Talent

[Boney]

i think that mindfulness, attention, and practice methods are very important to answer why talent is not important.

I know I'm less talented at some things than others. If they're important enough to me, that means I have to do more work, which I accept. In a way, knowing I'm not talented is a motivation to work more. Other things were difficult for me at first, but when I got over the first hurdle or two, I made incredible progress with very little effort. I think it's a stretch to say that talent is not important -- I don't believe that deep down, so the inspiration that such a point of view is supposed to provide falls flat. I do think it's important to say talent is one piece of the puzzle, sometimes not obvious at first, that a lack of talent can be overcome with spectacular results (through those methods mentioned above, and more), and that even the talented have to work very hard to realize their talents.

 

Also, maybe some of the best musicians aren't naturally talented at music, but they're incredibly talented at persistence. Which is hardly an argument that talent is not important!

[david_boveri]

I practice and 1hour a day on weekdays 4 hours on a saturday and 2-3 on a sunday.

Picking up on your thread's sub-title of "Nature or Nurture", for me it was probably nature.

 

My grandfather, Arthur Griffiths, was a musician (One-man Band in the film "Passport to Pimlico"), but I only met him a few times , and vaguely recall hearing him play (he died in 1966). His father was a musician, and Army Band-master. My grandfather had five daughters, of whom two sang in choirs.

 

On Dad's side of the family, there were no musicians.

 

My "formal" music education consisted of two lessons per week, for two years, at a Grammar School which was not exactly enlightened in its approach to music (until that Music Master retired!). So, we listened to Classical music, and sang some of the well known choral works. At home, Dad listened to Classical music, but I discovered Folk on the radio.

 

I started singing traditional song at the age of 25, and tried the concertina about a year later. Whilst I obviously listened to other singers and musicians, virtually everything I have learnt I have discovered for myself, from a variety of sources, despite the handicap of not reading music.

 

It's interesting to see the number of concertina practice hours which you have quoted. In the first couple of years, my figures would have been very similar. Over time, the hours reduced (smarter learning? ). Now, I hardly practice at all (although I'm often humming or whistling tunes, to keep them fresh in my mind).

 

I think my initial motivation in trying to learn the concertina was just to see whether I could do it, without any expectations as to where it would lead. It lead to the Morris, pub sessions at festivals, some bookings, and within five years, to requests to teach at festivals and residential weekends (so I must have been doing something right!).

 

Peter.

 

i dont really think that the way music is usually taught is conducive to learning a darn thing. i also think that the way languages are taught is ineffective, as well. think of it... in ireland, students study irish for years and years and years, and how many are fluent? it reminds me of those here in america who take spanish for four years in high school, but cant speak a sentence of spanish.

 

i think the fact that you were highly motivated, self-reliant, but also didnt put a lot of pressure on yourself makes a huge difference. i cant say that you dont have an innate ability to play music, but i can say that whatever you did, it sure worked out well!

[david_boveri]

Duly cut n' pasted!

 

 

 

QUOTE (david_boveri @ Oct 16 2008, 12:49 AM)

sorry to say you havent been working very well. dont blame anyone else, please. you can blame the situation, sure... you never had anyone hold you accountable for your attention, time committed, and approach to music. but then again, i'm sure you havent held yourself accountable either.

 

it's not about working hard enough, it's about working well. please practice for 5 hours a day for 10 years

 

 

Without wishing to get into a protracted argument with you and/or David Levine, I feel I have to say one or two things more on this subject. Firstly, I think that we're not comparing like with like. Both of you appear to be talking about top-flight professional musicians. I would guess that the majority of the people posting on this forum are (like myself) hobbyists. We have day jobs, families and interests other than music. It's unrealistic to practice for 5 hours a day.

 

I play fiddle probably as well as the famous Morris fiddler Jinky Wells (pretty roughly, judging from the recordings I've heard, but he was getting on in years by the time he was recorded) and my music is danceable-to, which is the most important thing for my purposes. I will never play well enough to carry a slow air in a performance situation, but then I recognise that I'm not prepared to "practice for 5 hours a day for 10 years" in order to achieve that. And I'm not seeking to blame anybody else. I'm sorry if anything in my original post suggested that I was.

 

I have never had a violin lesson in my life. Why? Because I'm strongly left-handed and no violin teacher is prepared to teach a left-hander as they'd look "wrong" in an orchestra (no matter that I don't want to play in an orchestra or indeed to play classical music at all). I've no doubt picked up all sorts of bad habits, but playing the fiddle is not the main focus of my life (or of my music, since acquiring an Anglo concertina!).

 

On the question of whether or not evidence exists for innate musical talent, there is (as in so many other things) no *definitive* evidence one way or the other. Googling "myth of musical talent" is obviously going to retrieve articles that support that side of the argument. A search of the Psycinfo database reveals as many academic papers in favour of "talent" as the opposing view, e.g.

 

Gagne, Francoys

Nature or nurture? A re-examination of Sloboda and Howe's (1991) interview study on talent development in music.

Psychology of Music, 1999, vol./is. 27/1(38-51)

Abstract:Comments on the article by J. A. Sloboda and M. J. Howe (see record 1991-30071-001) examining the backgrounds of promising young musicians. Gagne demonstrates that the authors incorrectly interpreted their data because they did not acknowledge the role of musical giftedness as a significant determinant of the large differences observed in their sample between exceptional and average students. Gagne intends to show that their results cannot be correctly interpreted without introducing musical aptitudes as a significant causal factor.

 

In other words, the answer is not as clear-cut as both Davids would have us believe. In case you're wondering how I've accessed a database that isn't freely available via Google, I'm an NHS Clinical Effectiveness Librarian by profession (unfair advantage!) and have the appropriate passwords.

 

i am sure my post came off as more combative than i intended.

 

i cannot find the full text, but here is an abstract from a response by howe:

 

"Replies to comments by F. Gagne (see record 1999-13786-002) concerning the authors' original article (see record 1991-30071-001) examining the backgrounds of promising young musicians. Sloboda and Howe assert that they expressed reservation in their paper in terms of placing weight on the results, and contend that results obtained in later research (J. A. Sloboda et al, 1996) found clear positive musical relationships between musical achievement and a wide range of predictor variables. Sloboda and Howe discuss Gagne main criticism and provide reasons for investing considerable effort in formulating plausible alternatives to genetically based accounts of individual differences in musical achievement. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2008 APA, all rights reserved)"

 

here is an article which goes into the issue at more length, by howe and sloboda. i have not read the article, so i cannot say what i think: http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.howe.html

[m3838]

. The "hard work" fetishists do not examine the concept of "talent" as it is generally used

What a lively bunch of discussions have erupted lately. Talent question is very simple, no need to break spears.

Everybody have read a bad book by prolific writer, prolifically practicing writing books. There are many different talents within each category and sub-category.

Just because each has different taste doesn't mean taste doesn't exist.

We all have been to talentless doctors, eaten food made by talentless cooks, lost a case due to talentless lawyer, or vice versa.

Proving the puff of air just makes for another talentless theory, book or lecture (Oh, the lectures by talentless lecturers! Oh, the Dread!)

Napoleon was definitely talented soldier in comparison to other generals he happened to oppose. But that didn't last long.

So talent itself can be relative and fragile, however the creation of talented lives forever. It's a sad story, when an artist outlives his talent. His art may shine for centuries, it doesn't help to sustain a livelihood nor saves from shame. People are jealous and evil. Although it's not proven.

[Alan Day]

I have recently had the pleasure of listening to Maurice Harvey who was without doubt one the greatest Duet players ever.His recordings are when he was about twelve.An unbelievable talent.It is suggested that perhaps he was pushed very hard at an early age until he suffered a crippling bout of polio which caused him to rebel against his Father and never played the instrument again.

Does talent require a dedication at a very early age or can a player reach dizzy heights starting at a later age?

I have found that short bursts of practice on difficult pieces more rewarding for progress than hours at a time.Playing music you know for hours is enjoyable, but not if you want to progress with the instrument.

Al

[Robin Madge]

I'm a bit concerned about the emphasis put on practice.

 

I don't have time to practice, I'm too busy playing!

 

I think I mean that the word "practice" has associations of duty and hard work whereas I'm playing for the fun of it.

As it happens the only playing I have time for is when I'm out at morris practice or at a session, no real time at home, so perhaps I don't practice anyway.

 

Robin Madge

[Mark Evans]

I don't have time to practice, I'm too busy playing!

 

 

Ooh, I like that very much!

[fiddlerjoebob]

I don't have time to practice, I'm too busy playing!

 

 

Ooh, I like that very much!

 

 

Yes, me too. It fits my method and my intention.

 

fjb

[Ivan Viehoff]

There may be a gene for physical characteristics (e.g., the freakish Lance Armstrong) but there is no music gene, or math gene, or surgeon gene.

Maths or music talent, etc, comes from a very particular conjunction of genes, probably also affected by precise conditions in the womb, etc, which results in a person who has a particular predisposition. So no, if two top concert pianists bred, they couldn't guarantee to issue forth another one, because they couldn't guarantee the particular conjunction of conditions in their offspring. But in general their offspring woul dhave a greater predisposition would be better.

 

No serious scientist is promoting as strong a talent neutrality as you seem to be arguing for. The strongest respectable version, is, as championed by scientists such as Steven Jay Gould, that, as a racial group or societal group, we collectively have on average the same inherent brain-power (= talents). But even that weaker hypothesis has to be wrong. I suggest reading "The Blank Slate" by Stephen Pinker, which effectively debunks this to my mind. It is reinforced, for example, with research on separated identical twins.

 

The most obvious argument is, how could we have evolved superior brain power to our ancestors, had it not been subject to genetic selection? If it is subject to genetic selection, then local improvement must occur (by race, by societal group). Jared Diamond takes this one step further - in his experience your average New Guinea tribesperson is a lot brighter than "westeners". There's a good reason for this: there is a much higher selection pressure in New Guinea because of higher death rates. You have to be talented to survive in their precarious society, and the more talented survive and pass it on. Of course they aren't very good at maths or playing the concertina, because those are not in their environment to learn about and become good at. But I bet they soon would be if they had the opportunities. The talent that is now coming out of India and China in all sorts of things, now that more of them have the opportunities, is no surprise to me in that respect.

 

As one who took a maths degree, I dispute that if I had practised maths more, or had started earlier, or had had a more conducive home environment, I could ever have been a maths professor. In fact, one of the noticeable things about the top maths students at university is that many of them worked a lot less than the rest of us. They did their assignments so quickly and easily that they could spend the rest of the day playing computer games, drinking, or in the case of he who got the top first, practising the French horn. Their ability to understand the concepts of algebraic topology (notoriously one of the hardest branches of maths) is surely not related to being taught to add up sooner. Interestingly, I actually had not been as strong as some of my colleagues at some of the branches of maths commonly taught at (high) school level, but on being put in front of some of the new and rather idffernt kinds of maths you do at university - abstract algebra, mathematical analysis - I found it came much easier than to most of them. This was just different from what we had done before, and suddenly I found myself ahead of those who had previously been ahead of me (though still rather behind the top students). Surely that was just a matter of pure aptitude. Some of my colleagues who worked very hard got poor degrees, because they just reached their summit of understanding. With their weaker talent, they had to work a lot harder to achieve a lower standard. Starting earlier or practising more, or maths professor fathers, would not have raised that summit. As one who has also played competitive chess, really rather badly, it is utterly apparent to me that in areas like chess and mathematics, you have it or you don't. This is nature, not nurture. Of course if you have it and the environment is not conducive, it won't come out. But if you don't have it, don't bother. Some countries systematically put their children into education a year or two later than the British, or with shorter school hours, but there is no evidence that the smaller amount of education, at that level, is failing to develop the talents of their population.

 

A very intuitive explanation of the same issue in music can be found in the Coen Brothers film, The man who wasn't there, or whatever it is called. The Billy-Bob Thornton character takes the Scarlett Johansson character to a top LA music teacher, hoping to pay for lessons that might allow her to become a concert pianist. The teacher refuses to take her because she hasn't got it. Her technique is excellent, he can't teach her any more there. But she hasn't got the musicality, and that is unteachable. For those who have it, he can teach them to take advantage of it.

 

At certain stages of my life, I did do a lot of piano practice. It repeatedly became apparent to me that I just did not progress as fast for the same amount of practice as my colleagues. I had just as good a teacher as them. Some of them came from utterly unmusical families, and some had started learning rather later than me. My grandfather was a fairly good pianist. He had lessons, as most of us do. He used to occasionally tell me about his brother, who could just sit down and busk at the piano, though he never had a lesson, and spent far fewer hours actually playing. I had a girlfriend once who played the piano to about the same standard as me. She commented that I could play technically harder pieces than her (no doubt the result of all that practising). But others commented she just played a lot more "musically" than me. How can I learn that? Of course, I can't. I haven't got it, and I never will.

[CaryK]

There may be a gene for physical characteristics (e.g., the freakish Lance Armstrong) but there is no music gene, or math gene, or surgeon gene.

 

 

There isn't a genetic tendency to become accomplished. Nor is it clear that perfect pitch is a genetic gift. Most people with perfect pitch have had early musical training, well before the age of 7. It's still all an open question. Those who are more accomplished than I am have more hours on their instrument than I do. That seems obvious to me and to them. They are not born with more musical genes than I have.

 

Pretty definitive statements considering we still know so little about the interactions of genes within the human genome. While there may not be (and likely isn't) a "music gene" such complex "behaviors/skills" as musical aptitude, motivational ability, physical ability including hand-eye coordination, hearing ability, pitch discernment, internal rhythm capabilities, ability to focus and maintain attentiveness (and the list could go on) all contribute to the ability to appreciate, reproduce, and create music. To assume that all of us are born with the same level and types of genetic interactions for all of our genes is probably not a logical supposition. And while practice certainly helps to level the genetic playing field in music, it seems illogical that practice and a musically nurturing environment would compensate totally for all the different ways our genes are wired.

Edited October 17, 2008 by CaryK

[David Levine]

I never said: ...all of us are born with the same level and types of genetic interactions...

 

I did say that there is no gene for music. I do agree that there are genes that might contruct us in ways that make music easier - such as hand-eye coordination, better hearing, ability to focus. Though I have been diagnosed as ADHD and maybe being ADHD has been helpful. And perfect pitch can be delvloped. Thogh you could say it had been there all along. Like Talent. But that's begging the question.

 

This is in fact close to what many psychologists are now saying: ...a musically nurturing environment would compensate totally for all the different ways our genes are wired.

Those musical geniuses we revere have all had early exposure and intense instruction in music. It has been pointed out that Wolfie, absent his overbearing musical father, might have been a happy, normal kid instead of a musical genius. Certain synapses close after puberty is reached- so early exposure is very important. But that doesn't mean a person can't enjoy a modest level of accomplishment.

 

Maybe there is such a thing as talent and maybe not. Nobody knows for sure. It's all anecdote and surmise. I play several instruments. My early talent lay in being able to chose my parents well. They sang to me in my crib, played Mozart and chamber music, took me to Carnegie Hall, sat me in front of the piano at an early age, gave me a guitar when I was six, a clarinet when I was ten and a fiddle when I was twelve. They never stinted on music lessons. My father, himself a professional singer, taught me how to be open before an audience and how to sing in front of people. My friend Arnie Steinhardt took me to the Marlboro Music Festival when I was twenty and I was hired on as Pablo Casal's personal valet - and attended his master's classes there. I saw him teach music, how he was able to show people how to phrase, how to think about music, and how to feel the music deeply. This can be taught, separate from technique.

 

I also have a remarkable talent for laziness and sloth. I didn't have a full-time job until I was nearly thirty, which gave me plenty of time to play. I was a professor and instead of publishing I played my fiddle in a bluegrass band. I've never held a job for more than four years, which gave me lots of in-between job-time to fiddle around. I bought a cheap house back in the days and avoided a crushing mortgage, thus avoiding a crushing job.

 

I don't believe in Talent. I don't think there is any such thng. I don't know why believing that would help anybody, either. I think believing that there isn't any such thing is much more helpful and rewarding. Maybe I am delusional. But I prefer not knowing that I have innate limits.

Edited October 17, 2008 by David Levine

[Michael Marino]

Okay the question is talent v. training. and is completely useless argument.

 

Reason is that there is serious evidence that shows that diverse talents have inborn indicators present. Though they need to be used and practiced to develop their full potential. In this it really depends on the internal discipline of the person to develop the talents within themselves. These often over lap.

 

If you want the evidence go ask our member who has the medline access as i have only indirect access at present (got to remember to pay those alumni dues). Medline, Mantis and a few others will more than prove my point. Though I don't want to pay for the right to download all the research that supports this. Therefore enjoy the gifts of those that are gifted and develop your own gifts as they are possible and you might find new ones alone the way. Most people want to hear music played with the intent for it to be enjoyed and to take pleasure from it; you don't need to be a diva to do that just someone who cares enough to practice well and properly (don't get me started on repetitive practice v. focused practice).

 

So, enjoy and live learn along the way as a favorite saying among the home brewers is, "Relax, have a home brew".

 

Than again I am told that I am one of those talented people in certain areas, I don't really care as without the drive to do something talent means nothing. I have seen that first hand too many times. That hurts.

 

Michael

[HoldThePhone]

It has nothing to do with "talent." It's about approaching learning the instrument in the right way, and in the right mind-set.

 

A "talented" person is someone who has merely figured out what few could, not because he was the chosen one based from his genetics.

[Mark Evans]

It has nothing to do with "talent." It's about approaching learning the instrument in the right way, and in the right mind-set.

 

A "talented" person is someone who has merely figured out what few could, not because he was the chosen one based from his genetics.

 

At least with singing genetics is the whole thing for a voice. Many have the genetics, but have very little musical disposition. Some want to be opera singers and perhaps the instrument is good, excellent or at least acceptable, but they cannot learn other languages, on and freakin' on and freakin' on. Then you have someone walk in the door whose got the pipes, can pick up music quick, new languages fall off their lips like water, and they are fearless...they are rare and have a chance to make it (God willin' an' the creek don't rise). Many skills that must be aquired by hard work, much ability from where...who can say, and then the instrument. You can buy a better instrument, not a voice.

 

How do you explain someone like my son Sean, who dances like a whirlwind, sings with a beautiful baritone voice, can immitate the speaking voice and manner of anyone he spends a few hours with, and can write poetry like a bard. All of which he sees as a parlor trick to intertain his friends. At one of my bluegrass gigs he tagged along as his evening's plans fell through. I mentioned to the crowd that my boy could sing. They started bugging him to sing one. He said he'd slide out the my car and learn one I was listening to on the way to club. Back he came in in five minutes, all 3 verses under his belt, we picked a key he was comfortable with and there he went singing as if he had spent his life making music in Cashiers, North Carolina. It is what it is and he doesn't give a good God damn.

Edited October 17, 2008 by Mark Evans

[Robert Booth]

A lot of this discussion seems to hinge on whether one believes in talent or not. Think about that for a second or two. Belief does not establish fact. It only expresses opinion. I could believe that I could park a Cadillac in my nose, but no one is going to start selling parking permits based on my belief.

 

American public schools have formal Talented and Gifted programs to serve our students who display...talent.

It is formally tested, analysed and acted upon-assiduously, because the Feds won't give us any more money until we have proven that we have done so. All of the above is based on ongoing research, following the assumtion that talent does exist, and that is measurable and quantifiable.

 

One thing that has emerged from the research is that talent, if left un-nurtured can evaporate into the ether. If a thing can be illustrated by what it is not, then this would be a good arguement for the existance of talent.

 

A personal concern of mine is that I am all too aware of my own limits of talent. Practicing 5 hours a day for 10 years would indeed make me a better player, but I know that I'll never be a Mozart, Sean Evans, or the like.

 

Big deal; I don't care about that. All I wanna do is take what talent I've got, wherever it came from, and play well enough to keep my neighbors from shooting at me out the window.

 

However, if we are going to indulge in this conversation, credibility asks that we avoid opinion and rely on fact.

RB

[Mark Evans]

All I wanna do is take what talent I've got, wherever it came from, and play well enough to keep my neighbors from shooting at me out the window.

 

You and me both Robert. The boy pisses me off though, but I've always known it's none of my business and to keep my yap shut...

[Robert Booth]

Well, Mark, you're probably in a better position than most to weigh in on this particular issue.

 

What should concern us all, though is not so much debating whether it exists, as how to recognize talent early on and how to bring it along. It seems so sad that a given talent could wither on the vine, never having had a chance to fruit into something really significant.

 

Withal, free choice can throw a spanner into the works: My boy has a moderate talent for music, but, too bad!, he wants to be a cop.

 

Oh, well!

RB

[david_boveri]

A lot of this discussion seems to hinge on whether one believes in talent or not. Think about that for a second or two. Belief does not establish fact. It only expresses opinion. I could believe that I could park a Cadillac in my nose, but no one is going to start selling parking permits based on my belief.

 

American public schools have formal Talented and Gifted programs to serve our students who display...talent.

It is formally tested, analysed and acted upon-assiduously, because the Feds won't give us any more money until we have proven that we have done so. All of the above is based on ongoing research, following the assumtion that talent does exist, and that is measurable and quantifiable.

 

One thing that has emerged from the research is that talent, if left un-nurtured can evaporate into the ether. If a thing can be illustrated by what it is not, then this would be a good arguement for the existance of talent.

 

A personal concern of mine is that I am all too aware of my own limits of talent. Practicing 5 hours a day for 10 years would indeed make me a better player, but I know that I'll never be a Mozart, Sean Evans, or the like.

 

Big deal; I don't care about that. All I wanna do is take what talent I've got, wherever it came from, and play well enough to keep my neighbors from shooting at me out the window.

 

However, if we are going to indulge in this conversation, credibility asks that we avoid opinion and rely on fact.

RB

 

can you please cite the research for ethereal talent attrition? normally i would not mind such anecdotal citing, but if you want facts, and not opinions, you are not quantifying anything you say with even anecdotal evidence of empirically derived facts.

 

you're confusing having a talented program with talent existing--its a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy . talented programs are based on aptitude tests, and then taking those students who are beyond one standard deviation (or it may be two, i'm not sure). because you test something, does not mean you are testing it accurately, or that even exists. "self reports" by norbert schwartz, university of michigan (february 199, american psychologist, volume 54, no.2, 93-105), examines that much of testing data is flawed, in that the way you frame the question changes the severity of the answer. the studies showed the differences between open test response vs. closed, using -5 to +5 vs. 0-10, as well as contextual effects changing answers, such as the time frame given to rate how often a behavior is apparent. the idea of question writing being very important is not new, but article combines dozens of sources to suggest that the conclusions that psychologists had come to about survey data were actually flawed, possible making 50+ years of psychological surveys moot. they demonstrated that the scale you use can make the difference between the majority of the population 16% of people saying they watch 2.5 hours of tv a day, and 62.5% reporting 2.5 hours of tv a day (page 95). aptitude tests do indeed quantify an ability, but sadly to say, it is only the ability to take aptitude tests, and in particular, the ability to take an aptitude test, in that situation, at that time, at that point in their life. we make the assumption that because they can take the tests, they are talented, but what sort of standardized test allows for creativity, which surely would be a key component of talent?

 

helen langer's research in the power of mindful learning (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0201339919/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=search-inside&keywords=sports&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=Go%21# , click on page 21), suggests that the often measured sex difference in new-sport acquisition (i.e. talent) is due not to an innate difference (that boys are more talented), but in how boys and girls differ in their treatment of the situation. leaving hte idea of mindfulness aside (which is very important, btw), her studies found that it is in how boys and girls follow directions--girls follow directions, boys do not. when you say "hold it this way," girls do, but boys hold it however the eff they want. to try to see if this assumption is correct, she instead said "one way to hold it might be," which meant that the girls would be more creative (i.e. mindful) in their approach. the girls picked up the sport better under this second condition, and what is more, the girls were able to adapt to a change in the ball used in the games, while when they were not given open-ended suggestions, they were not able to.

 

so, that would suggest that something would seem to be innate, but there is a huge difference in performance between those who follow directions, and those who do not. the ones who do follow directions are mindless--they go through the motions, but do not put themselves into it (i.e. they adhere strictly to verbal instructions, when in fact playing music is a large muscular, i.e. motor, function). those who ignore directions, and try to figure it out themselves, react to their bodies, and use their bodies and ears as a guide, relying on the teacher to give suggestions, rather than gospel truth.

 

the reason you will never be mozart is because of how you practice. i would bet everything you do is wrong. how much time do you spend on rhythm? i spend hours and hours and hours just trying to get my rhythm perfectly--not kind of, not mostly, but perfectly mathematically--in time. it is very difficult. james kelly (fiddle player, if you're not familiar with him), taught me so much about rhythm i never knew, including how i was tapping my foot wrong. this is a good place to show how you might be doing something wrong (or most people are), which might prohibit you from being a better musician.

 

when you tap your foot, where does the beat lie?

1. at the bottom (when the foot hits the ground)

2. in the middle (when the foot is between its highest point and lowest point)

3. at the top (when the foot is at the highest point)

 

please sing something, tap your foot, and answer the question before moving on.

 

everyone i have asked says it is the bottom, which is where i thought it was. james kelly taught me it is actually in the middle. he told me to watch players at a session--those who tend to rush, will play with the beat when their foot hits the ground, and those who tend to drag play with the beat at the top. it is only a millisecond difference, but it makes a huge difference. i have found this to be true. the difference between having it at the bottom, and in the middle, is the difference between not only being in time, and not, but having a flexible, rock solid sense of time, which never looses the beat but is expressive, dynamic, and effortless. i can do this when lilting/singing (but am still working on it), but have trouble translating it into my playing.

 

also, in regards to rhythm, james kelly spent a lot of time having me count "1, 2, 3, 4." for the first several times he did this (spaced out over several months), not only could i not hear the difference between when i said it and he said it, but if i said it in time, i could not replicate it. this seems very simple, but i could not get it in time. it would be almost in time, but he would tell me that spaces were uneven--they would stick out. one would be either too accented, or too weak, too long, or too short. a lot of musicians, when they try to add feel to the music, steal time from other notes to make it sound like they are accenting, when they are not. this makes it sound out of time. good music breathes--the beat continues on, effortlessly and automatically, and the notes go on top of it. like a train on train tracks. this is what i was taught, by james kelly. this is why the best musicians can bend the rules, pull notes, push notes, drop notes, play ahead of the beat, play behind the beat, yet still remain in time. the beat, the rhythm, the subdivisions, all are unbendable, unbreakable, but the way that the notes interact with them is malleable. if you cannot play in time completely, perfectly in time, with notes that breath and sway, with a rhythm that is rock solid, then that is what you should work on. i would bet that most people who practice would not work on that. i did not, until one of the best musicians in the world told me to. he taught me that the only thing that my only job as a musician is to convince the audience that i have really great fundamentals. the most fundamental element of music--rhythm--is not only lacking in my music, but most peoples music. if you listen to a lot of the old players, they are always in time. even if they fudge the notes, beat never disappears. every note gets its full length, and no note takes a gives up its time, but flow into eachother with varying length. so, if you worked on anything but your rhythm (like we all do), you are wasting your time (as we all do).

 

its all about task separation. why go onto measure two when you cannot play measure one perfectly in time? we all do it. we say, "it's good enough." on the converse, how often do you work on your ability to play through a fudge without losing the beat? i'm talking developing your skillset of playing through mistakes. purposely mess up, have someone distract you, try to talk and play, mess up completely, but keep going, perfectly in time. it is difficult. you need to work on it. if you want to be as world class musician, you need to practice the skills you need, not just practice the way an amateur practice. you need not just practice music, but practice the skills involved in music--practice/develop attention, practice/develop the ability to improvise, practice/develop playing your instrument to be as intuitive and natural as talking. if you cannot do all these things (which the best musicians can do), it is a huge logical fallacy to assume you cannot do them because you have no talent. you cannot do them because you have not worked on them, and have not worked on them well. plain and simple. you cannot develop a skill or a talent that you have not worked on. the best musicians in the world have worked on all these things, if not by name, but in actuality. they say, "no, it's not good enough," and spend weeks and weeks on a few notes, trying to get it to sound right. they might not realize that their beat is not rock solid, but they will spend weeks and weeks and years trying to get that "drive," which is only brought about by good time keeping. a musician may not realize they are playing what they hear in their head, but they may realize their music sounds soulless, and try to add emotion, and focus on the sound of their instrument, for years and years and years and years. i have never read or heard of a study that takes this into account--that the majority of people, in most aspects of their lives, are inattentive, easily distracted, have poor task separation (a concept i came up with, but i'm sure exists), do not practice particular skills but gloss over mistakes, and do not work on how they work on their music, but rather just work on their music--this last one is hugely important! if your perspective is limited, your entire approach is wrong, and you never work on getting a better perspective or redoing your entire approach, you cannot get better, because you have never worked at what you are doing wrong--you will never get better at getting better, if you never working on getting better. basic stuff here, yet most of us neglect it. of course, now, if you would like to discuss how people would inefficiently approach getting better at getting better, it gets more complicated. but, given the 5 hours a day for 10 years time frame i give, i think that spending a considerable (or all, even!) of time on working on how you approach how you play music would suffice (this means, then, that if you wanted to speed up the process, you would have to spend a huge amount of time working on how you approach this process of redoing your methods for playing and practicing music)

 

if we were to look at again, in brief, how think about the music, there are a few things we could look at beyond the foot tapping. do you seek the buttons in the head, or do you hear the sound, and let your fingers find it? music should be intuitive, not analytical--specifically, you should be driving your music from the sound, mixed with your feelings, and edited with decisions (i.e. parieto-temporal-occiptal association cortex, "limbic system," pre-frontal cortex, to be vague). to say it in another way, rather than playing what you think, or remember, or what your muscles remember (which is a pre-frontal cortex decision, carried out--i believe--through motor cortex), you should play what you feel, and fit the sound of what you hear in your head, and the only decision making should be inhibition, not creation. this means that you should not plan anything, but only stop things (like: no, it doesnt feel right, no i'll wait).

 

automaticity, then, is the name of the game. practicing, therefore, would best be trying to figure out how to make the music more automatic, yet meaningful. or, you could call it mindful automaticity (for more on automaticity, see dr. john bargh from yale, "the unbearable automaticity of being).

 

so, this is what i meant earlier by practicing well. it's not enough to do what you already do--you have to turn the entire process it on its head; unfortunately, i left out this earlier distinction in my previous posts. they dont teach these things in school, and i dont think most music teachers (or anyone) teaches it at all. assume everything you are doing is wrong, and start over from scratch. you must not just work on your playing, but your approach to playing and practicing. what do you think about when you play, how do you think about it, and how do you think about how do you think about what you are thinking.