Lol. I actually think the best way to learn to write dialog is to watch TV. It may not be how people really talk, but it's how people are conditioned to think people talk. That said, the guy who invented subliminal advertising was a fraud. He admitted it later in life and no study with any scientific basis has ever supported it. That's not to say that if you hit someone over the head with a message over and over it won't sink in. I consider myself a student of human culture, and the only truth I've ever discovered is that no matter how right one side of an argument's advocates think they are, the answer is usually somewhere in the middle. Even the great black and white issues like who was the 'good guys' in WWII gets murky when you look at U.S. run internment camps. Sure, one side can be more right than the other, but learning that there is an element of truth in both sides to virtually every argument and that many matters of truth are constructions of the human mind is an important lesson. I've watched the world too much to believe that ability comes down to just nurture, or just nature for that matter. It's a matter of being able to see the gray areas in the middle. When you master that you will reach the next spiritual level.
That's why I won't by nature OR nurture as the be all end all answer. ---------- Nate Facebook
/the only truth I've ever discovered is that no matter how right one side of an argument's advocates think they are, the answer is usually somewhere in the middle./
And that in many cases (the majority even?) no-one knows enough to make any kind of definitive pronouncement at all.
MAL: science also debunks God. talent is not tangible either...but it exists, we see all the time. Im surprised that you have this opinion given your ability to rationalize what you see and hear. Time frames are garbage (5,000-10k, whatever) time is irrelevant unless you can predict your own progression beforehand. unless of course it is a race to see what you can accomplish in that time, its useless...
I never worked hard to make my peers jaw's drop. It just happened. Its strange to hear ooh's and aah's from folks who are like minded with the same amount of time in as me. it isnt hard to hold my stuff up next to theirs and see whose looks better. What is the difference? Ive never bragged about what i can do, nor have i ever discounted someones efforts in favor of mine. Im pushing the envelope here on this topic, but its simply the truth.
Anyone can be taught, wholly, everything there is to know about something (through and through), and they can commit themselves to a lifetime of training and discipline to master it....and then a dude will walk in one day and trump you in every way possible. How can that be? I never liked cheerleaders for more than their short skirts, but: Gimmie a T, gimmie an A, gimmie an L, gimmie an E, gimmie an N, gimmie a T... what's that spell? ---------- Kyzer's Travels Kyzer's Artwork
#1 time frames are not irrelevant and I'm tired of repeating myself. There is scientific evidence for that so delude yourself to believing it or not. Your choice.
2nd, if talent exists or doesn't exist, IT DOESN'T MATTER! You can't change what you are born with or natural inclinations. Realize that, then move on to the practice room to put in your 10,000 hours. You'll seem way talented once you've put in the hours. End of story. + It's REALLY funny how to me how people only say someone is talented after the fact of large practice hours were put in and virtuosity achieved. Why didn't people go crazy for Charlie Parker when he first touched a saxophone? He was soooo TALENTED! NO. NO. NO. Mozart? Didn't write anything amazing until 21 years old. TALENTED! NO. NO. NO. The one common trait in people who are said are "talented" is working harder than anyone else. Magnus Carlsen, the world's number one chess player in the WORLD, has worked harder than a regular expert or master could imagine. Traveling the world and playing non-stop. If they have talent or not from the beginning, IT DOESN'T MATTER. Believe in yourself and put in the work and you will have talent.
And to the people who are saying they put in a lot of work and still and didn't "make it" or become as good as they are, I challenge that you didn't work as hard as you imagine others really do to get where they are.
People who think they can never be as good as {insert their favorite player's name}, never will be. If they were more open minded, anything is possible.
Last Edited by on May 09, 2010 8:04 PM
I think that Buddha is right in one way: our mind is incredibly powerful, and the power of belief--both the positive and the negative power--is immense.
Music is an interesting discipline, because it involves the body, and all bodies, as any athlete knows, are NOT created equal. Not everybody has very fast reflexes and neural pathways optimized for musical brilliance at high speed. So if your goal is to be a fast, brilliant jazz harmonica player--well, good luck! Work hard and you may get most of the way there. But it's also possible that you weren't supposed to become the next Howard Levy.
You can't do absolutely everything you decide you're going to do. This is where Buddha is wrong. This is because the universe--as Buddha surely knows--sometimes has other ideas for you. The thing you "want" to do may not, in fact, be the thing you should be doing. Your head may be telling you one thing and your heart may be whispering another. And this is why I've always liked the phrase, "God may not always come when you want him to, but he's always right on time." Sometimes it turns out that your goal is merely a mind-thing, not a soul-thing. Maybe you were supposed to play long, slow notes with great feeling, rather than Trane's sheets of sound.
Not everybody who THINKS they're supposed to play Buddha's sort of free jazz is, in fact, supposed to play that sort of music. Sometimes people with goals push much too hard, trying to do something they're not supposed to be doing. Maybe they think Howard Levy is God and they want to be Jesus. But maybe they're supposed to play slow, gentle, simple stuff and bring joy to people in nursing homes.
Yes, Buddha is absolutely right: get quiet and listen to the universe. But you've got to be willing to accept the fact that the universe--aided and abetted by your own quota of God-given physical gifts, including reflexes--may tell you to give up the harmonica and take up basket-weaving. I saw a basket-weaver on the walk to New Orleans Jazz Fest. He looked extremely happy, weaving his reeds and rushes. He really had talent.
For the past 8 years, I've spent much of my dream energy trying to become a better distance runner. I've put in more 15 mile runs on Sunday mornings than most people would believe. I ran 22 miles once, training for a marathon. I have no particular talent for running. I'm just a moderately good runner for my age, which means that in small-market places like Memphis, I can place top 3 in my age group.
And yet: three times, amazingly, I've won small races outright, and won money. Most people would say, "A 50 year old guy running 19:30 for a 5K can't possibly win a race outright, and there's no way in HELL he can win money." But I've won three races that way in the past four years. I keep showing up, I keep training, and on three occasions, I was the fastest runner in the race. The first time this happened, when I realized that I was the guy chasing the police car--the car that led out the race leader--I felt like a character in a Woody Allen movie. I wanted to apologize to whomever saw me. "I'm not REALLY supposed to be leading this race," I wanted to say. Then I won the race.
Next time I found myself in the lead, I'd already gotten over the apologies. I knew what I could do and I resolved to kick ass and win.
I've also finally learned how to train; this past winter I ran a PR half-marathon at 51 (1:31:03, or 6:57 pace) and a PR 10-miler (6:55 pace). This means that I've actually gotten faster between the ages of 45 and 51.
Now, when I returned to training and racing at age 45 and discovered that I was much, much slower than I'd been 19 years earlier when I stopped racing, I could have created a defeatist attitude for myself. But I didn't. I kept learning, growing, training, optimzing. I kept racing. And I kept showing up. Half of becoming a winner is showing up. Letting the passion flower, but giving it lots of time to work itself out. That's the secret. You've got to put in the time and enjoy most of the time you put in. You've got to follow your bliss, as Joseph Campbell put it, which means you've got to listen to what your heart and soul tell you to do and find a way to prioritize them. You need to learn how to gently sidestep people around you who think they know what you need to do. They don't know. They have no idea--unless you've gotten lucky, which I have, and happen to find a life-partner or friend who can act as a spiritual partner and can help support you and occasionally remind you that you've gone off track.
I realize that I've gone off track a little, but this is a good thread and I thought I'd share a part of my life's passion that might not be obvious from all the harp-talk I engage in.
I realize, on rereading this, that I've left out the key point: I don't have any significant talent as a runner. I'm solid regional class--I won my age group in a southern regional 10 miler--but I'm nowhere near national class. There were 30 guys my age who were faster than me at the Carlsbad 5K. The fastest guy my age in the country is running sub 15:00 for 5K, not 19:30. But the point is, I've still achieved my dreams. I've won three goddamned races as a middling 50-year old! So I don't waste a single moment wishing I was the sub-15:00 guy. I just keep looking for ways to run 19:15, even as I age. I don't tell myself ahead of time, "There's no way you can win this race." Because it turns out that every now and then, the fast guys don't show up, and I do. And THAT, my friends, is fun. I keep having fun. I keep trying to use my wits to stretch myself just a little bit further. I keep trying to kick ass when I come up against runners half my age. I keep putting in the work. I keep showing up. I don't worry about not being the best. I just keep taking pleasure in being the best that I can be.
Last Edited by on May 09, 2010 8:23 PM
I once gave a first guitar lesson to two boys at the same time in our church. They were the same age, both had a new guitar, both approached me for a lesson, both were in the room at the same time. They were friends who wanted to learn together. Neither have musical families or prior experience. I had to actually tune both guitars for them. They knew nothing.
At the end of the 1/2 hour lesson, one was playing three chords with ease and doing a simple strumming pattern. The other was struggling with the strumming pattern on open strings. Forget about the chords. I actually spent more time helping the one who was struggling. The first one picked up on it instantly.
I don't know what you want to call it, but it happened. I'm sure it happens every day.
Both dropped the lessons in a little over a month to play baseball, but one could play music with power chords and the other still struggled with three open chords.
The one who plays the music is also the better ball player. Go figure.
MAL, when youre done with your 5k, dont be pissed when a dude thats put in 1500k puts you...firmly.... in your place...
thats talent over determination
your definition of talent means i worked sooooo much harder than everyone else to get those reactions from my artwork... simply put.. no.No.NO i didnt. ---------- Kyzer's Travels Kyzer's Artwork
Last Edited by on May 09, 2010 9:01 PM
I think whatever we call talent is a reflection of what we are passionate about.
Learning curves can look differently. In the nineties I always considered myself a hack because all the songs I wrote were so firmly rooted in western 3 chord pop.
I had some friends who wrote really insane lyrics like sophisticated poetry and had a really distinctive, unique sound.
It always blew me away if they loved my songs, which were so simple.
I played guitar a lot, woodshedding constantly, but never felt like a musician, like I had any mastery or could speak through it.
The harp is a different story, not that I don't have miles to go. I could keep "talking" through it all day, saying different things.
Some people click earlier at a certain facet of musical mastery or any other discipline than others, but I do feel like people can learn and master anything they have a true passion for, but they have to be real with themselves about their passion.
The proof's in the pudding
I think the ability to generate the passion itself maybe the one true talent, but even that can be learned.
I still don't believe in talent though I continue to be open to the idea. However, if I had to define talent, I would say it's the ability to break things down into smaller than usual components.
For example, I think there are three components to a single note. Beginning Middle and End, I know it sounds simple but a note is just not a note to me, it has Shape, Energy and Tone as well as Velocity, Density and Volume. I'm tracking 18 components at once where another musician may see C and play C.
I can show anybody how to deconstruct things, break everything down into smaller components and I can see them progress faster than normal. To me it's a way of being and it's something that can be learned.
Perhaps I'm "Talented" because nobody had to show me how to do that? I don't know. I think it's something that any thinking person should be able to do without help. ---------- "The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
Kyzer that simply would never happen. Maybe someone younger who has practiced more hours? That's possible. The younger players like jay gaunt, brandon, and Zack pomerleu. They are better than me at this point. Talent? No. They have more practice hours. Is anybody putting Jason Ricci in his place? Nobody with 1500 hours or even 5000 hours is putting him in his place. His amount of deliberate practice (to specifically improve skills) in his domain has far surpassed anybody who is doing what he is doing. NO person who puts in 1500 hours would be better than me at 5000 hours. Just as NO person is better than Buddha who has put in 1500 hours and he put in 10,000. NO violin virtuoso is present after 5000 hours compared to the world class 10,000 hour players. Again, there are mounds of scientific FACTS supporting me, regardless of what you say.
And again, your case has no basis in fact or measurable statistics or research. There is no evidence that you put in much less practice hours and are "better".
oh yes it has and it will... i promise you. In some way Ive wowed people since i was 6 with it. what more hours could i have put in at 6 years old? none more than the rest. I assure you. Believe me I was there... additionally, I know a 14 year old that my daughter goes to school with that is my equal when i was 20. I KNOW i have him beat on hours put in...hows that possible?
"NO person who puts in 1500 hours would be better than me at 5000 hours"
your arrogance is equally surprising. just because you cant measure it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
No one touches Ricci with hours because he has talent not measured by the constraints of time.
It's amazing when I try to appeal to someone's logic they retreat further into delusion. Just a few points:
(1) you keep using yourself as an example. This your perception with no basis in fact first off. First you say that you don't work hard for your art work and then claim that you KNOW you have a 14 year old beat on hours. There is no basis in this assessment. Did you ask the 14 year old how many hours? Maybe he goes home and draws for 10 hours a day. Plus, your assessment as "equal" may be way off.
(2) Just because I choose to read scientific evidence about this topic that is based in quantifiable more objective methods does not make me arrogant. I am actually surprised we are arguing here and then you state "how is that possible?". Well, I've been trying to tell you! It's possible because of scientific findings like this:
"Not even IQ could distinguish the best among chessplayers (Doll & Mayr, 1987) nor the most successful and creative among artists and scientists (Taylor, 1975). In a recent review, Ericsson and Lehmann (1996) found that (1) measures of general basic capacities do not predict success in a domain, (2) the superior performance of experts is often very domain specific and transfer outside their narrow area of expertise is surprisingly limited and (3) systematic differences between experts and less proficient individuals nearly always reflect attributes acquired by the experts during their lengthy training.
(3) Have you seen videos of Ricci playing when he was younger? Playing summertime. Basically, he sucked! He played just as most beginners play: badly. And, as I have read in his interviews, then he started practicing crazily devoting his life and time to it. A period of 8 hours a day for 3 years or so. Those are the facts. It's not some talent not measured. It's thousands of hours. Why are we arguing even !?! That is the most encouraging thing there is!
MAL, people aren't saying hard work isn't really important, they are just saying that some people will advance faster with the same amount of work. You're quoting a few articles, but I grew up in a family where we discussed educational theory over dinner. Studies can be flawed, and I think the ones your citing are flawed. Studies I've seen suggest that working hard on something and have a good home environment boosts kids IQ's over time by an average of something like 20 points over kids who don't have those advantages. That can make the difference between being average and being borderline genius, but there is smartest guy in your school genius and smartest guy in the state genius, and smartest guy in the country or world genius.
Chess might not be the best example for intelligence either. Computers have caught up with humans in chess precisely because although it's hard a lot of it is rote memory of defenses and gambits. It certainly takes work to learn. A smart person will have a leg up on other people and experience helps. My uncle, for instance, was a mathematics professor at Boston College, specializing in geometry. I've never beat him. If I really buckled down I could probably learn to beat him from time to time, but I'm pretty good at that sort of stuff to.
You mentioned how you scored on your IQ test. When you have a high IQ it's easy to think that you can learn anything you set your mind to. (For the record, I've taken an IQ test a couple times. You beat my last score. The medication I take keeps me a little dull, although it was close. I did better before the meds but it's the price I pay for being able to get through the day without Obsessive-Compulsive behavior controlling my day.) For means of comparison, your score is about two standard deviations above average. Forest Gump was only one standard deviation below average. That means there are a lot more people close to Gump like than close to you. Being average doesn't make you a bad person but it does shut off a lot of avenues. I had a friend at college who had the best GPA in my group of friends by a little bit, but only by a little bit. To get it he spent almost every hour of every day in the library. He could recite facts, which in the harmonica world I say is similar to playing back what you hear, but he couldn't form a new thought to save his life. He was a business major. I have this lingering suspicion that I just can't shake that somehow he is the cause of the financial meltdown. In high school I never did any homework, but I almost always had the best test scores. I had talent. I didn't have a good work ethic.
For what it's worth, psychologists have started separating out IQ from emotional quotients (EQ). It turns out EQ is a better measure than IQ at predicting future success, but they both effect it. I think I'd even go so far as to say nurture may well be more important than nature, at least in the middle of the pack, but they both have an impact.
at 20, yeah i know i had the 14 year old beat on hours. I assessed his equality because ive seen his ALL of his work and know, more so than many, how to gauge his proficiency. Especially as compared to mine at a later age... My eyeballs work really well. No, he lives the same kind of life I have, in the same town, same schools i went to in fact, and has had no studies other than comic books, saturday morning cartoons, and bob ross...same as me at 14.. even at 20. No one who knows me would doubt my ability to come to this conclusion. Who else could know better? Ive spent plenty of time with him, because he admires my work. Some of his shit he did at 12, just blows me away, and im not easily impressed by a 12 year old's artwork. Of course i use myself as an example, who else would i compare it to? That is my basis for the assessment. I dont need an "expert" to back me up. In that field, Im enough of one.
it isnt a delusion that he is better now than i was at 20. The proof is on paper and canvas. It will not be a delusion when he is better than i ever will be when he's 35. it is his higher level of talent, and creativity, and his ability to connect his minds eye intelligently into his passion that will exceed all of my best efforts to do the same. he's just more talented than I am. period.
science schmience. im willing to concede that time put in mixed with passion can produce amazing results (great skill), but i will not concede that a predetermined time frame such as a 5k project, will produce the same body of work or ability within equally driven people. it just isnt determined by time alone...
That video was awesome, best thing I've seen in days. It look really fun, but I'm sure I'd end up doing a face plant as soon as I hit the water (or at least the first 20 or 30 times I tried it, maybe more). I wonder what the record distance for running on water is. It reminds me of those jesus lizards that run on water.
Last Edited by on May 09, 2010 11:03 PM
anyways, back to the topic... and in closing... its different goings for everyone based on what they know and how quickly they pick up on what they need to do to get better. my talent in other areas tells me i can use the same approach to music too. I feel like I need to know more about the harmonica that's NOT in my mouth. Theres that side of it too, and I feel like Im robbing myself should I tun my back to it. i will become more of the player i want to be if i do this. I encourage everyone to do the same if you share my ignorance.
its not for everyone. but its for kyzer.
MAL: the closest thing to your points ive ever doled out myself is when an awe struck person asks me how long it took me to do that drawing i finished last week...i tell them 34 years. ---------- Kyzer's Travels Kyzer's Artwork
I say again: to believe in talent is counterproductive. Sure, it exists, but its extremely useful to ignore it. You don't get better at music by thinking you don't have what it takes.
Think of talent like an inconvienient truth. Sure, it exists, but if you ignore it and pretend that it's all about time on task, then you can accept the amount of work it will take.
But sometimes, hard work and passion are not sufficient. Some arts or whatever are not made for some people. I think about a guy I know, he loves playing music, he took percussion classes for about ten years ; he knows a lot of african rythms on djembe, that means he knows how to play them, but he lacks some things : a good ear and sense of rythm. At one point, he realizes that playing drums is just not his thing and he will never be a good drummer, no matter how much work he puts in it.
Think about painting : a lot of artists go to painting academy, learn history of painting, etc., but not all of them become Picasso. And some of them are, and will always be, bad painters.
Captainbliss, I think that's really what the truth is and how you make the best of what you are blessed or cursed with and some do better than others. ---------- Sincerely, Barbeque Bob Maglinte Boston, MA http://www.barbequebob.com CD available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bbmaglinte
I think genetics and upbringing can impact on your ability or at least the way, or speed with which, you absorb information. I don't think it guarantees you will achieve skills at the highest level - that takes dedication. Someone who learns stuff quickly might also get bored quickly when their levels plateau.
Hard work and dedication are key, innate ability is just a bonus.
Having learned Arabic late in life, over 7 years, I often get people saying, "you must have a talent for languages". Bullshit. It's been 7 long years and only NOW do I feel like I can communicate in the language. People just don't see how much blood, sweat and tears is behind this "talent".
Hard work and dedication are key, innate ability is just a bonus.
@ Ev630 that is right on. I think people have the misguided perception that talent is an innate ability for music. Studies clearly show that nobody who becomes world class, Mozart, Picasso, Little Walter, does that in a shorter amount of time. NOBODY. They all go through lengthy training periods. Why? Because they simply WORK HARDER and utilize their instruction (especially world class instruction) to the fullest.
Why does Juilliard exist?? Because to become world class you need to have the best instruction and put in the most amount of work. If talent existed, those who self selected (as in Juilliard students) and apparently had talent would not need the 10,000 hours of training. And they wouldn't need Juilliard because they would have only needed 4 years and progressed much faster than all the kids going to Juilliard! But, that is not how real life works or how musical ability is developed. It is developed by practicing with intense focus for hours and hours everyday.
And Ev630 is right, those who talk about "progressing faster" with minimal effort are usually (1) not really masters or at the top of their field compared to the real masters or (2) lying.
You can master what you focus on. Howard Levy is the best jazz harmonica player there is. He worked harder than anybody else. Practice non-stop, devoted his life to music.
Here is my new definition of "talent": The general publics unwillingness to accept and believe how much work it takes to become the top person in a field, for fear that recognizing the amount of work one must do to succeed, and take their ability to improve in their own hands, would be too painful to the ego.
Last Edited by on May 10, 2010 11:58 AM
MAL: there are other areas in life besides music where talent is prevalent, that likely would not fall under your definition. talent doenst = the top person in a field. ---------- Kyzer's Travels Kyzer's Artwork
"Having learned Arabic late in life, over 7 years, I often get people saying, "you must have a talent for languages". Bullshit. It's been 7 long years"
Precisely what I was referring to in my reply to Chris. But in my case I've spent 30 years learning up to 10 languages. Two hours' work per day 365 days per year for 30 years. That's 21900 hours' work. And then I get "you must have a talent for languages" ---------- Kinda hot in these rhinos!
MAL, so to sum up, talent is great, but you won't get anywhere with out hard work. I'd agree. Even the cases of idiot savants tend to back that up. They usually work really hard to get good at a skill. The thing is they work really hard at a bunch of skills and only a few of them take. It's like the rest of the brain just doesn't work. The guy they based Rainman on couldn't tie his own shoes. He could memorize copious amounts of information but he couldn't analyze it. My learning disability left me without use of the part of my brain that controls eye hand coordination. Over the years the other parts of my brain compensated. It's like have CPU based graphics acceleration. It's not optimized to do that, but in a pinch, it will work.
That part of my brain that was missing was only missing structurally. Other parts had taken up it's space. It probably gave me a leg up in other things.
The level of skill you need to be a professional musician, a guy who makes money on the weekend playing at bars, is probably available to a large percentage of the population if they work really hard and kiss up to the better players. The percentage of the population that could be a Mozart is probably a lot lower, although if we as a society decided we were going to specialize in teaching kids to be brilliant composers we probably could produce more than we do, at the expense of brilliant doctors and chefs and everything else. Like I said before, psychologists think EQ is more important than IQ for determining future success, but they both are somewhere in the mix.
And I know I've posted it before, but here is my take on copying other musicians- it can be an art form unto itself.
This is sorta off topic but I made mention of how the masses are conditioned to accept and believe certain things via neuro-linguistic programming. This YT is a perfect example.
This presentation is about a scene in a TV News report of Hollywood movie "KNOWING" in 2009, a report exactly the same mentioned an Oil Rig Explosion in the Gulf of Mexico become reality in April 20, 2010.
---------- "The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
Last Edited by on May 10, 2010 3:25 PM
Buddha, Do you think your perfect pitch is something you were born with? That would be be an example of talent that helped make achieving excellent tone very easy from early on. But, without the work, nothing would have happened.
Nobody has ever found definitive resolution to the nature versus nurture debate. However, the nature side (genetics) has become much better defined over the years, and we have found genetic components for many things we thought in the past were evil spirits, punishments or gifts from god etc.
I have known many people who squandered their natural gifts, and it does take work to get to the top.
The saying, "you are one in a million" means, right now, there are 6,697 just like you out there somewhere in the world. So maybe some of us are truly lucky enough to have received natural talent and are one in a million. The work is what makes us one in 6.697 billion. If you don't start as the one in a million with the luxury to follow your heart, then there is no hope for you. If you don't have the will to follow your heart, then there is no hope either.
I don't think I was born with it. There are three boys in the family and two of us have it. My youngest brother doesn't, the correlation is my mother was very adamant about us being bi-lingual (Vietnamese) but she didn't even try with my youngest brother. My middle brother and I can understand Vietnamese and we used to speak it fluently but my youngest brother doesn't understand nor can he speak it.
Vietnamese is a very tonal language and most of the SE asians are said to have perfect pitch. I believe it's due to the language.
---------- "The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
As far as education is concerned (since we're on the topic of public perception being extremely skewed from reality often times), the biggest determinant regarding success in the current American education system is economic class. Teachers are pretty high too, but not nearly that high. Early childhood education (prenatal to grade 3) is OVERWHELMINGLY the most successful intervention/acceleration method in "closing the gap"...not the only one though, but easily the most successful and efficient. That in and of itself is a huge topic of discussion, but maybe besides the point.
Nurture is an enormous factor in many things. Of course, nature plays a factor as well - they are interdependent for sure - but nurture can make up for a lot of ground.
Again, look at Tiger Woods. He was nurtured from the start to be a pro golfer. The average kid with a love of the sport and exact same resources would more than likely be successful as well (maybe not the best in the world). Michael Jordan, Derek Jeter...the list of those who had to work way hard is never ending.
I can't think of anyone who is at the top of their "game" who was just born into it. They have all worked extremely hard at their craft.
I can think of endless kids I went to high school with that were athletically "gifted" - I played with guys who are/were pro atheletes even, and the ones who worked the hardest made it. The ones who were good at 12 or 18, but didn't work hard all burned out before college. Most are living at home and have drinking problems, in fact.
Thinking of someone like Jason Ricci, the effort put in is virtually unmatched. Look at the cast of Dances with the Stars...given enough time, most of those people have become really solid dancers. Some faster than others, but everyone who made it past the first few weeks has been really solid regardless of background. Time, effort, and resources... ----------
@ harpninja, nice to see another logical analysis!
"I've been playing harp for 18 years-longer than Jay Gaunt has been alive. Can you guess who's the better harp player? (Hint: It ain't me!)"
@ Tuckster: The only point I see being made is that Jay Gaunt put in more deliberate practice than you. "Years of experience" do not matter. It's the amount of hours of exacting, specific, deliberate practice that focus on tiny tiny details of the music you want to play. Break the music down to the microscopic, cellular level, to understand it better and how the mechanisms work. Buddha described this process. That is why you have people who jam and play for "years" and someone advances in a relatively short amount of time. It is very hard work to constantly focus on your flaws and what you can't do. Most people like to play what they can already play.
I'm a late bloomer who started harp fairly late in life(43). I had little to no information on how to play the little beast.I knew zilch about music theory. In the last maybe 5 years-since I got high speed internet-I had access to oodles of harp info.It has helped me to improve my playing. Had I had that information when I first started,I would hope I'd be better than I am now.But I still think Jay possesses an "innate talent" I do not. That's not to say someone without that much "innate talent"(and I believe there are degrees of this talent) can't become very good. But some stars in our musical firmament shine more brightly than others. You know the litany: Mozart,Miles,LW,etc. Why do they shine so much brighter? They all had something that set them apart. I don't know WTF it is,but it's something.One thing for sure,to get really,really good,you have to have a great burning,even obsessive desire.At 60 y.o. I have to say my fire is a little damped. Not that I want to stand still-I always want to better 6 months from now.When I was younger I had the desire but not the skill,now I have some skill,but not much desire. Go figure.
buddha your right about a lot of things but you also sound to me like your a legend in your own mind. what big band do you play in how many songs have you wrote.its not nice to talk down to other people.have i heard you on the radio.we all have something to teach and something to learn.BRUCE LEE.QUOTE. LOVE LIFE LIVE LIFE AND MOVE ON.
@ congaron: No he stated the facts of his situation which completely agree with everything I've said, and the scientific facts I've presented. Jay Gaunt is better than him he stated and said Jay has more "innate ability" or talent. We all know my definition of talent, which Tuckster is proving by what he stated. Jay has had excellent instruction, lots of time to practice, a supportive environment, and a drive to practice deliberately. Tuckster stated he didn't have access to excellent instruction from the get go, waded through years of just jamming along unfocused, and lost his burning desire. That is all down to him, not Jay's innate ability or Tucksters lack of innate ability or talent. There is no such thing, it's all about working hard and believing you are the best. On and on and on.
Jesus, am I the only one that is analyzing what I and others are writing? I feel like I'm constantly having to repeat myself.
I've been saying most people are conditioned to believe a certain thing.
Simply put there is no talent only hard work.
You alls can call me talented if you want but I know what I did to get to where I am and it has far more with being completely obsessed with the harp than what youins would call talent.
---------- "The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
@ congaron: do you mean my logic is the pinnacle of an analytical mind? just kidding! :p
Thanks for confirming what I have been thinking Buddha. It makes it even more confusing though when top musicians other than yourself like to contribute to the talent myth by saying "I was born with this talent" etc. and then not mention their HUGE amounts of training. It contributes to their ego that they were "born that way". Artur Rubenstein (the pianist) is an example. He always talked about how you must have a "special talent" and then talk about how you must practice non-stop for years and get special training from the masters. ok?...
Last Edited by on May 11, 2010 12:29 AM
About twenty-five years ago, a female bodybuilder said something to me that stayed with me: "The people who can get really good, you can see that in the first year--they won't get to the top, that takes a lot longer, but they'll progress really fast in that first year, there's no mistaking it." Since that's a field where honest participants' potential would clearly depend on genetic predisposition to some degree, I began to think it demonstrated something about what we call talent, if there is such a thing as innate talent (and I think there is).
To me talent means that someone has a knack for getting good results immediately and progresses really quickly the first year or couple of years. They zip right up the steep part of the learning curve to solid competence at the activity, and because they're getting good results and making progress so consistently, *it doesn't really feel like hard work*. They are enjoying it or at least getting a lot of satisfaction out of their efforts.
The problem for the talented comes at the point where the learning curve starts to level off. The ratio of perceived progress to perceived effort changes drastically for the talented person at that phase: suddenly the hard work starts to feel like hard work, and they feel like they have less and less progress to show for more and more work. We've all seen talented people plateau out at that point, go into cruise mode, and if there's not a lot of competition in their context, they may do fine.
But the really successful people, they keep working just as hard as they can even though they've become conscious of how much effort it takes. That's always been obvious to me with touring musical artists who visit my town once or twice a year: the best ones are usually perceptibly better every time through, and you know that they are putting in the work. Lotta people who just stay local are talented, but I don't notice them getting better, even if I seldom see them. Things like songwriting, expanding their playing on their instrument, you can see who keeps getting better and who doesn't, if you see them at intervals.
Conversely, the person without obvious talent always has to work hard, and always perceives the effort involved, and ascends the learning curve much more slowly than the talented ones. But they don't run into such a crisis of the will once they've achieved competence; they're accustomed to working hard, the perception of diminishing returns doesn't come as a shock. They can start coasting too, but they're used to plugging away, so if they can still afford to put in the time and effort, that's what they'll do, and trudge on past the talented people who are just coasting.
I don't think people need talent to do a lot of things, if they are smart about learning, and persistent. Learn how to learn; and frankly, I think teaching yourself to do some things can train you in how to learn. Get some sound instructional material (not a lot of that for diatonic till the last two decades, and without it, there was just no way, at first, that I was going to figure out much about harmonica, like how to get a given sound) and work at it on your own, get used to taking chances and failing, get used to figuring things out for yourself. I think it's related to achieving other forms of mature self-reliance. And if you're not smart about how you learn, putting in 10,000 hours is not gonna get you to mastery.
Good instructors help, but I think if you really want to get good at learning things for which you have no obvious talent, you are going to have to figure out as much yourself as you can; and IMO good instructors are likely to hand you challenges where you have to work things out yourself, rather than just telling you how to do things. Something you have taught yourself may stick with you better, and keep you in the mode of making steady progress because you try to learn even with no instructor around. Then a good instructor functions as an outside observer to keep you on the instructor's conception of the right track, an evaluator of your progress, a troubleshooter and a formulator of new challenges for you, and someone who helps you believe in yourself.
I'm pretty convinced that lots of aesthetic activities, lots of sports, lots of verbal activities, math, whatever, you don't need talent to get good at them. But you do need confidence that you can learn them, even in the face of discouraging early results, and you do need to be intelligent and persistent about how you study and practice. Even something like sports, where a genetic physical predisposition can be pretty obvious, the matter of achieving your potential is a separate issue from what your genetic potential may be relative to others.
Work and family responsibilities and other environmental conditions can cut down on our opportunities to learn, but it sure pains me to see people who have the opportunity and aren't doing anything much with it. What one brings to the party is something that has to be worked at, and a lot of people would do well to spend less time at the party and more time working on what they bring.
Hard work, "obsession with the harp", that's what you need to become a technical wizard on the harp, but that doesn't mean you're gonna play great music. When I think "talent", it has nothing to do with technical skills or virtuosity, but more with tastefullness and creativity.
Edit : that was in response to Buddha's last post.
Last Edited by on May 11, 2010 12:34 AM
