspects of what is going on with my playing right now. I realized it was nothing to do with speed, but everything to do with clearity. I was listening to Liberty Ellman (a brilliant guitarist) earlier and noted that while he played nothing blazingly fast, every idea spoke clearly on the instrument, I thought of Hall or Charlie Christian when I was listening to him, clear, accurate and tasteful. Hip as shit as well, while I summize he could possibly have played double time lines over that tempo there was no need, his phrasing was perfect.

I realized that all I want on the instrument is to play what I hear. Now, I can do that in a pitch/rhythmic way. In fact my ears are far stronger then my guitar playing at this point. I can hear things that my fingers cannot play, because I can sing them (not with any sort of listenable tone, and with a limited range) but I know what I want to play... now I want to fix that on the instrument... and the only thing to do with speed in this regard is that I don't want to fear any tempo... if someone counts a tune off at 320 I want the same flexibility as I would at 120. Because I understand that you cannot treat every tempo the same way. I don't hear 300 the same way I hear 150, and while they are just subdivisions of each other, bands react, audiences react, your mind reacts a certain way.

The Instrument needs to be a filter for your musical mind, that's something I am convinced of, no one can change my mind about that. When I hear Jonathan Kreisberg play (as an example) I hear such precision in his playing that I wonder how much of that he hears. When I met the guy, it's clear that he hears every single note. While I have zero desire to perhaps have his ability to play some of those amazingly angular lines in 32nd notes, I want to be that accurate on my instrument so that even 8th notes are enough.

/rant

[mcohen777]

Man, I was just watching Kreisberg today and I was thinking the same thing. He plays every note so perfectly, and you just know he hears it all too.

But what did you do to your picking technique that made it possible achieve that speed? Was it constant adjustments or one change and just kept working at it to eventually reach that level of speed?

[voelker]

anybody have any fingerstyle speed tips? i had some pretty severe tendonitis that started about five years ago. it kept getting worse and i eventually started educating myself on how to treat it with out putting down the guitar for a year. its definetly better, but is still very restrictive. about a year ago i decided to give up using a pick completely and i love it. five slow fingers are better than 1 slow pick. but i haven't looked at any technique lessons or anything, just started doing it. any fingerstyle speed tips/tricks/exercises would be greatly appreciated.

[franco6719]

I don't believe that playing fast or accurately or technically complicated things is a natural talent, but there might be some natural abilities underneath some of these things. It is basically a mechanical skill and is therefore mostly about hard work. I'm pretty strongly convinced of this. However, like everything else, there might be certain natural advantages. For example, Tal Farlow's humongous hands were obviously some kind of advantage for the kinds of contorted, never-ending lines and unusual chord
voicings that he was able to play. On the other hand, I've seen people with very small fingers and hands play amazing chord solo stuff with unbelievable precision, whereas I can hardly get the fingering right on one of these five or six-note chords without hitting clunkers or provoking arthritis or something. I have small hands but very long fingers (strange combination).

A lot of it seems to be hand-eye coordination or hand-ear coordination. This might be genetic to some small extent, but I think it's basically learned and reinforced muscular and movement stuff.

Like everything else, good technique (better concept to focus on that sheer, robotic speed) is probably a combination of natural and learned. You try to do the best you can with what you have been given and try to improve on it with hard work. But ultimately Tal Farlow is Tal Farlow, John Coltrane is Coltrane, and you are you.

[Little Jay]

As with everything in live: 90% transpiration, 10% inspiration (or "talent"?)

[Goofsus4]

Sure, it takes no "talent" to play fast (assuming you have normal human physical coordination). It just takes methodical practice. However, I just read an article that said that research showed that people over 40 begin a gradual decline in the speed at which they can do repetitive tasks in a given interval of time, such as tapping a pencil. Soooo, if you start playing later in life it's reasonable to assume that you aren't going to be able to ever play as fast as the fastest 20-something.

[derek]

The ability to play fast is a demonstration of athletic ability imo. Just like any any athletic pursuit, some will have higher ceilings than others, but all will drastically improve with proper technique and tons of practice.

My problem (I don't see it as such though), is I don't have the desire Jake speaks of. Based on my experience with the guitar, and technique development, I am fairly aware of what it would take time wise to get shredder fast, and am just not interested.

Speed comes to me with regular practice, and when my chops are sharp, I can play pretty much as fast as I want. I have no desire to play thru Donna Lee at 300 bpm. It just isn't musical to me. I know I am dancing on the edge of wanting to avoid your "speed is not music" qualifier, but if you think speed is very important, you will devote the time, and will get faster. If you don't value it as much, it won't be something you spend a lot of time on.

So I do think those sorts of views about speed play a huge factor in whether or not someone can/will develop it. Worthy conversation, but from where I sit, speed is one of the least important aspects of playing to worry about, but I certainly do not hate or avoid it or speedy players.

[Ray C.]

How musicians tackle and then later look at Giant Steps as they get older, is an instructive way to look at what speed and complexity amount to in the end.

There is certainly something to be gained-something worthwhile-in learning the changes and studying the tune. And while speaking for myself, I would nevertheless go out on a limb and say that if you are over the age of 40, this tune does not appeal to you the way it did when say you first heard it as a teen or in your early 20's. I know that for me it's now one of my least favorite Trane tunes. With age it seems almost more of an exercise; like something that really should have stayed in the woodshed. This I think is something for young players to think about-although, there is a certain, "rite of passage" that seem unavoidable when it come to speed.

In terms of talent or hard work, it's should also be noted that John Coltrane was a late bloomer. He was not a natural in the way the Bird or Sonny Rollins was (he was not yet 32 when Giant Steps was recorded; Bird was 34 when he died). Even taking into Trane's early drug addiction, he was in many ways a grinder. He had all of the classic traits of an autodidact. Duane Allman in rock is another example of "grinder," who was not a natural but through hard work developed into a very influential player. Their breakthroughs came through regimes of long, hard practicing.

So, yeah, I think hard work will at some point allow you to breakthrough in terms of facility over the fretboard, but is that really "playing?" I think where natural talent shows is in a player's ability to respond on the bandstand; to improvise at high tempos without falling into clichés and repetition; to have his/her own voice. All the hard work in the world can’t fix a bad set of ears.

[franco6719]

How musicians tackle and then later look at Giant Steps as they get older, is an instructive way to look at what speed and complexity amount to in the end.

There is certainly something to be gained-something worthwhile-in learning the changes and studying the tune. And while speaking for myself, I would nevertheless go out on a limb and say that if you are over the age of 40, this tune does not appeal to you the way it did when say you first heard it as a teen or in your early 20's. I know that for me it's now one of my least favorite Trane tunes. With age it seems almost more of an exercise; like something that really should have stayed in the woodshed. This I think is something for young players to think about-although, there is a certain, "rite of passage" that seem unavoidable when it come to speed.

In terms of talent or hard work, it's should also be noted that John Coltrane was a late bloomer. He was not a natural in the way the Bird or Sonny Rollins was (he was not yet 32 when Giant Steps was recorded; Bird was 34 when he died). Even taking into Trane's early drug addiction, he was in many ways a grinder. He had all of the classic traits of an autodidact. Duane Allman in rock is another example of "grinder," who was not a natural but through hard work developed into a very influential player. Their breakthroughs came through regimes of long, hard practicing.

So, yeah, I think hard work will at some point allow you to breakthrough in terms of facility over the fretboard, but is that really "playing?" I think where natural talent shows is in a player's ability to respond on the bandstand; to improvise at high tempos without falling into clichés and repetition; to have his/her own voice. All the hard work in the world can’t fix a bad set of ears.

So, in other words, you claim that practicing, studying and hard work are pointless nonsense. You are either born with natural abilities or you can't be a good musician? That someone is not really "playing" at all, unless they have the proper genetic endowments? Also, where is your evidence that ear training does not work?

BTW, what is the value of genetic endowments, since no-one actually earns them? That's just a matter of luck? Is music all about luck and no effort?

[Jarred]

Here here Derek...

[Ray C.]

So, in other words, you claim that practicing, studying and hard work are pointless nonsense.

I would read my post again-slowly. I would like to think it would be pretty simple to tie what I noted about Trane and Allman as example of what practice can do vis-a-vis becoming a great artist. Not sure how you missed this. My point was that they were not, naturally gifted players-they were not prodigies.

But, I don't think that this means that innate ability is not part of the equation. It may only be a small part of the equation, but IMO it is there.

[gravitas]

Natural talent is a myth.

The idea that there is a "secret" to speed is silly. However, the idea that practice alone amounts to speed is also silly. There are proper methods to acheiving speed, but they're not hidden away. On the other hand, simply bashing your head against the wall in increments of 10 bpm per week is not going to solve your problems either.

[Jazzaluk]

Sure... its possible to train the hands to play very fast BUT...

The pursuit of speed for speeds sake will only lead to musicians playing faster than they can think. This is a guitar disease that afflicts everyone at some time. I think it goes away with age.

IMO, fingers that fly faster than the brain may create an illusion of technical mastery in some, but like all illusions, it will soon ring hollow in both the player and the listener. Playing faster than the speed of ideas results in nothing more than musical parroting at best and incoherent babbling at worst (even if the right "scales" are employed )

I think that one should never play faster than their musical ideas permit. Over time, speed will naturally evolve to support the speed at which a musician hears the music. IMO the two should be developed in a balanced way.

In Jake Hanlon's case, trying to get technique to catch-up with musical ideas is truly an enviable position.

[Jake Hanlon]

another way to put my position is that you want to be able to just instantly react to your musical self rather then letting yourself physical self control the music. The two must be trained, and they need to be treated in certain ways. You can't spend all day working on Technique unless you have a clear and dedicated reason for doing so other then "I want to play fast". Yes, wanting to play fast in and of itself is innocent, but it's useless.

I want to play clearly and accurately. That means it requires a certain level of mastery of the instrument, because Jazz is a musical style that explores extremes in tempos, from the very fast to the very slow. You need to be able to control both.

Another thing to me, one thing about Chops. I always have felt, that when I hear someone who has great technique, it's not what sticks out to me in their playing. It's not until I start to say transcribe them or listen very closely do I notice it. Example, the best one at least for me was Brecker... yeah he's got insane chops. But his ideas, his time and his tone was what caught my ear. When I started to listen hard, and try and steal ideas off his lines I couldn't physically play them at tempo because I just didn't realize how fast they were coming out of him.

[franco6719]

I would read my post again-slowly. I would like to think it would be pretty simple to tie what I noted about Trane and Allman as example of what practice can do vis-a-vis becoming a great artist. Not sure how you missed this. My point was that they were not, naturally gifted players-they were not prodigies.

But, I don't think that this means that innate ability is not part of the equation. It may only be a small part of the equation, but IMO it is there.

Alright then. That's much clearer. No, I agree with all of that. The first comment was a little bit unclear and ambiguous (no offense intended) about your thoughts on Coltrane, etc.. It seemed that you were implying that even people like Coltrane (who I consider the greatest jazz musician who ever lived!!), or Duane Allman, were just going through the motions, and mastering the instrument, but not really "playing music".

Sometimes on the Internet, or other written mediums, you have to write everything out explicity, as you just did in the second comment, or misunderstandings commonly arise.

[franco6719]

Natural talent is a myth.

The idea that there is a "secret" to speed is silly. However, the idea that practice alone amounts to speed is also silly. There are proper methods to acheiving speed, but they're not hidden away. On the other hand, simply bashing your head against the wall in increments of 10 bpm per week is not going to solve your problems either.

Natural talent is certainly not a myth!! That's going too far in the other direction now. There is a reason that child prodigies are called prodigies and are different from other people that has nothing to do with practicing. When you see a child of five years of age picking up almost anything they hear and repeating it, or when you realize that Pat Metheny was already playing professionally at age 15, you have to admit that there is something special going on there.

Very few of us can become as extraordinary as Mozart and we shouldn't try to.

[derek]

Very few of us can become as extraordinary as Mozart and we shouldn't try to.

Why not? Pat is from where I live, and I have gotten a chance to talk to him on a handful of occasions. The one thing he has always said is, his "talent" is his ability to focus and work his ass off. He has always felt he needed to work harder than everyone else to play as good.

My comment, when this topic comes up, is always, put in as much time as Pat or Jimmy Bruno, or whomever, and let's see where you wind up. How could any of us possibly know what our ceiling is, if there is such a thing?

[fast1]

its definitely hard work... talent only lets you learn things faster. at least thats how i see things

[franco6719]

Why not? Pat is from where I live, and I have gotten a chance to talk to him on a handful of occasions. The one thing he has always said is, his "talent" is his ability to focus and work his ass off. He has always felt he needed to work harder than everyone else to play as good.

My comment, when this topic comes up, is always, put in as much time as Pat or Jimmy Bruno, or whomever, and let's see where you wind up. How could any of us possibly know what our ceiling is, if there is such a thing?

Derek, I just mistated the point a bit. I didn't (and don't) mean to discourage people from becoming as outstanding musicians as they are capable of becoming. I just meant that, for the most part, you shouldn't compare yourself with others or becoming obsessed with playing as great as "X,Y, or Z". First, you should become as good as you possibly can (if that's what you goal is) and work as hard as possible to attain whatever you are capable of attaining. I believe it is harmful, and can lead to insanity, if most people sit around thinking "I'm not as good as Joe Pass", "I'm not Wes Montgomery", "I'm not as good as this guy and that guy", etc.. If you ARE that good or potentially that good, miind you, all the best to you and so on. Usually though, even for the extremely talented, their will always be someone who can play faster, cleaner, more creatively, or whatever. So the path of "better or worse than X" can lead to bad results in every sense.

Second, you want to sound like you anyway and not like someone else.

[franco6719]

talent only lets you learn things faster.

Yeah, that seems to be the consensus opinion from what I have read on this stuff too. Who knows for sure?

[Jake Hanlon]

talent and a bus ticket gets you across town.

you have to wait for the bus, get on the bus, pay the fee, take your seat, pay attention to the route, ring the stop button, get up, get off the bus etc etc etc

[Jazzaluk]

Talent is simply possessing natural aptitude or skill. It allows someone to learn much quicker, but it does not mean that work is not involved. Hard work is a great equalizer in all pursuits, and a good work-ethic is probably more potent than talent.

Also, I think that the idea of talent is often confused with fame or prominence, which are entirely different animals. There are a ton of accomplished guitarists around, some more "talented" than others, but relatively few become prominent. This destiny is more in the hands of the listener than the musician.

However, one thing seems to prevail among the more prominent musicians, is that, through study and hard work, they have developed a mature and articulate voice that is uniquely their own.

[derek]

Derek, I just mistated the point a bit. I didn't (and don't) mean to discourage people from becoming as outstanding musicians as they are capable of becoming. I just meant that, for the most part, you shouldn't compare yourself with others or becoming obsessed with playing as great as "X,Y, or Z". First, you should become as good as you possibly can (if that's what you goal is) and work as hard as possible to attain whatever you are capable of attaining. I believe it is harmful, and can lead to insanity, if most people sit around thinking "I'm not as good as Joe Pass", "I'm not Wes Montgomery", "I'm not as good as this guy and that guy", etc.. If you ARE that good or potentially that good, miind you, all the best to you and so on. Usually though, even for the extremely talented, their will always be someone who can play faster, cleaner, more creatively, or whatever. So the path of "better or worse than X" can lead to bad results in every sense.

Second, you want to sound like you anyway and not like someone else.

I agree. Comparisions to legends can be pretty self defeating, or inspiring. I guess it depends on the individual. Most players though, start out learning from their heros. Kessel, Ellis and Wes were all notorious Charlie Christain clones. Learned and performed all his solos note for note.

After a while, they develped their own voices, but all started from the same place.

[franco6719]

I once knew a fellow who sounded exactly like John Scofield. He was fantastic and impressed everyone on the campus because he could play JUST LIKE JOHN SCOFIELD. He always played like John Scofield and couldn't play any other way. He played standards.... like John Scofield. He played modal tunes....just like John Scofield. He played free stuff....just like John Scofield. He played rock.....just like John Scofield.

I believe he is now a truck driver or something like that. Most people who start out as clones end up as clones, in my experience. There were literally hundreds of "Pat Metheny's and John Scofields" at Berklee alone about 20 years ago. I'm trying a different approach this time.