Prodigious and Sophisticated Musicians

[NursingDaBlues]

I agree - Practice is an important factor in learning anything - BUT. If you add to the amount of practice,a firm understanding from a very early age,of :- what to practice / how to practice & your ultimate goal,your end product is not just a well practiced 'whatever',but something else entirely.

I was once told that practice does not make perfect. Practice makes permanent. With enough practice you can learn to do something perfectly wrong.

I would venture to say that correct guidance and mentoring is essential in an individual being able to exceed proficiency to enter into the realms of excellence.

What Ivan so eloquently stated is well worth remembering: “If you add to the amount of practice, a firm understanding from a very early age, of :- what to practice / how to practice & your ultimate goal, your end product is not just a well-practiced 'whatever', but something else entirely.”

I would add this one thought: The best time to plant a tree was twenty-years ago; the second best time is now. If you missed the boat "at an early age," the second best time to develop a firm understanding of what and how to practice along with an ultimate goal is now.

[dadsaster]

On the flip side of practice, there is a youtube video of Sierra Hull age 10 playing with Sam Bush. She was already amazing. How much practice could she have put in by then.

She started at age 8. She could have easily put in 2500-3500 hours in that time if she was obsessed.

[Bertram Henze]

The answer seems to be quite simple. What does it take to be a prodigious and sophisticated musician? It takes your life, no less.

[UsuallyPickin]

Your time your money your relationships and health if you aren't careful …. Patience , desire , hard work, love .. I always laugh at the old say "How do you get to Carnegie Hall …. practice practice practice ….. Perfect practice makes perfect ……

[CES]

“Man, we talkin’ ‘bout practice?”

Sorry, couldn’t resist. Interesting topic. One of my business partners was a “child prodigy” on piano. Got to travel the country and world going to master classes with world renound musicians, etc. He’s firmly in the camp that it’s all about work and practice. In my opinion he’s more talented AND worked his tail off at it, but he staunchly disagrees.

[Mark Gunter]

I was thinking about this part of Tyler's answer:

I’m not going to say it takes passion because I really believe it does just come down to time (and I’d throw focus in there as well) but passion certainly makes it easier to dedicate that time and focus to the instrument.

And actually, I think he may be onto something there. I think it might be possible to find a few cases where a child lacked the passion, but was coerced to put in the time and focus, which paid off in musical virtuosity.

I recently read about a case like that. If I can remember the girl's name, I'll reference it. Her father made her study music since childhood, and over time she was made to accept and live his dream of her becoming a successful performer in order to escape the societal limitations of her third world country. She gained some international fame. But once she moved to the UK, she eventually was able to shed herself of her father's dream and is now a talented film maker, mostly documentary work.

An experience like that may have been what Tyler has in mind when he hesitates to list passion as a motivator, though it obviously most often is.

[Mark Gunter]

Ah, I remember who that case was about, she was not from a third world country, she was born in Norway to a Pakistani father and Afghan mother, her name is Deeyah Khan.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zhYY4KQRX8

[Mark Gunter]

Early in that video, Ms. Khan tells how and why her father pushed her into music, the rest of it is about her first highly acclaimed film. But somewhere, I've heard her tell about the moment she realized that music was her father's dream, not hers. She is now a highly acclaimed filmmaker. I became interested in her after having watched her film, White Right: Meeting The Enemy on Netflix.

The pertinent thing as relates to this discussion is that she was pushed into music by her father, put in the time to become a very successful performer, and was not driven by a passion for music initially, according to her own testimony.

[Kevin Stueve]

She started at age 8. She could have easily put in 2500-3500 hours in that time if she was obsessed.

sure if all she did was eat, sleep, school, mandolin.

[SincereCorgi]

https://issuu.com/rabberson/docs/tc_excerpt_3 . Page 6-7 if you can make it out.

Wow, I am quite surprised. My brain kind of rebels and wants to read the study and try to pick it apart just because the idea of kids making more progress with less practice is weird to me. All I can think is that presumably the 'practice time' doesn't include the hour every day in band class, where students who expect to be doing music for a long time might be more inclined to pay attention than the ones who know they're quitting.

[JeffD]

sure if all she did was eat, sleep, school, mandolin.

I read an article on hockey prodigy Roman Marcotte. He was practicing so much his family put an ice rink in the front yard. Yea it seerms that eat, sleep, school and hockey is Roman's day. Every day.

[Mark Gunter]

Came across another relevant article today (thanks HonketyHank):

... innate ability is not the thing that matters. Anyone is capable of building a musical brain. But building it, and building it well, is where the challenge lies. It’s not those who are born with musical brains that become master musicians, it’s those who are good at building them.

~ Josh Turknett, How to Cross the "Gap of Suck"
https://clawhammerbanjo.net/episode-...e-gap-of-suck/

[Ivan Kelsall]

From above - " Anyone is capable of building a musical brain. ". Forgive me for saying so,but IMHO - that's rubbish !. Many people are, but NOT everybody. I reckon that most of us know folks who've had a guitar or 'whatever' for years,& still can't play it,or if they can,they're terrible at it. Some folks simply don't have a musical mind,& no matter how hard they try,they just don't make the grade. Going back 9 years,i unfortunately sold my Gold Star banjo to such a guy. I took it down to London to deliver it personally,& when he played it,he could hardly change chords,& this is a guy who'd been playing to over 18 months. He took lessons from a well known UK banjo player, but packed it in 6 or so months later. That banjo is currently on sale at a UK Hobgoblin store. :- https://www.hobgoblin.com/local/sale...se-and-pickup/

Here's the same banjo when i owned it - note the Truss rod cover,made by Bryan England's Custom Inlay guys. It's simply an example of a lousy player thinking that a 'good' instrument would make him better.

Most people taking up a musical instrument for the first time,don't realise fully,the commitment that you have to make in order to be even half way decent. Some folks will try for decades & never make it - it's not because they don't like music or appreciate it,it's simply because they lack 'what it takes' to play. That's my interpretation of the matter anyway - others may disagree - exactly as it should be,
Ivan

[Bertram Henze]

From above - " Anyone is capable of building a musical brain. ". Forgive me...
Many people are, but NOT everybody.

At least, these people are exempt from pursuing a musical career, in order to save the world, I guess. Unless you are Brian Ferry, of course.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Hi Bertram - I think that the item posted by Mark Gunter ( NOT Mark Gunter's post), wasn't very well thought out. The cover all '' ANYONE is capable ...'' simply can't be true,''possibly'' due to the reason given in the item in your own post. How would we know if we, or anybody else,suffers from 'Amusia' ?. As a side topic (sort of),i've known many exceptional 'Finger picking' guitar players within the 'Folk / Country music' genre years back,who decide to take up Scruggs style banjo -'cos it looks easy when you watch it - every one failed !!.

The ''almost free-style'' right hand fingering had them floored. ''To an extent'',guitar finger picking (my style),is almost a set pattern of right hand finger work - not always - but.. Fortunately for me,i did it the other way around. After Scruggs style banjo,guitar finger picking was 'almost' easy - at least at my level.

To be a musician of any reasonable ability,it takes a certain aptitude,a love of the music that you wish to perform,a lot of dedication & a real idea of your ultimate goal - if you don't have those things,how can you ever succeed ?.


Zip along to 20.55 in this YouTube clip & you'll hear my very first Blueegrass 'tune' - That's 100% what i set out to achieve - nothing less !. Two & a half years later,i'd nailed it. It took 100's of hours of listening & trying things out,but i got there.

''Maybe'',i have a certain aptitude for 'learning in my own way',but it took as i say,100's of hours of practice. Some folk,no matter how long they play,& how hard they try,just don't make it. There has to be a reason for that, & for me,it means a lack of real musical aptitude - in the same way that i'm only mediocre when it comes to 'Quantum Physics',
Ivan

[Mark Gunter]

Glad you read the article, Ivan. I agree, it's a bit hyperbolic to make a blanket statement, like saying "everyone" or "always" - I mentioned musical Savants in an earlier post, and Bertram has referenced Amusia. These type of conditions prove to me that some aptitude is necessary, we're not all equal in native aptitude.

Josh Turknett, who wrote that article, is an MD. I think he's a neurologist who studies brain functions, though I don't know much about him and I don't play the banjo. I think the axe he grinds has to do with people of normal intelligence and brain function being able to develop a "musical brain" if they approach learning to play an instrument in a certain way and put in the work necessary. Everyone? No, I'd have to agree with you, not everyone.

[mandocrucian]

There is the medieval concept of the "Wheel of Fortune", which is not a single wheel, but multiple wheels within each other, some on the rise, some on the downswing, all influencing the individual's level of "fortune".

The idea of the "Bell Curve" distribution seems to apply. There's a bell curve for each aspect. For example...there is natural ability to retain melodies, or the natural physical control of finger mechanics, or the ability is understand theoretical concepts in application. Base line curves

Then there are curves for the amount of practicing, the quality of practicing, the end goal of the practice. These curves are in in effect for wherever one happens to be on the base line curves. There would be a curve for your instructor's teaching ability(ies). All these curves will be overlaid on the initial curve(s).

It can be incredibly complex. The classical approach can be great for technical/digital development or visually inputting material, but can be highly deficient in areas that jazz or other non-classical training provide much better (improvisation, playing by ear, etc.)

Influenced by the instructor's, if you have one, ability (or not) to recognize and sense where the student's natural strengths and weaknesses are and adjust the program to accentuate the positives and remedy the negatives. If the student just doesn't have, with practice, what it takes to rip through Paganini caprices, aside from using them as technical (shifting etc) exercises, perhaps nuance/expressiveness/phrasing (BB King, Brian Finnegan, Ry Cooder…) would be much more productive for that individual.

Have you ever noticed, if you are more of a jazz head, that sometimes a certain high school, or local college may have a lot of name players who attended that school? How much of that has to do with the particular instructors bringing out the strengths of their various students?

Simple answers about why some players have it and others don't (or won't) are just to simplistic to answer those issues. The only one-sentence slogan/meme that seems to be true (in my experience is: "It takes longer than you think that it will."

Niles H

[farmerjones]

Above and beyond music, just my observance, but "dabblers" seem to be dabblers of anything they seem infatuated with. Not just music.
Then there's "immersers." Them that jump in feet first and obsess about anything they get into. I did this with model making in my early teen years. The only thing that kept me in music is the support that surrounded me. I always thought in terms of a language: As it's tough to learn Elbonian. It's still tougher if there's nobody around to speak Elbonian with.

But this is not child prodigy stuff, personally. I have seen a few, and it's like they're born with an adult soul. Outwardly, a kid in every other respect, but, say, piano, or mandolin, or. . . . I guess it goes to show how fascinating the human brain can be. But it's so very strange, like it can't be coming from within.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Hi Mark - I did indeed read the article & i broadly understood the reasoning in it,but as you yourself imply,''blanket statements'' are very often wide of the mark - there's almost always an exception(s).

In my work,i ended up with a BSc.Hons in Aircraft Technology. My ability in Maths.is NOT particularly good. I sweat blood struggling to learn enough to get through my exams. Many of my classmates simply breezed it. Fortunately for me,a couple of them were generous to ''help me over the hurdles'' as it were. One of them in particular,whom,i eventually worked alongside,had a way of explaining 'things' in a way that was wholly understandable. To my way of thinking - he was a 'natural' in the way that we're discussing. He'd have made an awesome Maths. teacher. Not only did he thoroughly understand the subject,he could explain it to others in a way that they understood,that in itself is a talent. In my work,at one point i moved from one design department,to another,doing a totally different job,for which i had to learn 'new things' !. One of the guys whom i worked with,helped me out along the way,but his skills in communication & his ability to get info. across, were sadly lacking. Many times it boiled down to something as understandable as ''Put this,in that,in there !''. It was my old college friend ( The 'college' that we attended was granted University status several years later) that came to the rescue = total clarity !!.

Some folk have it & some folk don't ,
Ivan

[SincereCorgi]

Not only did he thoroughly understand the subject,he could explain it to others in a way that they understood,that in itself is a talent.

Absolutely, this is a mysterious talent that seems to need a specific combination of empathy, knowledge, and generosity. Unfortunately, this isn't a prerequisite for becoming a teacher.

[Mark Gunter]

Mark - I tend to agree with the original response - BUT !!. When you were going through college,how many of your classmates were there that could pick up on a subject as though they'd written it ??. Some people,for reasons currently unknown,have a natural aptitude for 'whatever'. We've all come across articles written about 'child prodigies' ( Geniuses ),young children who possess amazing abilities in all sorts of subjects, & who simply haven't HAD any time to develop (practice) their skills.

Ivan, it's pretty obvious that we're on the same page in most of this thinking. I believe, as I've mentioned several times here, that some people have a greater aptitude than others, and I believe that some are just born that way, but I don't believe it is very helpful for any student to think in those terms.

I started college 11 years late, at age 29. I was scared to death that I wouldn't be able to keep up with the youngsters. Man, did I call that one wrong. I think the youngsters were not as committed as I was, and I graduated near the top of my class. Among the young folk who were actually serious, there were those who were natural masters of the material like you've mentioned, as well as those who struggled a great deal to assimilate information.

As for music & practice, I subscribe to most of what Jonathan Harnum offers. That is, that (1) regardless of how much "natural talent" one is born with, there is only one way to get better than you are right now - and that is to practice. As Alan alluded to, spend time behind the box. Whether you are doing a more formal kind of practice, or you are practicing by paying your dues onstage somewhere, you are either growing or you are in atrophy. And (2), it is not helpful for a student or a musician to entertain much thought of "natural talent." Someone like me would have no hope of being a decent musician if being born with talent for it was a requirement. But I've found, lifelong, that when I am learning, practicing, playing, working at getting better, then I do indeed get better. For the person who believes in "talent magic" it can be a death knell to get either compliments or criticism about their playing. Beware of people telling you how talented you are lest you begin to believe them. And beware of allowing negative feelings or comments or criticism to cool your passion. If there is anything that you really want to accomplish musically, then do the work, and banish any doubt that you will eventually succeed.

I think it's not inconsequential that most "masters" of the craft will say that "it's not talent, it's sweat equity."

I like what Niles wrote, because more than anything else I've read in a while, he articulates something about the complexities of the situation.

[Ivan Kelsall]

From Mark Gunter - ".. I think the youngsters were not as committed as I was, ..". I understand that fully Mark. You REALLY wanted it,& having as you say,kicked off pretty late at college you had to 'commit' 100%. That attitude of mind, IMHO,is really what separates the wheat from the chaff.

'Commit' totally,put the hours in,& even if you do it your own way (no tutor),you're on the road to success. Just how great that success will be,will be down to what we're talking about - individual aptitude. But you have to go all out for it - there's simply no other way to succeed - 'natural talent' or not !,
Ivan

[Louise NM]

There's one other factor that plays into success in any field, and that's plain dumb luck. The music student who finds a perfectly suited mentor and teacher on the first try has an advantage over the kid whose fourth teacher is finally the right fit. The person who hires on at a firm where several people above them move on has more chance to advance than the person who gets a job where everyone above stays. The chance meeting at a party, having an uncle in the business, plenty of people owe a good deal of success to these advantages.

All the open doors in the world won't help if you're not ready to walk through them and if you don't have the skill and drive to succeed. But, we have all known the person who just can't catch a break, and the one who stumbles into one fantastic opportunity after another.

[farmerjones]

Sure, there's a point where monetary success is part of the picture. But I know several closet pickers that are nose-bleed good players, but shun the stage and/or spotlight. I dunno what to think, other than I feel very fortunate to know them. I also think it's sort of a shame they "hide their lamp under a bushel."

I've also seen big shows that make the most of a thimble-full of talent. I don't really have a notion of why this is either. Other than the determination/drive of one was entertainment, the other was a sort of high-level Musical skill. I can't see one as better than the other.

[NursingDaBlues]

Sure, there's a point where monetary success is part of the picture. But I know several closet pickers that are nose-bleed good players, but shun the stage and/or spotlight. I dunno what to think, other than I feel very fortunate to know them. I also think it's sort of a shame they "hide their lamp under a bushel."

I've also seen big shows that make the most of a thimble-full of talent. I don't really have a notion of why this is either. Other than the determination/drive of one was entertainment, the other was a sort of high-level Musical skill. I can't see one as better than the other.

I've heard it said that some have a 'fire in the belly' to entertain, while others are perfectly content entertaining themselves.