Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Some have it....some don't
Benj wrote:
> This is why I don't agree with the the "you are the way you are"
> theory.
If you got that from what I wrote, then I must not have been clear or
you had an agenda. :-)
I firmly believe that we humans all have particular gifts,
predispositions, weaknesses, and blind spots, most likely genetic in
nature. Quite often any given trait is more than one those things. For
example, curiosity can be a strength when doing research, but a weakness
if you're also a "nosy" person.
If I read you right, it's a cop-out to say, "Well, I'm naturally
curious, not nosy." It's also a cop-out to say, "I'm just no good at
that" when you haven't really applied yourself.
We can all shape who we are, but the reality is that some things will
come easily and some will come only with extreme effort.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
> This is why I don't agree with the the "you are the way you are"
> theory.
If you got that from what I wrote, then I must not have been clear or
you had an agenda. :-)
I firmly believe that we humans all have particular gifts,
predispositions, weaknesses, and blind spots, most likely genetic in
nature. Quite often any given trait is more than one those things. For
example, curiosity can be a strength when doing research, but a weakness
if you're also a "nosy" person.
If I read you right, it's a cop-out to say, "Well, I'm naturally
curious, not nosy." It's also a cop-out to say, "I'm just no good at
that" when you haven't really applied yourself.
We can all shape who we are, but the reality is that some things will
come easily and some will come only with extreme effort.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
On May 15, 11:27 pm, Jim Carr <newsgro...@azwebpages . com > wrote:
> Benj wrote:
> > This is why I don't agree with the the "you are the way you are"
> > theory.
>
> If you got that from what I wrote, then I must not have been clear or
> you had an agenda. :-)
No agenda! (heh, at least not THIS time!) That original David post
that started this thread sounded to me just like one of my Dad's rants
about how some people (musicians) have it and some don't and never
will. It's that last little part about "never will" that is the catch
here. For years I was convinced my dad was right. There are talented
people and then there are some no-talent losers even if they play for
the local symphony. And they aren't gonna change and that's how it
is!
> I firmly believe that we humans all have particular gifts,
> predispositions, weaknesses, and blind spots, most likely genetic in
> nature. Quite often any given trait is more than one those things. For
> example, curiosity can be a strength when doing research, but a weakness
> if you're also a "nosy" person.
Well this is obviously where it starts. People are all born with a
particular set of talents unique to them. No question about that.
Whether or not a "talent" is a plus or minus is a value judgment and
we don't need to do that. But the question that comes up is the
implicit implication above that if a person has no talent for a
certain thing, that they might as will give it up as hopeless. That
is wrong and I'll PROVE it's wrong. There is one great law of the
universe that never fails: It is the CERTAINTY of CHANGE! Well if
change is inevitable, then people surely are NOT doomed to be hopeless
grooveless losers for the rest of their natural days.
> We can all shape who we are, but the reality is that some things will
> come easily and some will come only with extreme effort.
Well sure, that's it exactly. The point here being that not having
talent is not necessarily a loser sentence because effort (even at
times maybe "extreme effort" can change that. Likewise, having a huge
talent for something means nothing if you hate doing whatever it is.
One grows much better as a person working on your shortcomings than
simply coasting along sliding by doing things that are no effort for
you. So if a person intends to apply this wisdom, the first thing
they need to know is that while, yes, people are born with or without
talent in various areas, it is essential to know that talent ALSO can
be gained through interest and hard work. Hence there are TWO paths
leading to the same spot! This fact means nothing to the person with
inborn talent because they already have their way. But to the "loser"
it means everything, because without this second route, you simply
have no alternative but to give up and do something else, and it's
probably something you don't like nearly as well.
I speak from experience because as I noted, having discovered I had no
born talent for song-writing and believing in the "some have it and
some don't" philosophy, It never occurred to me that that study and
practice of song writing actually might develop a a talent. So for so
many years I simply gave up and never tried. Only later did I discover
the error of my ways.
Of course in re-reading the original I noted that he used the term
"instinctive sense for music". Well that's a semantic problem because
if a person uses practice and hard effort to develop a "sense for
music" can we still call it "instinctive"? Probably not. But still
think our discussion makes sense even if we are a pathetic bunch of
bass players.
> Benj wrote:
> > This is why I don't agree with the the "you are the way you are"
> > theory.
>
> If you got that from what I wrote, then I must not have been clear or
> you had an agenda. :-)
No agenda! (heh, at least not THIS time!) That original David post
that started this thread sounded to me just like one of my Dad's rants
about how some people (musicians) have it and some don't and never
will. It's that last little part about "never will" that is the catch
here. For years I was convinced my dad was right. There are talented
people and then there are some no-talent losers even if they play for
the local symphony. And they aren't gonna change and that's how it
is!
> I firmly believe that we humans all have particular gifts,
> predispositions, weaknesses, and blind spots, most likely genetic in
> nature. Quite often any given trait is more than one those things. For
> example, curiosity can be a strength when doing research, but a weakness
> if you're also a "nosy" person.
Well this is obviously where it starts. People are all born with a
particular set of talents unique to them. No question about that.
Whether or not a "talent" is a plus or minus is a value judgment and
we don't need to do that. But the question that comes up is the
implicit implication above that if a person has no talent for a
certain thing, that they might as will give it up as hopeless. That
is wrong and I'll PROVE it's wrong. There is one great law of the
universe that never fails: It is the CERTAINTY of CHANGE! Well if
change is inevitable, then people surely are NOT doomed to be hopeless
grooveless losers for the rest of their natural days.
> We can all shape who we are, but the reality is that some things will
> come easily and some will come only with extreme effort.
Well sure, that's it exactly. The point here being that not having
talent is not necessarily a loser sentence because effort (even at
times maybe "extreme effort" can change that. Likewise, having a huge
talent for something means nothing if you hate doing whatever it is.
One grows much better as a person working on your shortcomings than
simply coasting along sliding by doing things that are no effort for
you. So if a person intends to apply this wisdom, the first thing
they need to know is that while, yes, people are born with or without
talent in various areas, it is essential to know that talent ALSO can
be gained through interest and hard work. Hence there are TWO paths
leading to the same spot! This fact means nothing to the person with
inborn talent because they already have their way. But to the "loser"
it means everything, because without this second route, you simply
have no alternative but to give up and do something else, and it's
probably something you don't like nearly as well.
I speak from experience because as I noted, having discovered I had no
born talent for song-writing and believing in the "some have it and
some don't" philosophy, It never occurred to me that that study and
practice of song writing actually might develop a a talent. So for so
many years I simply gave up and never tried. Only later did I discover
the error of my ways.
Of course in re-reading the original I noted that he used the term
"instinctive sense for music". Well that's a semantic problem because
if a person uses practice and hard effort to develop a "sense for
music" can we still call it "instinctive"? Probably not. But still
think our discussion makes sense even if we are a pathetic bunch of
bass players.
On May 16, 12:23 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet . net > wrote:
> No agenda! (heh, at least not THIS time!) That original David post
> that started this thread sounded to me just like one of my Dad's rants
> about how some people (musicians) have it and some don't and never
> will. It's that last little part about "never will" that is the catch
> here. For years I was convinced my dad was right. There are talented
> people and then there are some no-talent losers even if they play for
> the local symphony. And they aren't gonna change and that's how it
> is!
> So if a person intends to apply this wisdom, the first thing
> they need to know is that while, yes, people are born with or without
> talent in various areas, it is essential to know that talent ALSO can
> be gained through interest and hard work. Hence there are TWO paths
> leading to the same spot! This fact means nothing to the person with
> inborn talent because they already have their way.
The people who seem to have "inborn talent" might have certain natural
advantages, but they've also done the work to develop their talents.
> I speak from experience because as I noted, having discovered I had no
> born talent for song-writing and believing in the "some have it and
> some don't" philosophy, It never occurred to me that that study and
> practice of song writing actually might develop a a talent. So for so
> many years I simply gave up and never tried. Only later did I discover
> the error of my ways.
>
> Of course in re-reading the original I noted that he used the term
> "instinctive sense for music". Well that's a semantic problem because
> if a person uses practice and hard effort to develop a "sense for
> music" can we still call it "instinctive"? Probably not. But still
> think our discussion makes sense even if we are a pathetic bunch of
> bass players.
The "pathetic" thing was a rhetorical device meant to quiet a
disturbing discussion. Didn't work<g>.
Talent is developed. It can be developed in anyone. Dr. Suzuki taught
retarded children to play well.
Robert Johnson "went away" and came back playing so well that people
thought he'd sold his soul to the devil.
(Maybe he just got some lessons from Steve Vai. And yeah, maybe Steve
Vai sold his soul, but that's a different story...)
The door might seem to be closed ("don't have it"); the right teacher
(and environment) can open it. Plus the 10,000 repetitions!
People who try something, don't succeed quickly, get discouraged, and
don't do the good woodshedding, are not a "fair test" of whether
talent is inborn or not-- BECAUSE people who are motivated, have a
teacher, and a nurturing environment _do_ the 10,000 repetitions. IOW,
they don't quit early. Or stumble along for years, not making
progress, to be doing something they love (or want to do because it
helps them score with women, and some places still have free beer)
even if they're not very good at it.
The teacher thing bears some discussion. Could be somewhat less formal
than taking lessons-- ref. violinist Midori's beginnings. Close bond
with her mother who was a violinist, lots of listening very early,
etc. She has a younger brother, Ryu Goto, whom I saw play in person in
Houston ca. 2001, approx. age 13, who, according to our Suzuki
teacher, Judy Offman, "did everything you can do on a violin".
OK, one "prodigy" in a family, the "one in a million" thing, no prob.
But two? And not just "pretty good" or "local wonders", either.
Kinda pushes for a rethink on the "got it or you don't, from birth"
deal, IMHO. And how important the teaching situation is.
I'll repeat, my initial efforts at playing violin were miserable,
doing it all by myself. With "knowledge" (being shown how to do it
right by a teacher who knew her stuff) and the 10,000 reps, including
private lessons, group lessons, a bunch of listening, teaching my
daughter at home, which really makes you concentrate in a different
and very constructive way, I learned to play. Orchestra ready? Not
hardly, but a funny thing was, one of the Suzuki dads who was a
University (at least) orch. player-- and very, very jealous of his
ability and all the hard work it took to get there, and obviously
didn't much like me on a personal level, either, "had to admit" that I
"had those Book I songs down" (which he was, ahem, still working on
<g> at that time. His bowing needed some fixing). I knew the songs
backwards and forwards. Had precise, correct bow hold. Used precise,
correct bow distribution. Played in tune, played in time, and was
still working on the vibrato, which was coming along just fine <g>.
Which is attacking another, strongly related to "got it or don't"
myth: "Adults can't learn correct vibrato production". Oh yes they
can, thankyouverymuch. Meryl Streep did it for Music of the Heart.
According to my very strict and particular teacher who said she did,
both to tell us that we adults could do it, too, and to push us,
because Streep not only learned how, but did it pretty quickly. $$$$$
motivation, there. Powerful!
Most important thing I'm promoting, besides encouraging people to
_find a teacher_ and work hard no matter what the initial results
might be, is that teachers, good ones, are enablers. Facilitators.
Door openers, not "guardians of knowledge", protecting their world
against people who "don't have it" from the get-go. --D-y
> No agenda! (heh, at least not THIS time!) That original David post
> that started this thread sounded to me just like one of my Dad's rants
> about how some people (musicians) have it and some don't and never
> will. It's that last little part about "never will" that is the catch
> here. For years I was convinced my dad was right. There are talented
> people and then there are some no-talent losers even if they play for
> the local symphony. And they aren't gonna change and that's how it
> is!
> So if a person intends to apply this wisdom, the first thing
> they need to know is that while, yes, people are born with or without
> talent in various areas, it is essential to know that talent ALSO can
> be gained through interest and hard work. Hence there are TWO paths
> leading to the same spot! This fact means nothing to the person with
> inborn talent because they already have their way.
The people who seem to have "inborn talent" might have certain natural
advantages, but they've also done the work to develop their talents.
> I speak from experience because as I noted, having discovered I had no
> born talent for song-writing and believing in the "some have it and
> some don't" philosophy, It never occurred to me that that study and
> practice of song writing actually might develop a a talent. So for so
> many years I simply gave up and never tried. Only later did I discover
> the error of my ways.
>
> Of course in re-reading the original I noted that he used the term
> "instinctive sense for music". Well that's a semantic problem because
> if a person uses practice and hard effort to develop a "sense for
> music" can we still call it "instinctive"? Probably not. But still
> think our discussion makes sense even if we are a pathetic bunch of
> bass players.
The "pathetic" thing was a rhetorical device meant to quiet a
disturbing discussion. Didn't work<g>.
Talent is developed. It can be developed in anyone. Dr. Suzuki taught
retarded children to play well.
Robert Johnson "went away" and came back playing so well that people
thought he'd sold his soul to the devil.
(Maybe he just got some lessons from Steve Vai. And yeah, maybe Steve
Vai sold his soul, but that's a different story...)
The door might seem to be closed ("don't have it"); the right teacher
(and environment) can open it. Plus the 10,000 repetitions!
People who try something, don't succeed quickly, get discouraged, and
don't do the good woodshedding, are not a "fair test" of whether
talent is inborn or not-- BECAUSE people who are motivated, have a
teacher, and a nurturing environment _do_ the 10,000 repetitions. IOW,
they don't quit early. Or stumble along for years, not making
progress, to be doing something they love (or want to do because it
helps them score with women, and some places still have free beer)
even if they're not very good at it.
The teacher thing bears some discussion. Could be somewhat less formal
than taking lessons-- ref. violinist Midori's beginnings. Close bond
with her mother who was a violinist, lots of listening very early,
etc. She has a younger brother, Ryu Goto, whom I saw play in person in
Houston ca. 2001, approx. age 13, who, according to our Suzuki
teacher, Judy Offman, "did everything you can do on a violin".
OK, one "prodigy" in a family, the "one in a million" thing, no prob.
But two? And not just "pretty good" or "local wonders", either.
Kinda pushes for a rethink on the "got it or you don't, from birth"
deal, IMHO. And how important the teaching situation is.
I'll repeat, my initial efforts at playing violin were miserable,
doing it all by myself. With "knowledge" (being shown how to do it
right by a teacher who knew her stuff) and the 10,000 reps, including
private lessons, group lessons, a bunch of listening, teaching my
daughter at home, which really makes you concentrate in a different
and very constructive way, I learned to play. Orchestra ready? Not
hardly, but a funny thing was, one of the Suzuki dads who was a
University (at least) orch. player-- and very, very jealous of his
ability and all the hard work it took to get there, and obviously
didn't much like me on a personal level, either, "had to admit" that I
"had those Book I songs down" (which he was, ahem, still working on
<g> at that time. His bowing needed some fixing). I knew the songs
backwards and forwards. Had precise, correct bow hold. Used precise,
correct bow distribution. Played in tune, played in time, and was
still working on the vibrato, which was coming along just fine <g>.
Which is attacking another, strongly related to "got it or don't"
myth: "Adults can't learn correct vibrato production". Oh yes they
can, thankyouverymuch. Meryl Streep did it for Music of the Heart.
According to my very strict and particular teacher who said she did,
both to tell us that we adults could do it, too, and to push us,
because Streep not only learned how, but did it pretty quickly. $$$$$
motivation, there. Powerful!
Most important thing I'm promoting, besides encouraging people to
_find a teacher_ and work hard no matter what the initial results
might be, is that teachers, good ones, are enablers. Facilitators.
Door openers, not "guardians of knowledge", protecting their world
against people who "don't have it" from the get-go. --D-y
dustoyevsky@mac . com wrote:
>
> The people who seem to have "inborn talent" might have certain natural
> advantages, but they've also done the work to develop their talents.
>
The other side of that coin is they haven't felt like they *needed* to
work on certain things. It's quite common for students with very good
ears to have a difficult time learning to read well. It's so much easier
to listen a couple of times and play it than to learn to read. I found
reading music one of the most unintuitive things I've ever learned and
to be honest my skills never got beyond professionally adequate.
>
> The people who seem to have "inborn talent" might have certain natural
> advantages, but they've also done the work to develop their talents.
>
The other side of that coin is they haven't felt like they *needed* to
work on certain things. It's quite common for students with very good
ears to have a difficult time learning to read well. It's so much easier
to listen a couple of times and play it than to learn to read. I found
reading music one of the most unintuitive things I've ever learned and
to be honest my skills never got beyond professionally adequate.
jeffb <rigger@shaw.c> wrote:
> dustoyevsky@mac . com wrote:
>
>>
>> The people who seem to have "inborn talent" might have certain
>> natural advantages, but they've also done the work to develop their
>> talents.
>>
>
> The other side of that coin is they haven't felt like they *needed* to
> work on certain things. It's quite common for students with very good
> ears to have a difficult time learning to read well. It's so much
> easier to listen a couple of times and play it than to learn to read.
> I found reading music one of the most unintuitive things I've ever
> learned and to be honest my skills never got beyond professionally
> adequate.
I can identify with this. I took classical piano lessons back in my
pre-teens, and one of the first things my teacher did was develop my
ear. I could identify notes and chords and keys without looking or
having a reference note, and once I got a melody into my head I could
regurgitate it note-for-note. So I figured out very quickly that I
didn't really need to read in real time, as long as I slogged through a
piece once or twice while looking at the sheet music, I never needed to
look at it again. I faked out the teacher most of the time; I'd come in
for the next lesson and play the piece perfectly, but I'd just pretend
to look up at the sheet music once in a while. The only time I got
caught was when I didn't turn the pages at the right time ;-)
And now, almost 50 years later, I wish that I had learned to read music
better. I can to some degree, but at some point I'll find myself
counting staff bars up or down from middle C.
> dustoyevsky@mac . com wrote:
>
>>
>> The people who seem to have "inborn talent" might have certain
>> natural advantages, but they've also done the work to develop their
>> talents.
>>
>
> The other side of that coin is they haven't felt like they *needed* to
> work on certain things. It's quite common for students with very good
> ears to have a difficult time learning to read well. It's so much
> easier to listen a couple of times and play it than to learn to read.
> I found reading music one of the most unintuitive things I've ever
> learned and to be honest my skills never got beyond professionally
> adequate.
I can identify with this. I took classical piano lessons back in my
pre-teens, and one of the first things my teacher did was develop my
ear. I could identify notes and chords and keys without looking or
having a reference note, and once I got a melody into my head I could
regurgitate it note-for-note. So I figured out very quickly that I
didn't really need to read in real time, as long as I slogged through a
piece once or twice while looking at the sheet music, I never needed to
look at it again. I faked out the teacher most of the time; I'd come in
for the next lesson and play the piece perfectly, but I'd just pretend
to look up at the sheet music once in a while. The only time I got
caught was when I didn't turn the pages at the right time ;-)
And now, almost 50 years later, I wish that I had learned to read music
better. I can to some degree, but at some point I'll find myself
counting staff bars up or down from middle C.
Brian Running wrote:
>> The weird thing is, as I get older and teach a wider cross section of
>> students, the LESS I believe in an "it".
<snip>
>
> 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 ...
Interestingly enough, people who suck at something tend to be lazier
about it. One of the most precious, precious things that
ever happened to me was when I finally found an honest
football coach, *old* guy, who told me what I already
knew - I could not play football. I wasn't slacking, I wasn't
having an attitude problem... I just sucked. My brain just does not
do groupthink, and that is *required* for football.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
>> The weird thing is, as I get older and teach a wider cross section of
>> students, the LESS I believe in an "it".
<snip>
>
> 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 ...
Interestingly enough, people who suck at something tend to be lazier
about it. One of the most precious, precious things that
ever happened to me was when I finally found an honest
football coach, *old* guy, who told me what I already
knew - I could not play football. I wasn't slacking, I wasn't
having an attitude problem... I just sucked. My brain just does not
do groupthink, and that is *required* for football.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
> My belief is that it's all in a) what you listen to b) how much time you put into learning your instrument. Period.
I agree with this. I practiced like a dog when I started out. But
some people are smarter and/or more creative than others - all that
right brain/left brain stuff. So some people are going to have an
advantage. But I've always said anyone can do whatever they put their
mind to, if they really want to.
> I also do not believe that there is any such thing as "Tone deaf" - and this comes from a guy who sees colors when he plays.
This makes me want to make a joke about hallucinagens, but I'll pass.
The seeing colors bit is fascinating though - does that mean you have
"perfect pitch"?
From what I've seen of players who have a hard time "getting it", I
think far more common than "tone deaf" is "rhythm deaf". Some people
just really have trouble with their timing, for whatever reason.
I agree with this. I practiced like a dog when I started out. But
some people are smarter and/or more creative than others - all that
right brain/left brain stuff. So some people are going to have an
advantage. But I've always said anyone can do whatever they put their
mind to, if they really want to.
> I also do not believe that there is any such thing as "Tone deaf" - and this comes from a guy who sees colors when he plays.
This makes me want to make a joke about hallucinagens, but I'll pass.
The seeing colors bit is fascinating though - does that mean you have
"perfect pitch"?
From what I've seen of players who have a hard time "getting it", I
think far more common than "tone deaf" is "rhythm deaf". Some people
just really have trouble with their timing, for whatever reason.
js wrote:
> The weird thing is, as I get older and teach a wider cross section of
> students, the LESS I believe in an "it".
>
<snip>
>
> 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.
>
And here's Randolph and Mortimer Duke for the goal....
I know a drummer who, when I would threaten him to the point of
violence, would play well. He'd get tired, and slack back to the
old habits. I really think he was just worn out, to be honest.
Tradesman, underweight, was really there to dog chicks. He'd a'
rather have been hustling pool.
He had neither the will nor the ability. But people with natural
ability are born on third base, so to speak. It's just not an effort.
Get the "Classic Albums" DVD of Stevie Wonder. He learned *about* that,
but what makes him Stevie Wonder, he did not learn. He's not a really
precise player - he just has a groove that... well, it's just
unfreakingbeleivable. You *cannot* learn that. I know musicians who
will play for thirty years and not even *hear* it when he does it.
<snip>
> 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...
>
I used to date a deaf girl. They can "hear" the beat with their skin.
Lots and lots of dancing. No, some people cannot do it, no matter how
hard they try.
--
Les Cargill
> The weird thing is, as I get older and teach a wider cross section of
> students, the LESS I believe in an "it".
>
<snip>
>
> 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.
>
And here's Randolph and Mortimer Duke for the goal....
I know a drummer who, when I would threaten him to the point of
violence, would play well. He'd get tired, and slack back to the
old habits. I really think he was just worn out, to be honest.
Tradesman, underweight, was really there to dog chicks. He'd a'
rather have been hustling pool.
He had neither the will nor the ability. But people with natural
ability are born on third base, so to speak. It's just not an effort.
Get the "Classic Albums" DVD of Stevie Wonder. He learned *about* that,
but what makes him Stevie Wonder, he did not learn. He's not a really
precise player - he just has a groove that... well, it's just
unfreakingbeleivable. You *cannot* learn that. I know musicians who
will play for thirty years and not even *hear* it when he does it.
<snip>
> 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...
>
I used to date a deaf girl. They can "hear" the beat with their skin.
Lots and lots of dancing. No, some people cannot do it, no matter how
hard they try.
--
Les Cargill
On May 14, 2:05 am, "David Axt" <d...@NADASPAMpacifier . com > wrote:
> I'm no spring chicken and have been around the block once or twice. What I
> have really come to realize is that some guys have "it" and some don't.
> "It" being an instinctive sense for music. I have met some very talented
> technical musicians that for all their ability just did not have a sense or
> groove. It's hard to explain. Those of you that know what I am talking
> about....know what I am talking about.
>
> -DA
i know what you're talking about.
> I'm no spring chicken and have been around the block once or twice. What I
> have really come to realize is that some guys have "it" and some don't.
> "It" being an instinctive sense for music. I have met some very talented
> technical musicians that for all their ability just did not have a sense or
> groove. It's hard to explain. Those of you that know what I am talking
> about....know what I am talking about.
>
> -DA
i know what you're talking about.
David Axt wrote:
> I'm no spring chicken and have been around the block once or twice. What I
> have really come to realize is that some guys have "it" and some don't.
> "It" being an instinctive sense for music. I have met some very talented
> technical musicians that for all their ability just did not have a sense or
> groove. It's hard to explain. Those of you that know what I am talking
> about....know what I am talking about.
>
Unlurking for a moment here. I know what you're talking about, but an
instinctive sense for music is not the same as a "sense of groove".
Like anything else, people have varying degrees of talent. Some people
can play anything they hear after they hear it once. Other people have
to practice ear training for years to (maybe) get to that level.
Sightreading is something else that can fall into that category. You
can overcome a lack of talent by mucho practicing. And fool most of the
people most of the time.
I was grew up in the corn fields of Iowa, so I had no sense of groove
for the first 20 years of my life. But I did manage to be proficient
on guitar, bass, and trumpet.
best
gr
> I'm no spring chicken and have been around the block once or twice. What I
> have really come to realize is that some guys have "it" and some don't.
> "It" being an instinctive sense for music. I have met some very talented
> technical musicians that for all their ability just did not have a sense or
> groove. It's hard to explain. Those of you that know what I am talking
> about....know what I am talking about.
>
Unlurking for a moment here. I know what you're talking about, but an
instinctive sense for music is not the same as a "sense of groove".
Like anything else, people have varying degrees of talent. Some people
can play anything they hear after they hear it once. Other people have
to practice ear training for years to (maybe) get to that level.
Sightreading is something else that can fall into that category. You
can overcome a lack of talent by mucho practicing. And fool most of the
people most of the time.
I was grew up in the corn fields of Iowa, so I had no sense of groove
for the first 20 years of my life. But I did manage to be proficient
on guitar, bass, and trumpet.
best
gr
On May 14, 1:05 am, "David Axt" <d...@NADASPAMpacifier . com > wrote:
Those of you that know what I am talking
> about....know what I am talking about.
>
> -DA
I play a few different instruments includind electric bass.
Been playing them for decades but I don't switch from one to another
at gigs.
If I am playing guitar or keys in a band and for some reason I have to
switch to bass I have very little groove.
I play the right notes in the right time but I just don't feel it.
If I stick with the bass and work on my playing for a week or so I get
my groove back.
In other words to be at my best on any instrument I have to play just
that instrument for a considerable amount of time.
Groove to me is the ability to feel what you are playing.
Pt
Those of you that know what I am talking
> about....know what I am talking about.
>
> -DA
I play a few different instruments includind electric bass.
Been playing them for decades but I don't switch from one to another
at gigs.
If I am playing guitar or keys in a band and for some reason I have to
switch to bass I have very little groove.
I play the right notes in the right time but I just don't feel it.
If I stick with the bass and work on my playing for a week or so I get
my groove back.
In other words to be at my best on any instrument I have to play just
that instrument for a considerable amount of time.
Groove to me is the ability to feel what you are playing.
Pt
David Axt wrote:
> I'm no spring chicken and have been around the block once or twice. What I
> have really come to realize is that some guys have "it" and some don't.
> "It" being an instinctive sense for music. I have met some very talented
> technical musicians that for all their ability just did not have a sense or
> groove. It's hard to explain. Those of you that know what I am talking
> about....know what I am talking about.
>
> -DA
>
>
This is true. What is also true is that as you run into people up the
scale in ability, the differences get larger. Well, past a certain
"journeyman" sorta level.
But those that don't have a clue do not have a clue that they don't
have a clue. Usually.
--
Les Cargill
> I'm no spring chicken and have been around the block once or twice. What I
> have really come to realize is that some guys have "it" and some don't.
> "It" being an instinctive sense for music. I have met some very talented
> technical musicians that for all their ability just did not have a sense or
> groove. It's hard to explain. Those of you that know what I am talking
> about....know what I am talking about.
>
> -DA
>
>
This is true. What is also true is that as you run into people up the
scale in ability, the differences get larger. Well, past a certain
"journeyman" sorta level.
But those that don't have a clue do not have a clue that they don't
have a clue. Usually.
--
Les Cargill
David Axt <daxt@NADASPAMpacifier . com > wrote:
> I'm no spring chicken and have been around the block once or twice.
> What I have really come to realize is that some guys have "it" and
> some don't. "It" being an instinctive sense for music. I have met
> some very talented technical musicians that for all their ability
> just did not have a sense or groove. It's hard to explain. Those of
> you that know what I am talking about....know what I am talking about.
>
> -DA
"Instinctive sense for music" is kinda vague, and I think that's
illustrated by several of the posts in this thread. Several elements go
into making a good musician. And I've seen people (a distinct minority)
who just can't get certain aspects of it. People who take lessons and
work their asses off practicing, but for some reason can't, for example,
(1) keep time or (2) catch on when a change is coming and what chord or
note to play next.
Similarly, I think there are people who are more gifted than others in
some of these areas. Those who are have a head start, and I would
contend that *if* they practice and work as hard as those who don't,
they'll always be ahead.
I'm pretty darned good at picking out tunes, bass lines etc. and at
figuring out what key is being played in, for instance, without an
instrument nearby to give me a reference. Harmony comes naturally to
me, whether it's in a vocal part or an instrument part. But I don't
have the physical skills that others do, and it limits my ability to
play really fast parts accurately. With respect to timing, I'm
somewhere in the middle; I can do it right but I have to work at it.
I suspect that others have complementary sets of skills. In areas where
I'm lacking, I work at it, but I progress more slowly than those for
whom those skills come naturally.
Anyway, I kind of come down in the middle here. Some guys seem to have
all of this, and some none. I suspect the percentage of people in both
camps is fairly small. The rest of us have to work hard at *something*!
> I'm no spring chicken and have been around the block once or twice.
> What I have really come to realize is that some guys have "it" and
> some don't. "It" being an instinctive sense for music. I have met
> some very talented technical musicians that for all their ability
> just did not have a sense or groove. It's hard to explain. Those of
> you that know what I am talking about....know what I am talking about.
>
> -DA
"Instinctive sense for music" is kinda vague, and I think that's
illustrated by several of the posts in this thread. Several elements go
into making a good musician. And I've seen people (a distinct minority)
who just can't get certain aspects of it. People who take lessons and
work their asses off practicing, but for some reason can't, for example,
(1) keep time or (2) catch on when a change is coming and what chord or
note to play next.
Similarly, I think there are people who are more gifted than others in
some of these areas. Those who are have a head start, and I would
contend that *if* they practice and work as hard as those who don't,
they'll always be ahead.
I'm pretty darned good at picking out tunes, bass lines etc. and at
figuring out what key is being played in, for instance, without an
instrument nearby to give me a reference. Harmony comes naturally to
me, whether it's in a vocal part or an instrument part. But I don't
have the physical skills that others do, and it limits my ability to
play really fast parts accurately. With respect to timing, I'm
somewhere in the middle; I can do it right but I have to work at it.
I suspect that others have complementary sets of skills. In areas where
I'm lacking, I work at it, but I progress more slowly than those for
whom those skills come naturally.
Anyway, I kind of come down in the middle here. Some guys seem to have
all of this, and some none. I suspect the percentage of people in both
camps is fairly small. The rest of us have to work hard at *something*!
"RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote in message
news:OqLWj.223$vE.129@trnddc03...
> David Axt <daxt@NADASPAMpacifier . com > wrote:
>> I'm no spring chicken and have been around the block once or twice.
>> What I have really come to realize is that some guys have "it" and
>> some don't. "It" being an instinctive sense for music. I have met
>> some very talented technical musicians that for all their ability
>> just did not have a sense or groove. It's hard to explain. Those of
>> you that know what I am talking about....know what I am talking about.
>>
>> -DA
>
> "Instinctive sense for music" is kinda vague, and I think that's
> illustrated by several of the posts in this thread. Several elements go
> into making a good musician. And I've seen people (a distinct minority)
> who just can't get certain aspects of it. People who take lessons and
> work their asses off practicing, but for some reason can't, for example,
> (1) keep time or (2) catch on when a change is coming and what chord or
> note to play next.
>
> Similarly, I think there are people who are more gifted than others in
> some of these areas. Those who are have a head start, and I would
> contend that *if* they practice and work as hard as those who don't,
> they'll always be ahead.
>
> I'm pretty darned good at picking out tunes, bass lines etc. and at
> figuring out what key is being played in, for instance, without an
> instrument nearby to give me a reference. Harmony comes naturally to
> me, whether it's in a vocal part or an instrument part. But I don't
> have the physical skills that others do, and it limits my ability to
> play really fast parts accurately. With respect to timing, I'm
> somewhere in the middle; I can do it right but I have to work at it.
>
> I suspect that others have complementary sets of skills. In areas where
> I'm lacking, I work at it, but I progress more slowly than those for
> whom those skills come naturally.
>
> Anyway, I kind of come down in the middle here. Some guys seem to have
> all of this, and some none. I suspect the percentage of people in both
> camps is fairly small. The rest of us have to work hard at *something*!
>
>
Have you ever seen the movie "Amedeus"?
I'm not much on classical music or history but what this movie showed me is
that world is just not fair. There are incredibly gifted musicians (Mozart)
and those who struggle (Salieri). Salieri hated Mozart because he was so
talented and yet was so immature and obnoxious while Salieri tried and tried
but could not come near the talent of Mozart. I love the scene where Mozart
plays piano upside down and the scene where he improves one of Salieri's
pieces.
Very good movie! I highly recommend anyone who has not seen it to see it!
-DA
David Axt <daxt@NADASPAMpacifier . com > wrote:
> I'm no spring chicken and have been around the block once or twice. What I
> have really come to realize is that some guys have "it" and some don't.
What's interesting is that modern anti-biotics can usually clear 'it' up
in less than a week, so there's really no excuse...
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
* w w w .manyhands.co.nz/
> I'm no spring chicken and have been around the block once or twice. What I
> have really come to realize is that some guys have "it" and some don't.
What's interesting is that modern anti-biotics can usually clear 'it' up
in less than a week, so there's really no excuse...
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
* w w w .manyhands.co.nz/
