Musical Finesse-Learned or Talent? (title edited to clarify)

[Nanohedron]

I totally agree with that.

[jim stone]

My fella and I go around and around about this. He teaches "Suzuki fiddle" and Mr. Suzuki held that there is no talent, there is only practice. I:lol:

'There is no talent, there is only practice' appears to be
a deep-rooted conviction in Japan.

I have never come across the phrase, so would suggest that it is not a conviction so much as it is merely one educator's particular shibboleth, for lack of a better word. Perhaps one of our resident-in-Japan Chiffers could confirm or deny?

But in any case, one needs to remember that a Westerner coining such a phrase, or a Japanese - steeped unavoidably in a cultural background of Zen coming out of every pore and an educator no less - coining such a phrase, makes a big difference. It's possible for a Westerner to misunderstand this. Unlike the unquestioning directness of a Western treating of the idea (whether we find it ludicrous or not), when you take into account that Suzuki's "koan" is utterly typical of a particular way of working at a matter - it's cultural, remember - it becomes clear that Suzuki would not have intended to declare that talent doesn't exist. What is understood is that the quality of one's practice IS the quality of one's result. Even a talented person can practice poorly to poor effect, so talent can't be ultimately taken into account as the answer to why someone's stuff is brilliant. Nevertheless, talents help in getting one started brilliantly. They only get one so far, though. Then practice REALLY kicks in.

Edit: which brings me to another pet-peeve pietism: "practice makes perfect". This is wrong. Better to say "Perfect practice makes perfect." If there IS such a thing.

I'm not sure I understand this entirely. However I don't take Suzuki's
slogan to mean there is no talent. What I think is deeply
rooted in Japan, though of course this may be changing, is
an emphasis on practice that goes so far as to sometimes
make individual expression ('talent') difficult and even stifle
creativity. One sees this in Zen practice, where meditators
in many zendos are whacked with a stick to keep them meditating;
monks often put on two sets of robes and still come out
of meditation bruised. Also in martial arts training, which in Japan
sometimes emphasizes methodical repetition ad infinitum. This sort of
practice tends to produce a highy uniform product.

It is certainly said of Japan that this emphasis makes
it harder for Japanese to come up with new ideas. Also the
idea of doing something quite differently from everybody else
is I think not so easy or acceptable. Real creativity
consists in doing just that, often.

Whether this is what Suzuki meant, I don't know, but
of course his slogan is suggestive. I have seen people
learning violin with his method--not for me.

Here in the USA we are good at coming up with new ideas.
Individual creativity is made a lot of. It's easier to do something
new if you are very gifted and you don't know quite
what you are doing. The right emphasis is more in the middle,
I feel, but leaning in the direction of practice.

I appreciate that what I'm saying is 'incorrect,' still
I don't like the slogan very well. I find it a little scary.

[Nanohedron]

Even the Japanese misinterpret their own. That's why Japanese Zen has often turned formulaic and degenerate. This condition is not universal, though.

The uniform product, in the Zen sense, is really indicative of a standing at the door and not going through, as one saying has it. This may be due to unqualified teachers or to the practitioner's mistake. There is plenty of commentary on this. You are speaking of a cultural tendency to not rock the boat, which is indeed real. I was referring to a mode of discourse.

As to martial arts, again with the teacher or the student. There are plenty of teachers who make no secret that conformity, while nonnegotiable, is just mastering basics, not the thing itself. The thing itself is spontaneous, and in fact innovative. Some teachers don't concern themselves with that caution, but I personally think it's a mistake. Be that as it may, in later levels of mastery, one is expected to contribute new material to the corpus of written work or knowledge or technique or strategy. This may mean departure. The correct stance (and I mean "stance" in both ways, here) is not conformity for its own sake, but conformity as solid ground, made manifestly effective, to be seeded so the new can grow.

[Unseen122]

...Then I started hanging around with a couple of what I still consider gifted musicians and after a few years I started "getting" a bit better facility at what they called improvisation (not remotely like a real improviser's skill set, but enough to get by). Once again people started telling me I was talented. I won't say I didn't have a slightly better ear for that sort of thing than others, but a lot of it was just listening, playing, and thinking about it -- becoming absorbed in the process...

This brings up a good point Cathy, how many of the greats grew up seeing and playing with gifted musicians on a regular basis? Well, probably most if not all of them. I know that Matt Molloy grew up in a house that was filled with musicians a couple times a week and some of these musicians were very highly regarded. Playing with musicians who are better players is important to your own playing.

There are many things in this music that are learned not through what people show and tell you, but things that are learned sub-consciously through listening and immersion. Sitting in with better musicians is really the best way to learn these things. To have the influence of these better musicians on you directly will advance your own playing, you may find yourself playing tunes and ornaments you couldn't play before. The reason is because you are striving to keep up with these people. It is a form of challenging yourself by playing with people who are better than you. That is why it is so important to go to sessions, because there are usually 'better' musicians at sessions I know that is the case with me anyway.

So to tie this back into the thread, one of the things the greats have done is play with the people who were the greats at the time. Think about all of the master musicians you have heard of, now name one that didn't either take lessons from or grow up around another great musician. That fact is that most of them did this is a key part of the immersion.

My own opinion is that talent is only about 10% and the other 90% is hard work, yeah a very talented musician still has to work but they usually pick things up faster than your average Joe.

[Cathy Wilde]

Amen to that! And to pretty much everything everyone else is saying, too.

And I'm glad to hear you're still working at it, Avery. Good on you, and I bet you're doing grand now.

The other neat thing my beloved says is that he'd rather be the worst musician at a session than the best. It took me a few years (and the privilege of sitting alongside a few pretty brilliant musicians) to grok this, but now I totally agree with him. You can learn so much from better musicians -- and sometimes even more when you DON'T play!

[Doug_Tipple]

In education circles there are those who continually affirm that "every child can learn". The corollary to this is that, since every child can learn, if the education materials are presented by competent teachers in a suitable learning environment, then every child should be up to learning level at the end of the year. As an ex-classroom teacher, I must confess that not for a minute do I believe this. I had students who understood concepts on Tuesday, but on Wednesday you might as well start over because the material was forgotten. Other students made very little effort yet excelled in everything that they attempted. My friend's son, Michael, never wrote notes in class; he merely understood and remembered most of what he read and heard the teacher say. Michael went on to become fluent in Russian, received a doctorate from Columbia, and is now a Rabbi.

I think that the same idea holds true for music understanding and performance. In the "nature vs. nurture" argument, I am inclined to give at least as much importance to natural ability, something that a person is born with, which, of course, is reinforced by enriched learning environments. Mozart was born a musical genius, but it sure helped to have been born into a musical family. There is a report in the news today about a well-known NBA basketball player. At 6 foot 7 inches and 240 pounds it is easy to see and understand that much of what makes him a valuable player in the NBA is what he has been born with. Such natural abilities are not quite so obvious in other fields, such as music, for example.

[Guinness]

Such natural abilities are not quite so obvious in other fields, such as music, for example.

So true.

Those who would attribute musical proficiency primarily to aptitude (nature) probably have a high external locus of control, whereas the achievers in the crowd (nurture, practice nuts) have a high internal locus. That's what this discussion and age old debate really boils down to: people expressing their locuses.

Since there is no convenient measure for musical aptitude, which is beyond our control anyway, the only thing we should dwell on is musical achievement. Reminds me of this interviewwith Oscar Peterson, one of the true greats of Jazz:

Oscar’s father explained to him “there are a lot of jazz piano players out there. Are you just going to be another one of them?”

Oscar didn’t know what his father meant.

His father explained: “I can’t let you leave high school to be a jazz piano player. If you want to be the best, I’ll let you go. But you have to be the best, not the second-best.

Here's another interesting snippit:

...one of Oscar's first exposures to the musical talents of Art Tatum came early in his teen years when his father played an Art Tatum record to him and Oscar was so intimidated by what he heard that he didn't touch the piano for over a month.

[jim stone]

I think it's obvious that there are different levels
of natural musical talent and they make a difference.
But for our purposes what matters is that we be
musical people, who love music and instruments
and enjoy the activity of playing. That much talent plus hard
work can create, over the years, a good amateur,
which is certainly good enough for me. The
professionals are likely to be more talented
than I am, but what do I care?

As the Yiddish saying goes (adjusted to the present
case): 'When I die and go to heaven, God will not
ask me 'Why weren't you Kevin Crawford?' He will
ask me 'Why weren't you Jim Stone?''

Finally there is no point in getting into this if one doesn't
enjoy hard practice. It seems to me the name of
the game is practice and patience (the latter sometimes
being much harder than the former) and also
refusing to settle for less than one can be.

I think it is worth keeping in mind that playing Irish flute
well is one of the more difficult pursuits in human life.
No reflection on us that it's tough.

[G1]

^Hear, hear! Everyone should be issued a pennywhistle at birth (or a banjo).

I also have to agree completely with Doug... but anyone that wants to can play and enjoy a flute (or any musical instrument for that matter). But some do have an easier time of it - - - with the same opportunities and teaching. I've seen this with guitar students and computer students alike. I'm only any good at the things I am driven to learn, improve and pursue fanatically. I can't fix a car - but in my youth I spend many years and a small fortune desperately trying to... and I had great teachers. My cousin (who is an excellent mechanic with just about anything) had more resources, and a great desire to play musical instruments. I got to learn on the ones he cast aside. He still can't carry a tune in a bucket, and is in awe of anyone who can (as I am in awe of mechanics... really!).

But you have to be passionate. You gotta love playing for its own sake first; then do it a lot. But I'm digressing and paraphrasing now...

Slainte! Jamontildaun!

[DCrom]

I also have to agree completely with Doug... but anyone that wants to can play and enjoy a flute (or any musical instrument for that matter). But some do have an easier time of it - - - with the same opportunities and teaching. I've seen this with guitar students and computer students alike. I'm only any good at the things I am driven to learn, improve and pursue fanatically.
<snip>
But you have to be passionate. You gotta love playing for its own sake first; then do it a lot. But I'm digressing and paraphrasing now...

You've done an admirable job of summarizing my own take on things.

There are some things (not music, alas) that I'm "gifted" in. That is, I can pick up the basics easier than many others, and can maintain them with less effort. But to be actually *good* in them still requires constant work to maintain and extent my skill set. The kind of work that nobody is likely to do unless, at some level, they love the work enough to drive them.

I've known others who worked in the same areas who had the love and the drive but not, at some level, the talent. Some of them, with enough work and dedication, are among the best at what they do. But they are, IMHO, still at a slight disadvantage compared to those with equal dedication who have that ever-elusive "gift" or "talent".

The fact is that most of us, in most things we do, are NOT at the very top of the field. It can be a lack of interest ("I do this for a living, not for love"), a lack of drive ("It's as good as I can do for the effort I'm willing to put into it"), time management ("I could do better, but not with the time available"), or a lack of talent ("This is best I can possibly do. I wish I could do better.").

In music, I'm sadly aware I *don't* have much talent. My coordination is poor and my sense of rhythm is worse. And though I have the interest, "drive" is a sometime thing. Even so, I've noticed that there's a pretty direct correlation between the quality of my playing and the amount of time I put into listening and practice. I may never be a top player, but I have hopes of becoming a competent player.

Do I wish I had talent? Of course I do - I'd be better player for the amount of time and effort I put into it. But at root I'm playing for myself, not others, and I'm doing my best to enjoy the journey. Fixating on how distant the destination may be is a good way to give up in frustration. I'm playing. I'm improving. I enjoy it. What else matters?

[monkey587]

My coordination is poor and my sense of rhythm is worse.

The latter is by far the most common problem I've noticed with musicians and yet nearly all of them can walk and talk with perfectly good rhythm. Something to ponder...

[DCrom]

My coordination is poor and my sense of rhythm is worse.

The latter is by far the most common problem I've noticed with musicians and yet nearly all of them can walk and talk with perfectly good rhythm. Something to ponder...

Some folks seem to born with better coordination and rhythm then others. I think this is a large part of what we mean when we talk about musical "talent" (along with a good ear!).

But even for the most inept of us, specifically including myself, these things usually improve with practice.

Yeah, it's annoying, at times, that others seem to improve faster for the same amount of practice. But that's life.

About all we can do is to keep on keepin' on. And do the best we, personally, can manage. Which usually correlates pretty closely to how hard we're willing to work.

[treeshark]

Some folks seem to born with better coordination and rhythm then others. I think this is a large part of what we mean when we talk about musical "talent" (along with a good ear!).

I tend to feel that that is indeed most of what we call talent, the body and brain are instruments too, coordination in particular seems to vary a lot from individual to individual. That only accounts for the mechanics tho, there is a whole other area in expression and originality. Good communication and empathic abilities need to be in there somewhere maybe.

[Gordon]

In spite of what I wrote earlier, I do agree, to a large extent, with what Doug said above - nature plays an enormous role in most things; anyone with a child knows this. Musical talent exists, and varies from individual to individual, along with physical dexterity and sensitivity to pitch and harmony and rhythm.

That said, most people even contemplating picking up an instrument on their own volition have - by default - some musical curiosity and interest, and some ability to understand and hear music, well, musically. The child in a classroom that wants to learn, does - perhaps it is nature - but without the capacity to learn, it's unlikely the child will ever gravitate towards academic studies. Doesn't make them a genius, but they'll learn, and if they work hard, they'll master whatever they're studying. This will happen even faster if the teachers/parents/influences around them are good, and even better if they're incredibly good. In other words, while it may be nature that made them inclined to study, it's still hard work that will make the difference in how far they take things. Plenty of people with musical ability end up humming or whistling well while they do other, unrelated work. Luck is involved, as well - once a career begins to take off, playing is all you do - talented friends may make it to the pub, but they don't go on tour with the likes of Paddy Keenan and Kevin Burke 7 days a week, and then go on to join the Chieftains, open your own pub that attracts top players from everywhere ITM exists. Malloy is talented and worthy of all this, no question, but nature v. nurture really isn't the first and only answer to the question, either.

[mamakash]

Has anyone here read "This Is Your Brain on Music", written by Daniel Levitin? I picked this up in a bookshop less than a year ago. It's a bit dry and technical, but worth reading, and you don't have to read from beginning to end as most of the chapters are self contained.
Chapter 7, What Makes A Musician? Daniel gives arguments for time and practice being the driving force behind proficiency and not a natural born talent.

The emerging picture from such studies is that ten thousand hours of practice to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world class expect - in anything. In study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction writers, ice skaters, concert pianists, chess masters, master criminals, and what have you, this number comes up again and again. Ten thousand hours is equivalent to roughly three hours a day, or twenty hours a week, of practice over ten years. Of course, this doesn't address why some people don't seem to get anywhere when they practice, and why some people get more out of their practice sessions than others. But no one has yet found a case in which world class expertise was accomplished in less time.

Here's a link to Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/This-Your-Brain-M ... 964&sr=1-1