How to get really good at Music/Art

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
Post Reply
Machinesworking
Posts: 11118
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: How to get really good at Music/Art

Post by Machinesworking » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:47 pm

gjm wrote: I would say that there is nothing that can be equal. You may find two individuals who actually put in 10k hours practice time, but there are so many other determining factors that control how much mastery over your chosen instrument your obtain, greatness or legendary status aside. Playing an instrument is a massive multitasking operation which challenges motor skills, listening skills, counting skills and comprehension skills. The abilities or inabilities of the body and mind through developmental stages shows up very easily how disadvantaged some people are over others. Yes, through massive effort you can make some gains over your personal limitations, but it is all within the context of your personal make up. The way you are 'wired' has built in limits. Some people are 'wired' in a way that they can very easily access, control and nurture their development, not only in music but in many areas of their lives. Others simply cannot.
gjm,
The way you describe music is like it's a chess match, there is no such thing as luck in Chess, only mistakes. You lose by making the wrong moves. Music is not that clinical.
Music is an art form, art while having some rules doesn't have to follow them, this applies to the people who like art as well. We don't have to like the most famous artist, or the most technically skilled, and "the most creative" is to a large degree subjective. What you emphasize is this technical side, then seemingly mesh it into the creative side with indications that you think the creative process is a genetic component.

Yes people can be gaged to a degree on muscle dexterity even after hours of practice. No, you can't and shouldn't make any judgement on that persons ability creatively because of their muscle dexterity. Outstanding technical skill is great for a classical violinist, and in the modern age, not necessary, in fact it's never been necessary for the creative side. We've always had pen and paper, and now we have these computer things. Personally I'm always writing things that are on the edge of what I can actually play as a mediocre keyboard player, and I have no problem with that, it's as it should be. We live in a time when if you had it in you to create music and ended up in a chair as a quadriplegic you could still write.

Just saying, again, technical skill does not equal creativity, it helps of course, but it's not an indicator. Plenty of great classical musicians who cannot write, not even simple compositions. Plenty of musicians with limited physical dexterity on their instruments who manage to be creative.

acidpenguin
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:44 pm

Re: How to get really good at Music/Art

Post by acidpenguin » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:37 pm

While it's true that physically based technical skills do not relate directly to creative ability I think the point is that people are not equal and it's somewhat naive or blinkered to simply say 'we can all be awesome if we try hard enough'. That doesn't in any way mean people shouldn't try if they want to ('cos you can't tell until you've tried, right?), nor does it mean that those who are not the very best are totally devalued, either in creative or more technical performance fields.

There is however an interesting article in New Scientist (28 Jan '012) called The Orchid Children which references the work of Elaine and Arthur Aron in relation to genetic studies into the SERT gene. This suggests that what they call 'highly sensitive persons' perceive life at a finer and more nuanced scale than others and that this is a genetic trait. It'd be interesting to see how this relates to people of a creative nature (ie how many artists carry this gene varient), maybe that increased sensitivity is actually one of the prerequisites for higher creative thinking. If that were true then it would totally blow the 'anybody can be Mozart' argument out of the water.

3dot...
Posts: 9996
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:10 pm

Re: How to get really good at Music/Art

Post by 3dot... » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:44 pm

someone mentioned khan academy ...
it's fucking awesome!!! ..

I'm picking up on all the stuff I missed in fucking highschool!!

addition level 1 : 1+1 = ?

:oops:
Image

friend_kami
Posts: 2255
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 10:10 pm

Re: How to get really good at Music/Art

Post by friend_kami » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:04 pm

GeoSuPhat wrote:BS and promotion last for the moment, good music and art last forever. The test of time.

You can definately practice and learn your way to greatness. Talent will make it easier.
i wish i had a bunch of money, because if i did i would make a bet that not a single person would remember skrillex in a 100 years, while everyone would remember pink floyd.
put them in a bankaccount for collection at x date.

oh well. i don't. at the least skrillex is good at.. ah nevermind. he's not.

Machinesworking
Posts: 11118
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: How to get really good at Music/Art

Post by Machinesworking » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:28 pm

acidpenguin wrote:While it's true that physically based technical skills do not relate directly to creative ability I think the point is that people are not equal and it's somewhat naive or blinkered to simply say 'we can all be awesome if we try hard enough'. That doesn't in any way mean people shouldn't try if they want to ('cos you can't tell until you've tried, right?), nor does it mean that those who are not the very best are totally devalued, either in creative or more technical performance fields.

There is however an interesting article in New Scientist (28 Jan '012) called The Orchid Children which references the work of Elaine and Arthur Aron in relation to genetic studies into the SERT gene. This suggests that what they call 'highly sensitive persons' perceive life at a finer and more nuanced scale than others and that this is a genetic trait. It'd be interesting to see how this relates to people of a creative nature (ie how many artists carry this gene varient), maybe that increased sensitivity is actually one of the prerequisites for higher creative thinking. If that were true then it would totally blow the 'anybody can be Mozart' argument out of the water.
Personally I think it will be great when we can isolate the creative, intelligent, genes and just make it really easy for all of society in the future to tell who the superior people are. Hopefully it will line up with the accumulated wealth of the richest families so we can all be happy with this new found scientific proof of the inherent worth of some people over others.

Eugenics is fun. You're willfully going there, but hey, capitalism isn't that far off from fascism in the grand scheme of things. All it takes is a little belief in the inherant inequality of people. :wink:

gjm
Posts: 3679
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:53 am

Re: How to get really good at Music/Art

Post by gjm » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:29 pm

Machinesworking wrote: Just saying, again, technical skill does not equal creativity, it helps of course, but it's not an indicator.
Yes, totally agree. Creativity though is a big topic that should be treated separately. It simply uses your technical skill set at whatever stage you are at to help convey a message. It also usually implies that you can tap into the emotive side of your make up. Fact is, some people are emotionally bland or stunted and others are fantastically wild. Makes a big difference in the way notes are plucked or grouped together.
iMac - 10.10.3 - Live 9 Suite - APC40 - Axiom 61 - TX81z - Firestudio Mobile - Focal Alpha 80's - Godin Session - Home made foot controller

regretfullySaid
Posts: 8913
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:50 pm

Re: How to get really good at Music/Art

Post by regretfullySaid » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:36 pm

I don't side on the "everyone can be talented after 10,000 hours", because you've trained on something for 10,000 hours. That's not talent, that's conditioning. I attribute it more to aptitude. A natural ability starting out, without training first.
Some people pick up certain abilities more than others in a certain field.

I don't think training counts, because that's when the conditioning starts. It just enhances it.
Either way you need practice and discipline. No one starts out playing a masterpiece.
Last edited by regretfullySaid on Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:32 am, edited 4 times in total.
ImageImage

Machinesworking
Posts: 11118
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: How to get really good at Music/Art

Post by Machinesworking » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:56 pm

You want to play guitar? practice. Does it matter if you ever achieve the technical and creative skill of Hendrix, Eddie Van Halen etc?
Not really. Is there a real quantitative way to say who is the "better" guitar player? Not really. Technical skill wise Halen is faster, beyond that it's a personal choice as to who you think is a more creative player.

I would be willing to bet money that all of our top 20 lists of who we think are important musicians would have very little in common with each other. This constant NEED to put things into an ascending scale of importance is funny considering that almost none of us would agree on who the most important musicians were in the last 50 years. We again wouldn't even have many matches in a top 20. :lol:

simmerdown
Posts: 3761
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Northwest Nowhere

Re: How to get really good at Music/Art

Post by simmerdown » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:09 pm

so...if Mozart's father had been a ditchdigger and he had also taken up ditchdigging, he would still be "mozart"?...i think not

not saying anyone can be mozart, im saying mozart became Mozart because of his proximity to music, a whipcracking father, having perfect pitch (rare bonus), and the luck to be born into relative luxury that he was able to capitalize on his advantages...

but, easy to digress into the extreme cases of genius and ineptitude...for 'most' the potential is there, and if anyone thinks they can figure out who is who based on someones apparent aptitude? think again

Tone Deft
Posts: 23745
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: SF, CA

Re: How to get really good at Music/Art

Post by Tone Deft » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:17 pm

Machinesworking wrote:You want to play guitar? practice. Does it matter if you ever achieve the technical and creative skill of Hendrix, Eddie Van Halen etc?
Not really. Is there a real quantitative way to say who is the "better" guitar player? Not really.
I think there is.

show up to a beach bonfire with guitars. can the guy jump in and strum along with popular songs that I know? can he lead a song with some songs he knows off the top of his head?

next level, can he figure out or listen to get the key and solo for minutes on end, hopefully going from solo rhythm as we take turns enjoying the jam. if a player can do that then hell yeah, let's have a jam.

the levels after that are icing on the cake for us woodshedders that don't care about playing out. in my experience once I learned how to spell chords and scales and gained confidence in noodling around the pentatonics, practice becomes less important. I can go for months without playing and get back to the above examples any time I want.

call it being a 'social player.' I guess for jazz guys it's the ability to show up to an open mic night and sit in and play any song from the Real Book. for a studio musician you have to be able to play anything that's placed in front of you right off the paper the first time right away and play it as instructed. tough, tough work.

any further level of player I think gets very subjective. fuck Mozart as an example.
"Obsession is a great substitute for talent." - Steve Martin on learning the banjo

Dell Inspiron 15 7000, Live 10.1, Win10 Home, Edirol UA101, APC40, Remote SL, SPD-SX, mic, guitars, JX305, Nova
soundcloud.com/tone-deft

3dot...
Posts: 9996
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:10 pm

Re: How to get really good at Music/Art

Post by 3dot... » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:53 pm

blah...
Image

Tone Deft
Posts: 23745
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: SF, CA

Re: How to get really good at Music/Art

Post by Tone Deft » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:57 pm

outstanding contribution!

go smoke a fattie.
"Obsession is a great substitute for talent." - Steve Martin on learning the banjo

Dell Inspiron 15 7000, Live 10.1, Win10 Home, Edirol UA101, APC40, Remote SL, SPD-SX, mic, guitars, JX305, Nova
soundcloud.com/tone-deft

acidpenguin
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:44 pm

Re: How to get really good at Music/Art

Post by acidpenguin » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:44 am

Machinesworking wrote:Personally I think it will be great when we can isolate the creative, intelligent, genes and just make it really easy for all of society in the future to tell who the superior people are. Hopefully it will line up with the accumulated wealth of the richest families so we can all be happy with this new found scientific proof of the inherent worth of some people over others.

Eugenics is fun. You're willfully going there, but hey, capitalism isn't that far off from fascism in the grand scheme of things. All it takes is a little belief in the inherant inequality of people. :wink:
Now you're just being stupid. At no point did I suggest judging peoples' inherent worth based on genetics since nurture has a huge influence in how a person turns out in combination with their genetics. As somebody who's family narrowly avoided the death camps of eastern Europe I also find your suggestion that I'm endorsing eugenics or fascism (even if flippant) a little crass.

People are not equal in terms of the hand that nature or society deals to them (since you mention capitalism, which I agree about btw).. however the rights that they are afforded should always be equal.. that's what matters.
simmerdown wrote:so...if Mozart's father had been a ditchdigger and he had also taken up ditchdigging, he would still be "mozart"?...i think not
Obviously not, no idea why you're even asking that. Part of the miracle of Mozart's existence was the combination of happy coincidences that led to him being able to take full advantage of his natural abilities. There have also likely been a number of people through history with the same potential who never got that chance because they were born in a Glasgow slum to tone deaf abusive parents (or whatever), I just don't think that everybody has that potential. But you're right, we're talking about the very extreme end of the scale which is almost pointless.

regretfullySaid
Posts: 8913
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:50 pm

Re: How to get really good at Music/Art

Post by regretfullySaid » Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:49 am

There's no superior argument here. Regardless of whether someone has more of an innate ability for a certain skill without training vs one without the innate ability but has been through training doesn't determine whether they'll make good music or not, and in the end, it's relative.
Either way, you have to practice and have discipline.

Otherwise fuck it, who cares, just practice. Then, there are no rules, only guidelines. Don't get stuck in trying to do what's supposed to be acceptable. Either way, you can't please everyone. Some will think it's great, some will think it's shit. Follow your inner voice, but consider advice. Have fun but always work to improve yourself. Talent and great is relative.
ImageImage

Machinesworking
Posts: 11118
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: How to get really good at Music/Art

Post by Machinesworking » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:25 am

acidpenguin wrote: Now you're just being stupid. At no point did I suggest judging peoples' inherent worth based on genetics since nurture has a huge influence in how a person turns out in combination with their genetics. As somebody who's family narrowly avoided the death camps of eastern Europe I also find your suggestion that I'm endorsing eugenics or fascism (even if flippant) a little crass.
Nothing crass about it, the idea that you could isolate a gene for intelligence or creativity, that it's a genetic thing, that's pretty much the sum of Eugenics, it's essentially what Eugenics is about. Fascism simply took it to it's unfortunate logical extreme. So far there hasn't been any way to isolate genes for creativity or intelligence, there's little proof on a genetic level of any of that. There is however massive amounts of evidence that nurture (environment, parents peers, healthy diet etc.) plays a major role. Too many times does a family of 160+ IQ types adopt a kid and have that random gene pool kid graduate college at 15 etc. The vast amount of evidence points towards nurture for people born healthy to succeed in life, and we all know about the very recent consequences of Eugenics in practice, 6 million dead jews, 24 million dead russians, 7 million others and 10 million Chinese plus more all in pursuit of the ideal human through blood etc.
I think personally it's all leading nowhere, that the element that makes genius and creativity isn't locked into the genes, and let's face it, that thinking is backed up with evidence, so far they can say without a doubt that nurture makes for success intellectually, creatively etc. So far genetics has come up empty for those esoteric type things, and I often wonder why anyone would want to go down that path mentally anyway? Even mixed in with nurture it's a loaded gun. History proves that.
People are not equal in terms of the hand that nature or society deals to them (since you mention capitalism, which I agree about btw).. however the rights that they are afforded should always be equal.. that's what matters.
Do you really think that any indication has ever been given by any society, that mankind is capable of holding out a certain group of people as less than them and being fair about it? I argue about this passionately because I do believe firmly that one of the root evils in this world today is actually an older evil disguised, that it's OK to judge people based on your perceived criteria, to put them on a ladder of importance. There's IMO no way to do that, then say "hey, we're all equal".


Obviously not, no idea why you're even asking that. Part of the miracle of Mozart's existence was the combination of happy coincidences that led to him being able to take full advantage of his natural abilities. There have also likely been a number of people through history with the same potential who never got that chance because they were born in a Glasgow slum to tone deaf abusive parents (or whatever), I just don't think that everybody has that potential. But you're right, we're talking about the very extreme end of the scale which is almost pointless.
The point is always the same, creative genius is perception, and there is a willful desire for DNA to play a role that it's never ever been proven to play. Hopefully they never will come to some conclusion about a certain gene giving genius to people, that would I have no doubt fuck this world up even further than it already is.

Post Reply