How to get really good at Music/Art

[simmerdown]

that might be your impression gym...but aside from anecdotal evidence there is no support for talent, or even genius

[Machinesworking]

The only real comparison that can be made in my opinion is that both require practice. Talent on the other hand, completely different. In sports there's a genetic component, IMO almost anybody if they start young enough can become a professional athlete if they train correctly constantly, but genetics will determine if you make it as a Star or a well paid bench warmer.

Would you not say that the same is true of learning to play an instrument?

No, because technical abilities are only a part of music, not all of music.
The best sports players are simply the best athletes, they're the most technically perfect at the game.
The fastest guitar players might be recognized for their technical skill, but they do not immediately become the most revered and praised players. This is dead easy to see, the world loves Greg Gilmore and doesn't give a shit about Yngwie Malmsteen. Only guitar players care about Malmsteem and even they aren't united in thinking he's a genius.

This applies to every aspect of art, technical skill is a huge advantage, but vision and ability to connect with the audience is still much more important, and that, is a matter of the mind not the body.

[gjm]

that might be your impression gym...but aside from anecdotal evidence there is no support for talent, or even genius

I am not sure what you think my impression is, but for the record (based on my experience as a music teacher), genetics play a huge part in success at even mediocre levels in learning to play an instrument. No amount of practice will move you past built in physical, emotional and intellectual boundaries. The words 'talent' and 'genius' are words to describe scales of proficiency in comparison to peers. Some people are clearly more capable of the complex multi tasking processes involved in accessing all of the areas needed play an instrument and convey a message through music. Others will never move too far beyond a very small aptitude/skill set, and consequently never be considered good or great by their peers.

[gjm]

This applies to every aspect of art, technical skill is a huge advantage, but vision and ability to connect with the audience is still much more important, and that, is a matter of the mind not the body.

Well said.

[simmerdown]

what i mean is, with 10,000 hours your 'worst' student, the least 'apt' would be great...

you cant make any broad assumption based on your own experience, too small survey regardless how long your experience or how good a teacher you are

is an idiot-savant talented?

[Machinesworking]

genetics play a huge part in success at even mediocre levels in learning to play an instrument. No amount of practice will move you past built in physical, emotional and intellectual boundaries.

Physical is mainly genetics true. Emotional is nurture for sure, and intellectual is still up for debate. Remember Einstein's high school math teacher thought he was a poor student with limited abilities in math, and he was at the time.

[gjm]

what i mean is, with 10,000 hours your 'worst' student, the least 'apt' would be great...

you cant make any broad assumption based on your own experience, too small survey regardless how long your experience or how good a teacher you are

is an idiot-savant talented?

You still misunderstand me. I agree with you. The 10,000 hr thing is a crock of shit as a general sweeping truth. It is clear though that 10,000 hrs invested by certain individuals who are 'wired' correctly will get much different results than some of their peers who lack certain physical, emotional or intellectual capacities.

[simmerdown]

nevermind, your mind is made up

[gjm]

nevermind, your mind is made up

I am limited intellectually, clearly. As I am willing to be enlightened, please take the time to help me understand your view, as it may in fact make me a better teacher, and more importantly, a better person than I currently am. Rubbing shoulders with with others who have more experience than me is a privilege. I am being serious.

[Machinesworking]

nevermind, your mind is made up

I am limited intellectually, clearly. As I am willing to be enlightened, please take the time to help me understand your view, as it may in fact make me a better teacher, and more importantly, a better person than I currently am. Rubbing shoulders with with others who have more experience than me is a privilege. I am being serious.

No offense meant, but you're not being honest here, you believe you're opinion that genetics and raw talent is the most important factor and that your job as a teacher is to develop that talent. I shudder to think at what you would do with a kid that you figure has no raw talent. See my example about Einstein above. You want to become a better teacher? well I would say personally that you need to rethink how you approach the concept of talent in the first place. To me this is the best example of how learned technically trained people fail, they cannot think outside of the sports analogy when it comes to art.

There are literally hundreds of examples of people with limited technical skill that make interesting and engaging music. Another example, only the "professional" music community gives a shit about whether or not Tony Iommi is a technically skilled guitar player, the rest of us admire him for kickstarting an entire genre of rock music.

[gjm]

No offense meant,

None taken.

but you're not being honest here, you believe you're opinion that genetics and raw talent is the most important factor and that your job as a teacher is to develop that talent.

Trust me, I am being honest. I believe that nature and nurture together contribute to shaping a persons skill set for music. My job as a teacher is to support current strengths and more importantly identify weaknesses and guide a student through a course of self discovery/recognition of those weaknesses and provide age/stage specific coaching to grow those areas so that they develop as a musician as a whole to the best of their ability.

I shudder to think at what you would do with a kid that you figure has no raw talent. See my example about Einstein above.

I never judge anyone in terms of raw talent. As stated early, 'talent' is just a word I use to quantify what one person has learned in comparison to their peers. I happen to see a lot of 'gifted' kids, children who have been assessed professionally for their development in many different areas. I also currently have students who are pushed into the box of autistic/aspergers, as well as auditory processing difficulties, and its a pleasure working with these people and their parents and watching them develop. One of my biggest tasks is to help people find ways to get past their real or perceived barriers. Its always disappointing when someone simply refuses to move when I know they can.

You want to become a better teacher? well I would say personally that you need to rethink how you approach the concept of talent in the first place. To me this is the best example of how learned technically trained people fail, they cannot think outside of the sports analogy when it comes to art.

Again I am confused. I fully agree with you and what I think you are trying to say. Just to clarify. I am not a learned technically trained individual. I have never sat an exam in my life. I have no qualification to teach. I am however sought out by many people to work with developing their kids musically. I must be doing something right... I think

There are literally hundreds of examples of people with limited technical skill that make interesting and engaging music.

Yup, fully agree.

[3dot...]

talent = high potential

[gjm]

what i mean is, with 10,000 hours your 'worst' student, the least 'apt' would be great...

Lol... my son has just walked in with a packgae from the mail. It is a book called 'This is your Brain on Music' http://daniellevitin.com/publicpage/boo ... -on-music/ It has been sent to me by a family member. Specifically on the back cover is this statement "why 10,000 hrs of practice-not talent- makes virtuosos." I shall read with interest his summary.

Anybody read this?

[Machinesworking]

talent = high potential

Well the definition is natural aptitude, meaning you take to some skill quickly. This doesn't mean you'll write the next great classical piece though, or that your compositions or playing will be remembered. It increases the chances for sure, but some of the best tested by success in the field talent comes from people who stumbled miserably and showed no raw talent.

[3dot...]

10000 hrs might help you be a "virtuoso" (technical skills)
it gets a bit more problematic..if it's not purely technical
(the difference between Mozart and a virtuoso fiddler.. )

so natural aptitude sounds right.. I guess it's basically the same
a person may have the potential to be a great composer..
but his artistic potential might not be fulfilled at all..