Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Some have it....some don't
Re: Some have it....some don't
On May 14, 9:35 am, TS <tshaw7...@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
> I see you are all succumbing to the modern idea that anybody can do
> any damn thing they are willing to do.
No one said that, at all.
> That is unadulterated bull
> shit. Any body who doesn't think talent exists is stupid
Didn't say that, either. Said: "talent is developed".
> and the
> opinions of a bunch of rock and roll bass and guitar players are
> probably the worst folks to be opining on this subject.
People with experience in music post here. Different backgrounds,
different musical areas, by no means all "rock and roll".
> And any body
> who doesn't think lack of talent exists is also, of course, stupid.
Suzuki taught mentally retarded children to play, and play well.
> There is no question that early experiences
and adult, too, which is (excuse me) one of my best points. To expand
slightly, I'd tried to learn to play violin (fiddle) years previously,
when I played bass in bluegrass and string bands. Didn't make much of
any progress. With a good teacher, and lots of work? Lots of progress.
Easier when young? No doubt! But back to the OP, adults (or what
passes for) who don't have it can learn it. Takes the right teacher,
environment, and 'sheddin'.
> nurture various abilities
> but to claim that Suzuki or anybody else can teach any kid to have
> absolute pitch
Didn't say that, either. Pitch center (my expression-- I don't know if
that is the correct description-- for knowing where A is, and beyond)
is something that can be learned. Something they talked about and
encouraged at Aebersold Jazz Camp, for instance, as a help for hearing
and knowing immed. what key a song is being played in.
(which is in itself non-defined) is bull shit.
"Relative pitch" is one expression I've heard. Absolute or "perfect"?
There are people who have that; my guess is that they learn it
subconsciously when young(er).
> Similarly that you can teach any kid to be a genius is also bull
> shit.
Never said anything like that, either.
> It's pie in the sky time kiddos and within your life times you
> will be finding out that a lot of your modern thinking is horse shit.
I don't know what you mean by "modern" but the Suzuki Method goes back
to the late 30's, at least for the formative experiences of Dr.
Suzuki.
If you do some reading, you'll find that the differences between
inborn ability are recognized, but the emphasis, far and away, is
learning to play, not for cranking out little violin geniuses, but for
the development of the soul.
The little violin geniuses are just gravy.
We seem to have stepped on a nerve here. Another aspect of "modern
thinking" related to teaching and learning is that teachers are
enablers, not guardians of knowledge. That's a real sea change and
long, long overdue. --D-y
On May 14, 9:35 am, TS <tshaw7...@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
> I see you are all succumbing to the modern idea that anybody can do
> any damn thing they are willing to do.
No one said that, at all.
> That is unadulterated bull
> shit. Any body who doesn't think talent exists is stupid
Didn't say that, either. Said: "talent is developed".
> and the
> opinions of a bunch of rock and roll bass and guitar players are
> probably the worst folks to be opining on this subject.
People with experience in music post here. Different backgrounds,
different musical areas, by no means all "rock and roll".
> And any body
> who doesn't think lack of talent exists is also, of course, stupid.
Suzuki taught mentally retarded children to play, and play well.
> There is no question that early experiences
and adult, too, which is (excuse me) one of my best points. To expand
slightly, I'd tried to learn to play violin (fiddle) years previously,
when I played bass in bluegrass and string bands. Didn't make much of
any progress. With a good teacher, and lots of work? Lots of progress.
Easier when young? No doubt! But back to the OP, adults (or what
passes for) who don't have it can learn it. Takes the right teacher,
environment, and 'sheddin'.
> nurture various abilities
> but to claim that Suzuki or anybody else can teach any kid to have
> absolute pitch
Didn't say that, either. Pitch center (my expression-- I don't know if
that is the correct description-- for knowing where A is, and beyond)
is something that can be learned. Something they talked about and
encouraged at Aebersold Jazz Camp, for instance, as a help for hearing
and knowing immed. what key a song is being played in.
(which is in itself non-defined) is bull shit.
"Relative pitch" is one expression I've heard. Absolute or "perfect"?
There are people who have that; my guess is that they learn it
subconsciously when young(er).
> Similarly that you can teach any kid to be a genius is also bull
> shit.
Never said anything like that, either.
> It's pie in the sky time kiddos and within your life times you
> will be finding out that a lot of your modern thinking is horse shit.
I don't know what you mean by "modern" but the Suzuki Method goes back
to the late 30's, at least for the formative experiences of Dr.
Suzuki.
If you do some reading, you'll find that the differences between
inborn ability are recognized, but the emphasis, far and away, is
learning to play, not for cranking out little violin geniuses, but for
the development of the soul.
The little violin geniuses are just gravy.
We seem to have stepped on a nerve here. Another aspect of "modern
thinking" related to teaching and learning is that teachers are
enablers, not guardians of knowledge. That's a real sea change and
long, long overdue. --D-y
Re: Some have it....some don't
I don't recall saying anything like that.
Yes,the ability to perform a specialized skill at a high level of
proficiency is in many ways innate. And yes, some people are intrinsically
gifted with physical or mental abilities that others don't have, allowing
them to reach a higher lever than others.
But that is a COMPLETELY different argument from ALL musical ability as a
"pass/fail".
I'm sure there are a small number of people who absolutely cannot
distinguish pitch or rhythm, just as there are people who are genetically
color blind. But in my experience, the VAST majority of students can be
taught the elements of music. It's just a question of LISTENING and
APPLICATION on their part.
The reality I find is that some people are either further ahead or farther
behind the pack interms of hearing or ability when they start lessons, but
that has little to do with where they end up. How FAR they go with that
instruction is a measure of their talent, I would say.
"TS" <tshaw7427@sbcglobal,net > wrote in message
news:490a97e9-3597-4de0-825e-f585fdb6a54c@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
On 14 May, 08:49, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet,net > wrote:
> On May 14, 4:26 am, "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote:
>
> > When someone says they are "tone deaf", to me that means that they just
> > don't have enough exposure or knowledge of the music they want to play.
>
> > Nowadays, it also means they don't have the discipline or attention span
to
> > accomplish what they desire. They will make a million excuses, but this
is
> > essentially what it comes down to. If you WANT it badly enough, you will
> > MAKE it happen.
>
> > For Christ's sake, if Marley Matlin can compete on Dancing with the
Stars,
> > YOU should be able to fucking play eighth notes on open E in time,
within a
> > month of lessons...
>
> > If you can't, it's not genetic; it's just that you don't fucking LISTEN.
>
> I used to believe as David does (and my dad (a drummer) did also), but
> having been around the block a few times I have to agree with JS these
> days. I think the old "have it or you don't" thing is rather a cop-
> out to dismiss certain people who have in truth just not bothered to
> "develop it"!.
>
> My story has oddly enough to do with a dancer. I got to calling her
> "New York" because someone told me aside once that she went to New
> York to be a dancer and ended up with a bus ticket home. I don't know
> if the story is true, but I liked it and decided to believe it
> anyway! :-) It made sense because she was like the "star" of our
> dance class because she had every dance move down just technically
> PERFECT! I mean PERFECT. But in my humble opinion even then as a rank
> dance newbie, she was clearly the WORST dancer in the class. I mean
> there was ZERO "feeling", Zero expression, Zero "heart", zero emotion
> in everything she did. Just nothing coming from the inside out! It's
> just like the schooled classical guys who can't get a shuffle. So in
> those days I simply dismissed her as one more artist who didn't have
> "it".
>
> Well, that was many years ago and as the youngsters here hopefully
> will learn, life has a way of rounding off your sharp edges and giving
> you an "education" if you want it or not! I saw her dancing a a few
> days ago, And while she still loves to do the technical stuff, clearly
> in the "heart" department it was like night and day. It was a clear
> example that having "it" is not "genetic" but indeed is simply related
> to your interest in an art and how much you are willing to go
> experience it. Sure there are lots of activities where I'm sure I
> don't have "it", but then I don't give a damn about those things so
> I'm never going to have it! I think David's and my former mistake
> was that we assumed that if a person doesn't have "it" that then they
> can NEVER have "it". That is wrong. A person's interests can change
> and when they do they can dig in and start getting the essence out of
> whatever it is. That is how I think it really works.
>
> Benj
I see you are all succumbing to the modern idea that anybody can do
any damn thing they are willing to do. That is unadulterated bull
shit. Any body who doesn't think talent exists is stupid and the
opinions of a bunch of rock and roll bass and guitar players are
probably the worst folks to be opining on this subject. And any body
who doesn't think lack of talent exists is also, of course, stupid.
There is no question that early experiences nurture various abilities
but to claim that Suzuki or anybody else can teach any kid to have
absolute pitch (which is in itself non-defined) is bull shit.
Similarly that you can teach any kid to be a genius is also bull
shit. It's pie in the sky time kiddos and within your life times you
will be finding out that a lot of your modern thinking is horse shit.
TS
I don't recall saying anything like that.
Yes,the ability to perform a specialized skill at a high level of
proficiency is in many ways innate. And yes, some people are intrinsically
gifted with physical or mental abilities that others don't have, allowing
them to reach a higher lever than others.
But that is a COMPLETELY different argument from ALL musical ability as a
"pass/fail".
I'm sure there are a small number of people who absolutely cannot
distinguish pitch or rhythm, just as there are people who are genetically
color blind. But in my experience, the VAST majority of students can be
taught the elements of music. It's just a question of LISTENING and
APPLICATION on their part.
The reality I find is that some people are either further ahead or farther
behind the pack interms of hearing or ability when they start lessons, but
that has little to do with where they end up. How FAR they go with that
instruction is a measure of their talent, I would say.
"TS" <tshaw7427@sbcglobal,net > wrote in message
news:490a97e9-3597-4de0-825e-f585fdb6a54c@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
On 14 May, 08:49, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet,net > wrote:
> On May 14, 4:26 am, "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote:
>
> > When someone says they are "tone deaf", to me that means that they just
> > don't have enough exposure or knowledge of the music they want to play.
>
> > Nowadays, it also means they don't have the discipline or attention span
to
> > accomplish what they desire. They will make a million excuses, but this
is
> > essentially what it comes down to. If you WANT it badly enough, you will
> > MAKE it happen.
>
> > For Christ's sake, if Marley Matlin can compete on Dancing with the
Stars,
> > YOU should be able to fucking play eighth notes on open E in time,
within a
> > month of lessons...
>
> > If you can't, it's not genetic; it's just that you don't fucking LISTEN.
>
> I used to believe as David does (and my dad (a drummer) did also), but
> having been around the block a few times I have to agree with JS these
> days. I think the old "have it or you don't" thing is rather a cop-
> out to dismiss certain people who have in truth just not bothered to
> "develop it"!.
>
> My story has oddly enough to do with a dancer. I got to calling her
> "New York" because someone told me aside once that she went to New
> York to be a dancer and ended up with a bus ticket home. I don't know
> if the story is true, but I liked it and decided to believe it
> anyway! :-) It made sense because she was like the "star" of our
> dance class because she had every dance move down just technically
> PERFECT! I mean PERFECT. But in my humble opinion even then as a rank
> dance newbie, she was clearly the WORST dancer in the class. I mean
> there was ZERO "feeling", Zero expression, Zero "heart", zero emotion
> in everything she did. Just nothing coming from the inside out! It's
> just like the schooled classical guys who can't get a shuffle. So in
> those days I simply dismissed her as one more artist who didn't have
> "it".
>
> Well, that was many years ago and as the youngsters here hopefully
> will learn, life has a way of rounding off your sharp edges and giving
> you an "education" if you want it or not! I saw her dancing a a few
> days ago, And while she still loves to do the technical stuff, clearly
> in the "heart" department it was like night and day. It was a clear
> example that having "it" is not "genetic" but indeed is simply related
> to your interest in an art and how much you are willing to go
> experience it. Sure there are lots of activities where I'm sure I
> don't have "it", but then I don't give a damn about those things so
> I'm never going to have it! I think David's and my former mistake
> was that we assumed that if a person doesn't have "it" that then they
> can NEVER have "it". That is wrong. A person's interests can change
> and when they do they can dig in and start getting the essence out of
> whatever it is. That is how I think it really works.
>
> Benj
I see you are all succumbing to the modern idea that anybody can do
any damn thing they are willing to do. That is unadulterated bull
shit. Any body who doesn't think talent exists is stupid and the
opinions of a bunch of rock and roll bass and guitar players are
probably the worst folks to be opining on this subject. And any body
who doesn't think lack of talent exists is also, of course, stupid.
There is no question that early experiences nurture various abilities
but to claim that Suzuki or anybody else can teach any kid to have
absolute pitch (which is in itself non-defined) is bull shit.
Similarly that you can teach any kid to be a genius is also bull
shit. It's pie in the sky time kiddos and within your life times you
will be finding out that a lot of your modern thinking is horse shit.
TS
Re: Some have it....some don't
On May 14, 4:08 pm, "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote:
> I don't recall saying anything like that.
>
> Yes,the ability to perform a specialized skill at a high level of
> proficiency is in many ways innate. And yes, some people are intrinsically
> gifted with physical or mental abilities that others don't have, allowing
> them to reach a higher lever than others.
>
> But that is a COMPLETELY different argument from ALL musical ability as a
> "pass/fail".
>
> I'm sure there are a small number of people who absolutely cannot
> distinguish pitch or rhythm, just as there are people who are genetically
> color blind. But in my experience, the VAST majority of students can be
> taught the elements of music. It's just a question of LISTENING and
> APPLICATION on their part.
>
> The reality I find is that some people are either further ahead or farther
> behind the pack interms of hearing or ability when they start lessons, but
> that has little to do with where they end up. How FAR they go with that
> instruction is a measure of their talent, I would say.
>
> "TS" <tshaw7...@sbcglobal,net > wrote in message
>
> news:490a97e9-3597-4de0-825e-f585fdb6a54c@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
> On 14 May, 08:49, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet,net > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 4:26 am, "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote:
>
> > > When someone says they are "tone deaf", to me that means that they just
> > > don't have enough exposure or knowledge of the music they want to play.
>
> > > Nowadays, it also means they don't have the discipline or attention span
> to
> > > accomplish what they desire. They will make a million excuses, but this
> is
> > > essentially what it comes down to. If you WANT it badly enough, you will
> > > MAKE it happen.
>
> > > For Christ's sake, if Marley Matlin can compete on Dancing with the
> Stars,
> > > YOU should be able to fucking play eighth notes on open E in time,
> within a
> > > month of lessons...
>
> > > If you can't, it's not genetic; it's just that you don't fucking LISTEN.
>
> > I used to believe as David does (and my dad (a drummer) did also), but
> > having been around the block a few times I have to agree with JS these
> > days. I think the old "have it or you don't" thing is rather a cop-
> > out to dismiss certain people who have in truth just not bothered to
> > "develop it"!.
>
> > My story has oddly enough to do with a dancer. I got to calling her
> > "New York" because someone told me aside once that she went to New
> > York to be a dancer and ended up with a bus ticket home. I don't know
> > if the story is true, but I liked it and decided to believe it
> > anyway! :-) It made sense because she was like the "star" of our
> > dance class because she had every dance move down just technically
> > PERFECT! I mean PERFECT. But in my humble opinion even then as a rank
> > dance newbie, she was clearly the WORST dancer in the class. I mean
> > there was ZERO "feeling", Zero expression, Zero "heart", zero emotion
> > in everything she did. Just nothing coming from the inside out! It's
> > just like the schooled classical guys who can't get a shuffle. So in
> > those days I simply dismissed her as one more artist who didn't have
> > "it".
>
> > Well, that was many years ago and as the youngsters here hopefully
> > will learn, life has a way of rounding off your sharp edges and giving
> > you an "education" if you want it or not! I saw her dancing a a few
> > days ago, And while she still loves to do the technical stuff, clearly
> > in the "heart" department it was like night and day. It was a clear
> > example that having "it" is not "genetic" but indeed is simply related
> > to your interest in an art and how much you are willing to go
> > experience it. Sure there are lots of activities where I'm sure I
> > don't have "it", but then I don't give a damn about those things so
> > I'm never going to have it! I think David's and my former mistake
> > was that we assumed that if a person doesn't have "it" that then they
> > can NEVER have "it". That is wrong. A person's interests can change
> > and when they do they can dig in and start getting the essence out of
> > whatever it is. That is how I think it really works.
>
> > Benj
>
> I see you are all succumbing to the modern idea that anybody can do
> any damn thing they are willing to do. That is unadulterated bull
> shit. Any body who doesn't think talent exists is stupid and the
> opinions of a bunch of rock and roll bass and guitar players are
> probably the worst folks to be opining on this subject. And any body
> who doesn't think lack of talent exists is also, of course, stupid.
> There is no question that early experiences nurture various abilities
> but to claim that Suzuki or anybody else can teach any kid to have
> absolute pitch (which is in itself non-defined) is bull shit.
> Similarly that you can teach any kid to be a genius is also bull
> shit. It's pie in the sky time kiddos and within your life times you
> will be finding out that a lot of your modern thinking is horse shit.
> TS
dude, i believe the OP said that some people can naturally feel the
groove and some can't.
it's twoo
On May 14, 4:08 pm, "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote:
> I don't recall saying anything like that.
>
> Yes,the ability to perform a specialized skill at a high level of
> proficiency is in many ways innate. And yes, some people are intrinsically
> gifted with physical or mental abilities that others don't have, allowing
> them to reach a higher lever than others.
>
> But that is a COMPLETELY different argument from ALL musical ability as a
> "pass/fail".
>
> I'm sure there are a small number of people who absolutely cannot
> distinguish pitch or rhythm, just as there are people who are genetically
> color blind. But in my experience, the VAST majority of students can be
> taught the elements of music. It's just a question of LISTENING and
> APPLICATION on their part.
>
> The reality I find is that some people are either further ahead or farther
> behind the pack interms of hearing or ability when they start lessons, but
> that has little to do with where they end up. How FAR they go with that
> instruction is a measure of their talent, I would say.
>
> "TS" <tshaw7...@sbcglobal,net > wrote in message
>
> news:490a97e9-3597-4de0-825e-f585fdb6a54c@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
> On 14 May, 08:49, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet,net > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 4:26 am, "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote:
>
> > > When someone says they are "tone deaf", to me that means that they just
> > > don't have enough exposure or knowledge of the music they want to play.
>
> > > Nowadays, it also means they don't have the discipline or attention span
> to
> > > accomplish what they desire. They will make a million excuses, but this
> is
> > > essentially what it comes down to. If you WANT it badly enough, you will
> > > MAKE it happen.
>
> > > For Christ's sake, if Marley Matlin can compete on Dancing with the
> Stars,
> > > YOU should be able to fucking play eighth notes on open E in time,
> within a
> > > month of lessons...
>
> > > If you can't, it's not genetic; it's just that you don't fucking LISTEN.
>
> > I used to believe as David does (and my dad (a drummer) did also), but
> > having been around the block a few times I have to agree with JS these
> > days. I think the old "have it or you don't" thing is rather a cop-
> > out to dismiss certain people who have in truth just not bothered to
> > "develop it"!.
>
> > My story has oddly enough to do with a dancer. I got to calling her
> > "New York" because someone told me aside once that she went to New
> > York to be a dancer and ended up with a bus ticket home. I don't know
> > if the story is true, but I liked it and decided to believe it
> > anyway! :-) It made sense because she was like the "star" of our
> > dance class because she had every dance move down just technically
> > PERFECT! I mean PERFECT. But in my humble opinion even then as a rank
> > dance newbie, she was clearly the WORST dancer in the class. I mean
> > there was ZERO "feeling", Zero expression, Zero "heart", zero emotion
> > in everything she did. Just nothing coming from the inside out! It's
> > just like the schooled classical guys who can't get a shuffle. So in
> > those days I simply dismissed her as one more artist who didn't have
> > "it".
>
> > Well, that was many years ago and as the youngsters here hopefully
> > will learn, life has a way of rounding off your sharp edges and giving
> > you an "education" if you want it or not! I saw her dancing a a few
> > days ago, And while she still loves to do the technical stuff, clearly
> > in the "heart" department it was like night and day. It was a clear
> > example that having "it" is not "genetic" but indeed is simply related
> > to your interest in an art and how much you are willing to go
> > experience it. Sure there are lots of activities where I'm sure I
> > don't have "it", but then I don't give a damn about those things so
> > I'm never going to have it! I think David's and my former mistake
> > was that we assumed that if a person doesn't have "it" that then they
> > can NEVER have "it". That is wrong. A person's interests can change
> > and when they do they can dig in and start getting the essence out of
> > whatever it is. That is how I think it really works.
>
> > Benj
>
> I see you are all succumbing to the modern idea that anybody can do
> any damn thing they are willing to do. That is unadulterated bull
> shit. Any body who doesn't think talent exists is stupid and the
> opinions of a bunch of rock and roll bass and guitar players are
> probably the worst folks to be opining on this subject. And any body
> who doesn't think lack of talent exists is also, of course, stupid.
> There is no question that early experiences nurture various abilities
> but to claim that Suzuki or anybody else can teach any kid to have
> absolute pitch (which is in itself non-defined) is bull shit.
> Similarly that you can teach any kid to be a genius is also bull
> shit. It's pie in the sky time kiddos and within your life times you
> will be finding out that a lot of your modern thinking is horse shit.
> TS
dude, i believe the OP said that some people can naturally feel the
groove and some can't.
it's twoo
Re: Some have it....some don't
TS <tshaw7427@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
> ... bull shit ... is stupid and the ... worst ... is also, of course,
> stupid. There is no question ... bull shit ... is also bull shit. It's
> pie in the sky ... your modern thinking is horse shit.
Could you please repeat your statement. Somehow I missed your point. And
your arguments, too.
Axel
--
send mails without spam and tralala
www .tyred.de
TS <tshaw7427@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
> ... bull shit ... is stupid and the ... worst ... is also, of course,
> stupid. There is no question ... bull shit ... is also bull shit. It's
> pie in the sky ... your modern thinking is horse shit.
Could you please repeat your statement. Somehow I missed your point. And
your arguments, too.
Axel
--
send mails without spam and tralala
www .tyred.de
Re: Some have it....some don't
TS wrote:
> I see you are all succumbing to the modern idea that anybody can do
> any damn thing they are willing to do. That is unadulterated bull
> shit. Any body who doesn't think talent exists is stupid and the
> opinions of a bunch of rock and roll bass and guitar players are
> probably the worst folks to be opining on this subject. And any body
> who doesn't think lack of talent exists is also, of course, stupid.
I see you have fallen for the trap that says some people are "good"
and some are "bad" and whatever is "written" is how you'll be for
eternity! Talk about a stupid idea!
Hey, nobody ever said that "talent' doesn't exist. Who are YOU to be
telling another person that they are NEVER going to be able to do this
or that? That's the kind of Bullshit Buddy Rich used to lay on kids.
The truth is that this idea of a genetic "talent" that sets your life
forever is what is bullshit. The truth is that various people have
various levels of talent for ANY of the things we do in life. Some
people are better at one thing, some are better at another. Some
people find something easy to learn and do, others struggle. But where
your arrogance comes in is when you start to tell people that NO
MATTER HOW MUCH EFFORT they put in they are NEVER going to make any
progress. The question here is not does talent exist, but rather can a
person actually succeed at something they don't do well IF (and that
is a HUGE "if") they are willing to have the interest and put in the
work to get there! If a person doesn't have the interest, then they
won't put in the work and they'll never get there. But that is a
totally different question from whether you have "it" or not and if
you don't you'll never amount to anything. That's just saying that if
it ain't easy then nobody should bother trying to do it. Sounds like
hippie philosophy to me.
TS wrote:
> I see you are all succumbing to the modern idea that anybody can do
> any damn thing they are willing to do. That is unadulterated bull
> shit. Any body who doesn't think talent exists is stupid and the
> opinions of a bunch of rock and roll bass and guitar players are
> probably the worst folks to be opining on this subject. And any body
> who doesn't think lack of talent exists is also, of course, stupid.
I see you have fallen for the trap that says some people are "good"
and some are "bad" and whatever is "written" is how you'll be for
eternity! Talk about a stupid idea!
Hey, nobody ever said that "talent' doesn't exist. Who are YOU to be
telling another person that they are NEVER going to be able to do this
or that? That's the kind of Bullshit Buddy Rich used to lay on kids.
The truth is that this idea of a genetic "talent" that sets your life
forever is what is bullshit. The truth is that various people have
various levels of talent for ANY of the things we do in life. Some
people are better at one thing, some are better at another. Some
people find something easy to learn and do, others struggle. But where
your arrogance comes in is when you start to tell people that NO
MATTER HOW MUCH EFFORT they put in they are NEVER going to make any
progress. The question here is not does talent exist, but rather can a
person actually succeed at something they don't do well IF (and that
is a HUGE "if") they are willing to have the interest and put in the
work to get there! If a person doesn't have the interest, then they
won't put in the work and they'll never get there. But that is a
totally different question from whether you have "it" or not and if
you don't you'll never amount to anything. That's just saying that if
it ain't easy then nobody should bother trying to do it. Sounds like
hippie philosophy to me.
Re: Some have it....some don't
On May 14, 9:35 pm, TS <tshaw7...@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
> On 14 May, 08:49, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet,net > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 4:26 am, "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote:
>
> > > When someone says they are "tone deaf", to me that means that they just
> > > don't have enough exposure or knowledge of the music they want to play.
>
> > > Nowadays, it also means they don't have the discipline or attention span to
> > > accomplish what they desire. They will make a million excuses, but this is
> > > essentially what it comes down to. If you WANT it badly enough, you will
> > > MAKE it happen.
>
> > > For Christ's sake, if Marley Matlin can compete on Dancing with the Stars,
> > > YOU should be able to fucking play eighth notes on open E in time, within a
> > > month of lessons...
>
> > > If you can't, it's not genetic; it's just that you don't fucking LISTEN.
>
> > I used to believe as David does (and my dad (a drummer) did also), but
> > having been around the block a few times I have to agree with JS these
> > days. I think the old "have it or you don't" thing is rather a cop-
> > out to dismiss certain people who have in truth just not bothered to
> > "develop it"!.
>
> > My story has oddly enough to do with a dancer. I got to calling her
> > "New York" because someone told me aside once that she went to New
> > York to be a dancer and ended up with a bus ticket home. I don't know
> > if the story is true, but I liked it and decided to believe it
> > anyway! :-) It made sense because she was like the "star" of our
> > dance class because she had every dance move down just technically
> > PERFECT! I mean PERFECT. But in my humble opinion even then as a rank
> > dance newbie, she was clearly the WORST dancer in the class. I mean
> > there was ZERO "feeling", Zero expression, Zero "heart", zero emotion
> > in everything she did. Just nothing coming from the inside out! It's
> > just like the schooled classical guys who can't get a shuffle. So in
> > those days I simply dismissed her as one more artist who didn't have
> > "it".
>
> > Well, that was many years ago and as the youngsters here hopefully
> > will learn, life has a way of rounding off your sharp edges and giving
> > you an "education" if you want it or not! I saw her dancing a a few
> > days ago, And while she still loves to do the technical stuff, clearly
> > in the "heart" department it was like night and day. It was a clear
> > example that having "it" is not "genetic" but indeed is simply related
> > to your interest in an art and how much you are willing to go
> > experience it. Sure there are lots of activities where I'm sure I
> > don't have "it", but then I don't give a damn about those things so
> > I'm never going to have it! I think David's and my former mistake
> > was that we assumed that if a person doesn't have "it" that then they
> > can NEVER have "it". That is wrong. A person's interests can change
> > and when they do they can dig in and start getting the essence out of
> > whatever it is. That is how I think it really works.
>
> > Benj
>
> I see you are all succumbing to the modern idea that anybody can do
> any damn thing they are willing to do. That is unadulterated bull
> shit. Any body who doesn't think talent exists is stupid and the
> opinions of a bunch of rock and roll bass and guitar players are
> probably the worst folks to be opining on this subject. And any body
> who doesn't think lack of talent exists is also, of course, stupid.
> There is no question that early experiences nurture various abilities
> but to claim that Suzuki or anybody else can teach any kid to have
> absolute pitch (which is in itself non-defined) is bull shit.
> Similarly that you can teach any kid to be a genius is also bull
> shit. It's pie in the sky time kiddos and within your life times you
> will be finding out that a lot of your modern thinking is horse shit.
> TS
Well I agree. I play frisbee golf and I could not learn to putt.
There was something about it that just didn't work for me. I put a
lot of effort into it and finally gave up. With regular golf I could
putt quite well right off the bat. I beat my uncle in a putting
contest on his home green and he's been playing there for decades. So
yes, talent exists.
On the other hand there at things I was terrible at that I came back
to decades later and excelled. So you never know.
On May 14, 9:35 pm, TS <tshaw7...@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
> On 14 May, 08:49, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet,net > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 4:26 am, "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote:
>
> > > When someone says they are "tone deaf", to me that means that they just
> > > don't have enough exposure or knowledge of the music they want to play.
>
> > > Nowadays, it also means they don't have the discipline or attention span to
> > > accomplish what they desire. They will make a million excuses, but this is
> > > essentially what it comes down to. If you WANT it badly enough, you will
> > > MAKE it happen.
>
> > > For Christ's sake, if Marley Matlin can compete on Dancing with the Stars,
> > > YOU should be able to fucking play eighth notes on open E in time, within a
> > > month of lessons...
>
> > > If you can't, it's not genetic; it's just that you don't fucking LISTEN.
>
> > I used to believe as David does (and my dad (a drummer) did also), but
> > having been around the block a few times I have to agree with JS these
> > days. I think the old "have it or you don't" thing is rather a cop-
> > out to dismiss certain people who have in truth just not bothered to
> > "develop it"!.
>
> > My story has oddly enough to do with a dancer. I got to calling her
> > "New York" because someone told me aside once that she went to New
> > York to be a dancer and ended up with a bus ticket home. I don't know
> > if the story is true, but I liked it and decided to believe it
> > anyway! :-) It made sense because she was like the "star" of our
> > dance class because she had every dance move down just technically
> > PERFECT! I mean PERFECT. But in my humble opinion even then as a rank
> > dance newbie, she was clearly the WORST dancer in the class. I mean
> > there was ZERO "feeling", Zero expression, Zero "heart", zero emotion
> > in everything she did. Just nothing coming from the inside out! It's
> > just like the schooled classical guys who can't get a shuffle. So in
> > those days I simply dismissed her as one more artist who didn't have
> > "it".
>
> > Well, that was many years ago and as the youngsters here hopefully
> > will learn, life has a way of rounding off your sharp edges and giving
> > you an "education" if you want it or not! I saw her dancing a a few
> > days ago, And while she still loves to do the technical stuff, clearly
> > in the "heart" department it was like night and day. It was a clear
> > example that having "it" is not "genetic" but indeed is simply related
> > to your interest in an art and how much you are willing to go
> > experience it. Sure there are lots of activities where I'm sure I
> > don't have "it", but then I don't give a damn about those things so
> > I'm never going to have it! I think David's and my former mistake
> > was that we assumed that if a person doesn't have "it" that then they
> > can NEVER have "it". That is wrong. A person's interests can change
> > and when they do they can dig in and start getting the essence out of
> > whatever it is. That is how I think it really works.
>
> > Benj
>
> I see you are all succumbing to the modern idea that anybody can do
> any damn thing they are willing to do. That is unadulterated bull
> shit. Any body who doesn't think talent exists is stupid and the
> opinions of a bunch of rock and roll bass and guitar players are
> probably the worst folks to be opining on this subject. And any body
> who doesn't think lack of talent exists is also, of course, stupid.
> There is no question that early experiences nurture various abilities
> but to claim that Suzuki or anybody else can teach any kid to have
> absolute pitch (which is in itself non-defined) is bull shit.
> Similarly that you can teach any kid to be a genius is also bull
> shit. It's pie in the sky time kiddos and within your life times you
> will be finding out that a lot of your modern thinking is horse shit.
> TS
Well I agree. I play frisbee golf and I could not learn to putt.
There was something about it that just didn't work for me. I put a
lot of effort into it and finally gave up. With regular golf I could
putt quite well right off the bat. I beat my uncle in a putting
contest on his home green and he's been playing there for decades. So
yes, talent exists.
On the other hand there at things I was terrible at that I came back
to decades later and excelled. So you never know.
Re: Some have it....some don't
> The weird thing is, as I get older and teach a wider cross section of
> students, the LESS I believe in an "it".
But you don't see a wide cross-section of kids, you see your music
students. They're already screened, they already show a predisposition
towards music. Naturally, all most of them need is to practice a lot.
There's absolutely no question that different kids show different
propensities towards different things. Some kids naturally "get" music,
some just plain don't. Some kids are talented at math, while others
could study all day for years and never "get" trig or calculus.
Drawing, writing, speaking in public, physics, deductive reasoning, on
and on and on... some will get it, others never will. This is very
similar to that old argument about "nature versus nurture." People that
don't believe that there are inborn, instinctive differences between
boys and girls have never had children of their own.
That's just the way it is. I've learned over the years as a business
manager, employer, coach and parent that to be successful you have to
identify a person's strengths and weaknesses, let them run with their
strengths, and realize that they'll never truly overcome their
weaknesses. They can always do better with their weaknesses, and you
can never let them cop out by claiming a weakness when it's really just
laziness, but it's a fact -- for example, no matter how long you or I
studied and tried, really tried, we could never understand what Richard
Feynman understood. Some have a "gift," and others don't.
Some musicians will never get past the twelve-bar blues, some will write
symphonies of staggering complexity and beauty. C'est la vie.
> The weird thing is, as I get older and teach a wider cross section of
> students, the LESS I believe in an "it".
But you don't see a wide cross-section of kids, you see your music
students. They're already screened, they already show a predisposition
towards music. Naturally, all most of them need is to practice a lot.
There's absolutely no question that different kids show different
propensities towards different things. Some kids naturally "get" music,
some just plain don't. Some kids are talented at math, while others
could study all day for years and never "get" trig or calculus.
Drawing, writing, speaking in public, physics, deductive reasoning, on
and on and on... some will get it, others never will. This is very
similar to that old argument about "nature versus nurture." People that
don't believe that there are inborn, instinctive differences between
boys and girls have never had children of their own.
That's just the way it is. I've learned over the years as a business
manager, employer, coach and parent that to be successful you have to
identify a person's strengths and weaknesses, let them run with their
strengths, and realize that they'll never truly overcome their
weaknesses. They can always do better with their weaknesses, and you
can never let them cop out by claiming a weakness when it's really just
laziness, but it's a fact -- for example, no matter how long you or I
studied and tried, really tried, we could never understand what Richard
Feynman understood. Some have a "gift," and others don't.
Some musicians will never get past the twelve-bar blues, some will write
symphonies of staggering complexity and beauty. C'est la vie.
Re: Some have it....some don't
On May 14, 10:48 am, Brian Running <brunn...@XXameritechXX,net > wrote:
> > The weird thing is, as I get older and teach a wider cross section of
> > students, the LESS I believe in an "it".
>
> But you don't see a wide cross-section of kids, you see your music
> students. They're already screened, they already show a predisposition
> towards music. Naturally, all most of them need is to practice a lot.
>
> There's absolutely no question that different kids show different
> propensities towards different things. Some kids naturally "get" music,
> some just plain don't. Some kids are talented at math, while others
> could study all day for years and never "get" trig or calculus.
> Drawing, writing, speaking in public, physics, deductive reasoning, on
> and on and on... some will get it, others never will. This is very
> similar to that old argument about "nature versus nurture." People that
> don't believe that there are inborn, instinctive differences between
> boys and girls have never had children of their own.
>
> That's just the way it is. I've learned over the years as a business
> manager, employer, coach and parent that to be successful you have to
> identify a person's strengths and weaknesses, let them run with their
> strengths, and realize that they'll never truly overcome their
> weaknesses. They can always do better with their weaknesses, and you
> can never let them cop out by claiming a weakness when it's really just
> laziness, but it's a fact -- for example, no matter how long you or I
> studied and tried, really tried, we could never understand what Richard
> Feynman understood. Some have a "gift," and others don't.
>
> Some musicians will never get past the twelve-bar blues, some will write
> symphonies of staggering complexity and beauty. C'est la vie.
We're back to the old "Nature versus Nurture" argument. Ignoring or
denying genetic inheritance is becoming socio politically fashionable.
I don't subscribe to that one bit.
The highest recognized masters of an art have a predisposition plus
drive and ambition. Also they create in the listener's comfort zone.
When we talk about people "getting it" we are doing so from our
personally biased reference point.
It's always possible that we "don't get it"
On May 14, 10:48 am, Brian Running <brunn...@XXameritechXX,net > wrote:
> > The weird thing is, as I get older and teach a wider cross section of
> > students, the LESS I believe in an "it".
>
> But you don't see a wide cross-section of kids, you see your music
> students. They're already screened, they already show a predisposition
> towards music. Naturally, all most of them need is to practice a lot.
>
> There's absolutely no question that different kids show different
> propensities towards different things. Some kids naturally "get" music,
> some just plain don't. Some kids are talented at math, while others
> could study all day for years and never "get" trig or calculus.
> Drawing, writing, speaking in public, physics, deductive reasoning, on
> and on and on... some will get it, others never will. This is very
> similar to that old argument about "nature versus nurture." People that
> don't believe that there are inborn, instinctive differences between
> boys and girls have never had children of their own.
>
> That's just the way it is. I've learned over the years as a business
> manager, employer, coach and parent that to be successful you have to
> identify a person's strengths and weaknesses, let them run with their
> strengths, and realize that they'll never truly overcome their
> weaknesses. They can always do better with their weaknesses, and you
> can never let them cop out by claiming a weakness when it's really just
> laziness, but it's a fact -- for example, no matter how long you or I
> studied and tried, really tried, we could never understand what Richard
> Feynman understood. Some have a "gift," and others don't.
>
> Some musicians will never get past the twelve-bar blues, some will write
> symphonies of staggering complexity and beauty. C'est la vie.
We're back to the old "Nature versus Nurture" argument. Ignoring or
denying genetic inheritance is becoming socio politically fashionable.
I don't subscribe to that one bit.
The highest recognized masters of an art have a predisposition plus
drive and ambition. Also they create in the listener's comfort zone.
When we talk about people "getting it" we are doing so from our
personally biased reference point.
It's always possible that we "don't get it"
Re: Some have it....some don't
My "kids" are everyone from 4 year olds to 70 year olds, at all proficiency
levels, ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.
I've also taught K-8 general music as well.Can't get any more "luck of the
draw" than that.
I've run "summer music camps" where parents stuck their kids for a couple
weeks to keep them out of trouble - whether they could play an instrument or
not.
I went to music school with a wide cross section - people who had no
business getting a music degree, up to people who were so good, they could
care less if they got a degree at all.
And like everyone else here, I've played in a gazillion bands with
everything from true geniuses to guys who were, as we used to say, "holders"
...So I'd say I've encountered a decently representative pool of people in
my lifetime. And from what I've seen, the common denominator is what the
individual puts into it.
Again, that's different than "talent". Some people are certainly more
talented a certain things than others, sure.
But this idea that you have a "tin ear" because you can't play a major scale
that you didn't practice anyway? That's ridiculous.
I used to do a thing with the K-2 kids when I taught school. I'd divide them
into groups and give each group some percussion instrument. Then I'd give
each instrument a symbol - shakers would be a star, tambourine would be a
triangle, etc.
Then I'd write a "composition" on the board with the symbols, and
"conduct" - when I pointed to the symbol, the kids would play their
instruments, when I pointed to the next one the first group would stop and
the next would play, etc.
In all the times I did the exercise, I rarely had a group play out of turn
or jump on the next groups parts.
So If a 4 year old can grasp the concept that "star = shaker", I think a 24
year old should be able to grasp the concept of "1,2,3,4..."
ANYONE of reasonable intelligence can be taught the basic elements of music.
How far they WANT TO take it is up to them.
How far they CAN take it is where the talent portion kicks in.
"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX,net > wrote in message
news:7ZCWj.4381$nW2.3627@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc,com ...
> > The weird thing is, as I get older and teach a wider cross section of
> > students, the LESS I believe in an "it".
>
> But you don't see a wide cross-section of kids, you see your music
> students. They're already screened, they already show a predisposition
> towards music. Naturally, all most of them need is to practice a lot.
>
> There's absolutely no question that different kids show different
> propensities towards different things. Some kids naturally "get" music,
> some just plain don't. Some kids are talented at math, while others
> could study all day for years and never "get" trig or calculus.
> Drawing, writing, speaking in public, physics, deductive reasoning, on
> and on and on... some will get it, others never will. This is very
> similar to that old argument about "nature versus nurture." People that
> don't believe that there are inborn, instinctive differences between
> boys and girls have never had children of their own.
>
> That's just the way it is. I've learned over the years as a business
> manager, employer, coach and parent that to be successful you have to
> identify a person's strengths and weaknesses, let them run with their
> strengths, and realize that they'll never truly overcome their
> weaknesses. They can always do better with their weaknesses, and you
> can never let them cop out by claiming a weakness when it's really just
> laziness, but it's a fact -- for example, no matter how long you or I
> studied and tried, really tried, we could never understand what Richard
> Feynman understood. Some have a "gift," and others don't.
>
> Some musicians will never get past the twelve-bar blues, some will write
> symphonies of staggering complexity and beauty. C'est la vie.
My "kids" are everyone from 4 year olds to 70 year olds, at all proficiency
levels, ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.
I've also taught K-8 general music as well.Can't get any more "luck of the
draw" than that.
I've run "summer music camps" where parents stuck their kids for a couple
weeks to keep them out of trouble - whether they could play an instrument or
not.
I went to music school with a wide cross section - people who had no
business getting a music degree, up to people who were so good, they could
care less if they got a degree at all.
And like everyone else here, I've played in a gazillion bands with
everything from true geniuses to guys who were, as we used to say, "holders"
...So I'd say I've encountered a decently representative pool of people in
my lifetime. And from what I've seen, the common denominator is what the
individual puts into it.
Again, that's different than "talent". Some people are certainly more
talented a certain things than others, sure.
But this idea that you have a "tin ear" because you can't play a major scale
that you didn't practice anyway? That's ridiculous.
I used to do a thing with the K-2 kids when I taught school. I'd divide them
into groups and give each group some percussion instrument. Then I'd give
each instrument a symbol - shakers would be a star, tambourine would be a
triangle, etc.
Then I'd write a "composition" on the board with the symbols, and
"conduct" - when I pointed to the symbol, the kids would play their
instruments, when I pointed to the next one the first group would stop and
the next would play, etc.
In all the times I did the exercise, I rarely had a group play out of turn
or jump on the next groups parts.
So If a 4 year old can grasp the concept that "star = shaker", I think a 24
year old should be able to grasp the concept of "1,2,3,4..."
ANYONE of reasonable intelligence can be taught the basic elements of music.
How far they WANT TO take it is up to them.
How far they CAN take it is where the talent portion kicks in.
"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX,net > wrote in message
news:7ZCWj.4381$nW2.3627@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc,com ...
> > The weird thing is, as I get older and teach a wider cross section of
> > students, the LESS I believe in an "it".
>
> But you don't see a wide cross-section of kids, you see your music
> students. They're already screened, they already show a predisposition
> towards music. Naturally, all most of them need is to practice a lot.
>
> There's absolutely no question that different kids show different
> propensities towards different things. Some kids naturally "get" music,
> some just plain don't. Some kids are talented at math, while others
> could study all day for years and never "get" trig or calculus.
> Drawing, writing, speaking in public, physics, deductive reasoning, on
> and on and on... some will get it, others never will. This is very
> similar to that old argument about "nature versus nurture." People that
> don't believe that there are inborn, instinctive differences between
> boys and girls have never had children of their own.
>
> That's just the way it is. I've learned over the years as a business
> manager, employer, coach and parent that to be successful you have to
> identify a person's strengths and weaknesses, let them run with their
> strengths, and realize that they'll never truly overcome their
> weaknesses. They can always do better with their weaknesses, and you
> can never let them cop out by claiming a weakness when it's really just
> laziness, but it's a fact -- for example, no matter how long you or I
> studied and tried, really tried, we could never understand what Richard
> Feynman understood. Some have a "gift," and others don't.
>
> Some musicians will never get past the twelve-bar blues, some will write
> symphonies of staggering complexity and beauty. C'est la vie.
Re: Some have it....some don't
> Again, that's different than "talent". Some people are certainly more
> talented a certain things than others, sure.
But I think the premise of the original post is talent.
> ANYONE of reasonable intelligence can be taught the basic elements of music.
> How far they WANT TO take it is up to them.
>
> How far they CAN take it is where the talent portion kicks in.
That's all true. But again, I think the OP's intent was to point out
that there are people out there that just plain have a gift of musical
talent, they take to music like a fish takes to water. Sure, it's true
that almost anyone can learn to hit a wood block on the downbeats, for
instance. But it's also true that there are very few true musical
geniuses out there, and there's a whole spectrum of musical talents in
between. There are also some people out there that can't even hit a
wood block on the downbeats -- there aren't many, but there are true
"tin ears" out there.
> Again, that's different than "talent". Some people are certainly more
> talented a certain things than others, sure.
But I think the premise of the original post is talent.
> ANYONE of reasonable intelligence can be taught the basic elements of music.
> How far they WANT TO take it is up to them.
>
> How far they CAN take it is where the talent portion kicks in.
That's all true. But again, I think the OP's intent was to point out
that there are people out there that just plain have a gift of musical
talent, they take to music like a fish takes to water. Sure, it's true
that almost anyone can learn to hit a wood block on the downbeats, for
instance. But it's also true that there are very few true musical
geniuses out there, and there's a whole spectrum of musical talents in
between. There are also some people out there that can't even hit a
wood block on the downbeats -- there aren't many, but there are true
"tin ears" out there.
Re: Some have it....some don't
Brian Running wrote:
>> Again, that's different than "talent". Some people are certainly more
>> talented a certain things than others, sure.
>
> But I think the premise of the original post is talent.
>
>> ANYONE of reasonable intelligence can be taught the basic elements of
>> music.
>> How far they WANT TO take it is up to them.
>>
>> How far they CAN take it is where the talent portion kicks in.
>
> That's all true. But again, I think the OP's intent was to point out
> that there are people out there that just plain have a gift of musical
> talent, they take to music like a fish takes to water. Sure, it's true
> that almost anyone can learn to hit a wood block on the downbeats, for
> instance. But it's also true that there are very few true musical
> geniuses out there, and there's a whole spectrum of musical talents in
> between. There are also some people out there that can't even hit a
> wood block on the downbeats -- there aren't many, but there are true
> "tin ears" out there.
Yep.
And another thing to remember is that we humans are much more likely to
devote our efforts to those things which we enjoy. We typically don't
enjoy things we're not at least somewhat naturally good at.
Thus the kid who picks up a bass and has such a natural talent that the
basics come easy is probably more likely to continue than the kid who
struggles fretting notes without severe buzzing.
Of course, there are those with natural talent who never work at it. I
was in a band with a drummer like that. It's kind of annoying that he
was as good as he was without any real practice (he was an excellent
trumpet player in high school and Mom was a music teacher).
Just to take it off topic a bit (what's new?) a couple of things I've
noticed about the really, really talented people I've met in various
fields is that they are often obsessed and suffer a lot of anxiety about
their chosen endeavor. Instead of enjoying how good they have become,
they are insecure and unhappy about how good they are not.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
Brian Running wrote:
>> Again, that's different than "talent". Some people are certainly more
>> talented a certain things than others, sure.
>
> But I think the premise of the original post is talent.
>
>> ANYONE of reasonable intelligence can be taught the basic elements of
>> music.
>> How far they WANT TO take it is up to them.
>>
>> How far they CAN take it is where the talent portion kicks in.
>
> That's all true. But again, I think the OP's intent was to point out
> that there are people out there that just plain have a gift of musical
> talent, they take to music like a fish takes to water. Sure, it's true
> that almost anyone can learn to hit a wood block on the downbeats, for
> instance. But it's also true that there are very few true musical
> geniuses out there, and there's a whole spectrum of musical talents in
> between. There are also some people out there that can't even hit a
> wood block on the downbeats -- there aren't many, but there are true
> "tin ears" out there.
Yep.
And another thing to remember is that we humans are much more likely to
devote our efforts to those things which we enjoy. We typically don't
enjoy things we're not at least somewhat naturally good at.
Thus the kid who picks up a bass and has such a natural talent that the
basics come easy is probably more likely to continue than the kid who
struggles fretting notes without severe buzzing.
Of course, there are those with natural talent who never work at it. I
was in a band with a drummer like that. It's kind of annoying that he
was as good as he was without any real practice (he was an excellent
trumpet player in high school and Mom was a music teacher).
Just to take it off topic a bit (what's new?) a couple of things I've
noticed about the really, really talented people I've met in various
fields is that they are often obsessed and suffer a lot of anxiety about
their chosen endeavor. Instead of enjoying how good they have become,
they are insecure and unhappy about how good they are not.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
Re: Some have it....some don't
>Instead of enjoying how good they have become, they are insecure and unhappy about how good they are not.
Reminds me of John McEnroe, the tennis player.
>Instead of enjoying how good they have become, they are insecure and unhappy about how good they are not.
Reminds me of John McEnroe, the tennis player.
Re: Some have it....some don't
js wrote:
>
> ANYONE of reasonable intelligence can be taught the basic elements of music.
I know you love your absolutes, but life's not like that. "Intelligence"
is a somewhat vague term. I had a friend who was a political science
major. He was smart as a whip. Fantastic at debate and writing papers.
He was a very hard worker. But he struggled with remedial math in college.
My ex-wife was an elementary school teacher for seven of the years we
were together. Every year there were a couple of kids who struggled in
various areas, most notably writing. These kids could read just fine.
They could carry on a conversation just fine. Ask them to write down
what they just said and you'd think you just asked a four year old to
write in Latin.
As Brian indicated, some people are just wired differently. It happens.
I don't mean to criticize your teaching, but I would not be surprised at
all if in every grade level there were a few kids who simply watched
other kids in their group and not you.
Everybody has weaknesses. For some people they are extreme. What a lot
of people fail to realize is that you can be an accomplished person yet
still not be able to do something that 99.9% of the population takes for
granted.
js wrote:
>
> ANYONE of reasonable intelligence can be taught the basic elements of music.
I know you love your absolutes, but life's not like that. "Intelligence"
is a somewhat vague term. I had a friend who was a political science
major. He was smart as a whip. Fantastic at debate and writing papers.
He was a very hard worker. But he struggled with remedial math in college.
My ex-wife was an elementary school teacher for seven of the years we
were together. Every year there were a couple of kids who struggled in
various areas, most notably writing. These kids could read just fine.
They could carry on a conversation just fine. Ask them to write down
what they just said and you'd think you just asked a four year old to
write in Latin.
As Brian indicated, some people are just wired differently. It happens.
I don't mean to criticize your teaching, but I would not be surprised at
all if in every grade level there were a few kids who simply watched
other kids in their group and not you.
Everybody has weaknesses. For some people they are extreme. What a lot
of people fail to realize is that you can be an accomplished person yet
still not be able to do something that 99.9% of the population takes for
granted.
Re: Some have it....some don't
Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > writes:
> I know you love your absolutes, but life's not like that.
The irony of this statement kinda reminds me having read somewhere
recently:
Don't call women "broads." Chicks hate that.
Intended?
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http :// www .toddh,net /
X Promoting good netiquette |
/ \ http :// www .toddh,net /netiquette/ | http :// myspace,com /bmiawmb
Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > writes:
> I know you love your absolutes, but life's not like that.
The irony of this statement kinda reminds me having read somewhere
recently:
Don't call women "broads." Chicks hate that.
Intended?
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http :// www .toddh,net /
X Promoting good netiquette |
/ \ http :// www .toddh,net /netiquette/ | http :// myspace,com /bmiawmb
Re: Some have it....some don't
Jim Carr wrote:
> My ex-wife was an elementary school teacher for seven of the years we
> were together. Every year there were a couple of kids who struggled in
> various areas, most notably writing. These kids could read just fine.
> They could carry on a conversation just fine. Ask them to write down
> what they just said and you'd think you just asked a four year old to
> write in Latin.
>
> As Brian indicated, some people are just wired differently. It happens.
> I don't mean to criticize your teaching, but I would not be surprised at
> all if in every grade level there were a few kids who simply watched
> other kids in their group and not you.
I used to believe that things like "talent" were either there or not
there and could not be modified in any way. But I found my own life
proved that wrong. You can say that a person's brain is "wired" but
it's not a TV set. We all here are painfully aware that the human
brain is capable of being "rewired". It is a hard uphill battle but
through effort and practice it CAN be done. You might argue that a
person way down on the talent list doesn't have enough years and
energy in their life to ever rise to the genius level, but that isn't
really the issue. The issue is can you actually CHANGE where your
level is? I'm convinced the answer is that with enough effort and
interest you can do that.
There was a downs syndrome kid that used to live across the street
from me when I was a kid. They sent him to a special school that
trained kids like that to makes them less dependent on help for the
ordinary things in life. When he left he had to be helped with just
about everything he did. When he came back he did a lot of things that
he "couldn't" do before like dress himself etc. One thing I remember
is they trained him to run a vacuum cleaner and he LOVED to do that.
He would just about vacuum a hole through the carpet because he
wouldn't stop sweeping!
In my own case, I took a music composition class in college. Ugh! I
never had so much trouble with something in my life! God my songs were
BAD! (Being under the influence of my old idea of having it or not
having it, I decided that as a composer my talent was zero (it was)
and I'd NEVER be able to do this. Well guess what, all of a sudden
here later in life I somehow started to "get it"! Was it years in
music? Was it my brain lying fallow? I don't know. All I know is
suddenly I'm writing decent songs and even like Mozart taking other
people's songs and "improving" them. So if I was a hopeless
compositional cripple before, how was it I got "cured" if "talent"
can't be developed by effort and knowledge and practice?
This is why I don't agree with the the "you are the way you are"
theory.
Jim Carr wrote:
> My ex-wife was an elementary school teacher for seven of the years we
> were together. Every year there were a couple of kids who struggled in
> various areas, most notably writing. These kids could read just fine.
> They could carry on a conversation just fine. Ask them to write down
> what they just said and you'd think you just asked a four year old to
> write in Latin.
>
> As Brian indicated, some people are just wired differently. It happens.
> I don't mean to criticize your teaching, but I would not be surprised at
> all if in every grade level there were a few kids who simply watched
> other kids in their group and not you.
I used to believe that things like "talent" were either there or not
there and could not be modified in any way. But I found my own life
proved that wrong. You can say that a person's brain is "wired" but
it's not a TV set. We all here are painfully aware that the human
brain is capable of being "rewired". It is a hard uphill battle but
through effort and practice it CAN be done. You might argue that a
person way down on the talent list doesn't have enough years and
energy in their life to ever rise to the genius level, but that isn't
really the issue. The issue is can you actually CHANGE where your
level is? I'm convinced the answer is that with enough effort and
interest you can do that.
There was a downs syndrome kid that used to live across the street
from me when I was a kid. They sent him to a special school that
trained kids like that to makes them less dependent on help for the
ordinary things in life. When he left he had to be helped with just
about everything he did. When he came back he did a lot of things that
he "couldn't" do before like dress himself etc. One thing I remember
is they trained him to run a vacuum cleaner and he LOVED to do that.
He would just about vacuum a hole through the carpet because he
wouldn't stop sweeping!
In my own case, I took a music composition class in college. Ugh! I
never had so much trouble with something in my life! God my songs were
BAD! (Being under the influence of my old idea of having it or not
having it, I decided that as a composer my talent was zero (it was)
and I'd NEVER be able to do this. Well guess what, all of a sudden
here later in life I somehow started to "get it"! Was it years in
music? Was it my brain lying fallow? I don't know. All I know is
suddenly I'm writing decent songs and even like Mozart taking other
people's songs and "improving" them. So if I was a hopeless
compositional cripple before, how was it I got "cured" if "talent"
can't be developed by effort and knowledge and practice?
This is why I don't agree with the the "you are the way you are"
theory.
