Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > Instruments > Guitar Techniques
User Name  
Password
Search:

Closed Thread
Old 08-20-2013, 04:27 PM   #41
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mc
so if you self-select out all the dossers and those without natural talent (as classical training at conservatories has done), they're better than electric guitarists where that same self-selection hasn't happened?

Got it.

Probably don't send off your nobel lecture just yet.


Do i speak Klingon or something dude? Where did i say rule out those without natural talent? all iam saying is take both "talented" and "untalented" in a conservatory...those from BOTH categories that ll do the work without fail,follow the program without shitty attitude like " i dont need that i ll only learn this and that" ll be AT LEAST very good.From BOTH catergories.

Now take electric guitarists with the same amount of effort and hours spend and positive attitude again "talented" and "untalented" and you ll find out that wayyyy more of them from BOTH categories fail to achieve a decent level.Some even downright embarassing.
__________________
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 04:43 PM   #42
Funk Monk
Shutup N' Play Yer Guitar
 
Funk Monk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Nature or Nuture? Nuture.
__________________
Funk Monk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 07:17 PM   #43
Dave_Mc
Chirp and Swirl
 
Dave_Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
(a) Do i speak Klingon or something dude? Where did i say rule out those without natural talent? all iam saying is take both "talented" and "untalented" in a conservatory...those from BOTH categories that ll do the work without fail,follow the program without shitty attitude like " i dont need that i ll only learn this and that" ll be AT LEAST very good.From BOTH catergories.

(b) Now take electric guitarists with the same amount of effort and hours spend and positive attitude again "talented" and "untalented" and you ll find out that wayyyy more of them from BOTH categories fail to achieve a decent level.Some even downright embarassing.


(a) I'm saying that it self-selects them out. I could be wrong, but I get the feeling that not too many people who have absolutely no aptitude whatsoever for music are at music conservatories. In fact, IIRC the original "10,000 hours" study itself made the claim that they figured they could ignore the natural talent factor, because anyone who had got that far was probably pretty talented naturally.

A little bit of a stretch, in my opinion, as I'd still wager that some are slightly better or slightly worse naturally, but at the same time I'd agree that it'd most likely be fairly safe to assume that those with absolutely no natural aptitude hadn't made it that far, when you consider the ridiculous hours of practising those who have a fair amount of natural talent are putting in to get there.

(b) how do you know they're spending the same number of hours?

also I don't disagree that structured practise etc. is better than no (or half-assed practise). I'm certainly not suggesting that practise isn't important, or that those who are talented don't practise as well (apart from in very isolated, extreme instances), so i dunno what point you're making there. You're arguing with a point I'm not making, in fact a point I agree with.

Where I disagree is that you're then using that (erroneously, IMO) to back up your assertion that, therefore, there's no such thing as natural talent.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemurflames
I had a Blackstar. I felt like I was lied to by Chappers, that fat ****.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roc8995
Rob Chappers would tell you he couldn't tell a cat from a dog if it would get him more hits on youtube.


Dave_Mc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 01:38 AM   #44
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mc
I'm saying that it self-selects them out. I could be wrong, but I get the feeling that not too many people who have absolutely no aptitude whatsoever for music are at music conservatories. In fact, IIRC the original "10,000 hours" study itself made the claim that they figured they could ignore the natural talent factor, because anyone who had got that far was probably pretty talented naturally.


"I get the feeling that not too many people who have absolutely no aptitude whatsoever for music are at music conservatories"

So you basically say most already gifted poeple go there in the first place.DEAD WRONG.Everyone that WANTS to learn goes there.Your problem and other folks problem who think alike is that you always see the end result of a good player and go "sure he should have been pretty talented in the first place".That the actual erroreous assertion right there.

You logic is like that of the lazy " god in the cracks" mentality of religious folks.Whatever they cant explain TODAY is god.Same with you and talent...whatever surpasses me or feel that its too good or required serious practise and dedication to get it i name it TALENT to get it over with and feel that i have all the answers.Cause the alternative is too....much....freaking....work...and we cant have that.Lets go with fairydust: its vague,illusive,requires zero effort and helps me sleep better at nights thinking that the reason someone is better than me is talent .
__________________
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 03:15 PM   #45
Dave_Mc
Chirp and Swirl
 
Dave_Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
I'm guessing they have entrance requirements and exams- people who want to learn and who pass the entry requirements go there. That's a little bit different from your claim, which is that solely people who want to learn go there.

I also find it kinda bemusing how you're claiming other people believe in fairy dust, yet you have cast-iron belief 100% that you're right. Just because you think you're right doesn't make it so.

I also note you didn't contradict my example of Chrissie Wellington.

I also never said that those people in the conservatories didn't work hard *too*. I'm certainly not saying that everyone at the conservatory never practised, because that'd be crazy talk. Those people put in a ridiculous numbers of hours. I'm well aware of that. The problem is you're advocating a false dichotomy- either people work hard, *or* they're talented. The truth in most instances is a bit of both.

I also find it kind of offensive how you just assume I'm a crappy player, and by extension, anyone who disagrees with you. I don't think guthrie govan or anyone like that is particularly worried by how I play, but I think I'm alrightish. Last time I checked, those people at music conservatories mostly didn't have science degrees, either.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemurflames
I had a Blackstar. I felt like I was lied to by Chappers, that fat ****.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roc8995
Rob Chappers would tell you he couldn't tell a cat from a dog if it would get him more hits on youtube.


Dave_Mc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 04:15 PM   #46
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mc
I'm guessing they have entrance requirements and exams- people who want to learn and who pass the entry requirements go there. That's a little bit different from your claim, which is that solely people who want to learn go there.

I also find it kinda bemusing how you're claiming other people believe in fairy dust, yet you have cast-iron belief 100% that you're right. Just because you think you're right doesn't make it so.

I also note you didn't contradict my example of Chrissie Wellington.

I also never said that those people in the conservatories didn't work hard *too*. I'm certainly not saying that everyone at the conservatory never practised, because that'd be crazy talk. Those people put in a ridiculous numbers of hours. I'm well aware of that. The problem is you're advocating a false dichotomy- either people work hard, *or* they're talented. The truth in most instances is a bit of both.

I also find it kind of offensive how you just assume I'm a crappy player, and by extension, anyone who disagrees with you. I don't think guthrie govan or anyone like that is particularly worried by how I play, but I think I'm alrightish. Last time I checked, those people at music conservatories mostly didn't have science degrees, either.


First of all i never talked about what kind of player you are nor did i ever claim to know you....when did this get about you?read carefully before you type.Second....if you want to write about something KNOW IT and not guess.Cause the are no entry requirements to learn classical guitar or violin or piano etc etc etc.Dont know about your country but in mine and most others there are schools everywhere where anyone can go and learn following the curriculum everyone follows.There are no entry exams or competitions you watch too much Fame i guess....

I see you have hard time reading....cause i never said its either work hard or be talented...... i basically say
1scenario people must work hard...
2 scenario people must work hard
3 scenario people must work hard
n scenario people must work hard etc etc etc......get it? i have never put "talent" in the equation.My paradigm of the conservatories is key because its the perfect example that when there is solid curriculum that is actually followed without fail the excuses about talent go out of the window.Thats why in electric you can meet a Guthrie or a Lane but most of the times you meet a guy that is playing 20 years and has barely the ability of hacking a few blues licks(and blaming his talentless self probably).Find a guy that plays violin for that amount of time or way less, had the proper training and isnt at the very least excellent even if he is not the ultimate solist that sells out concerts.

And finally the talent you think you might be able to measure is most of the times something practised and sometimes even without knowing.Cause you may find someone for example who has a great ear and he ll tell you truthfully he had no ear training.You go...."damn i wish i had that,what a great gift"....what you may not know though, is that this guy for example for years and years ,was out of habit, singing everything he was playing which is an excellent ear training exercise in its own right.In his mind he never ear trained although in reality he did it for years...so he did the right thing by chance but in his mind its talent .

And last i dont know who Chrissie Wellington is and frankly i dont care.If you have something to say say it.
__________________

Last edited by Dreamdancer11 : 08-21-2013 at 04:28 PM.
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 04:27 PM   #47
Dave_Mc
Chirp and Swirl
 
Dave_Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
any decent school (I'm talking conservatory/university level school) here or in the USA or wherever will have entrance requirements. Maybe your country is different. if it is, it's the exception.

it was pretty strongly implied that anyone who believed in talent must be lazy, that they were using that as a crutch to justify their own mediocre performance.

I agree with you regarding people practising without even realising it. but that still doesn't mean that some people don't practise less than others (or more than others) etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrissie_Wellington

short version: she broke almost all the world records in triathlon despite only taking the sport up in her 30s. that's against people who'd been training for it for their entire lives. in fact, she came second in the first Coast-to-Coast she entered, despite only having had rudimentary training in kayaking just before the race, and never having done kayaking before.

An extreme example? of course. But if you make superlative comments ("no such thing as talent!; everyone who's good at anything has worked hard all their lives!") all I have to find is one valid example, no matter how extreme, to prove you wrong.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemurflames
I had a Blackstar. I felt like I was lied to by Chappers, that fat ****.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roc8995
Rob Chappers would tell you he couldn't tell a cat from a dog if it would get him more hits on youtube.



Last edited by Dave_Mc : 08-21-2013 at 04:32 PM.
Dave_Mc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 04:44 PM   #48
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mc
any decent school (I'm talking conservatory/university level school) here or in the USA or wherever will have entrance requirements. Maybe your country is different. if it is, it's the exception.

it was pretty strongly implied that anyone who believed in talent must be lazy, that they were using that as a crutch to justify their own mediocre performance.

I agree with you regarding people practising without even realising it. but that still doesn't mean that some people don't practise less than others (or more than others) etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrissie_Wellington

short version: she broke almost all the world records in triathlon despite only taking the sport up in her 30s. that's against people who'd been training for it for their entire lives. in fact, she came second in the first Coast-to-Coast she entered, despite only having had rudimentary training in kayaking just before the race, and never having done kayaking before.

An extreme example? of course. But if you make superlative comments ("no such thing as talent!; everyone who's good at anything has worked hard all their lives!") all I have to find is one valid example, no matter how extreme, to prove you wrong.



Doesnt matter mate if your country requires entry exams and other countries dont or whatever...doesnt change the fact that anyone can go there even the most talentless person but if he has the desire to follow the curriculum to the letter he ll be a very good all rounded musician regardless.

Yes mostly talking about talent is the crutch of the lazy.It was never enough to be the deciding factor for anything.Its like worrying about the 1% you may or may not have while the rest 99% decides everything.

As for your example....call me when a 30 year old pencil pusher wins the 100 or 200 or 400 meters in track and field for example(i can quarantee that ll never happen).....dont call me if he or she ll win the marathon cause that has small chances of happening due to the nature of the sport......just like your triathlon queen.
__________________
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 05:49 PM   #49
Dave_Mc
Chirp and Swirl
 
Dave_Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
kinda hard to go if you live in a country (i.e. most countries) which do have entrance requirements and you don't have the funds to go to another country to do it (or don't speak the language).

I think it depends, regarding the talent thing. In some cases, yes, I agree, hard work can overcome the lack of talent. But it depends on how profound that lack of talent is, for example. Again, an extreme example, but it doesn't matter how much I practise basketball, I'm never gonna be 6'10" tall.

That's pretty convenient if you get to discount sports that are an exception to your rule.

Does Usain Bolt train so much harder than everyone else? Because he's head and shoulders above everyone else, almost painfully so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usain_bolt

Hmmmm

"Upon his entry to William Knibb Memorial High School, Bolt continued to focus on other sports, but his cricket coach noticed Bolt's speed on the pitch and urged him to try track and field events.[24] Pablo McNeil, a former Olympic sprint athlete,[25] and Dwayne Jarrett coached Bolt,[26] encouraging him to focus his energy on improving his athletic abilities. The school had a history of success in athletics with past students, including sprinter Michael Green.[15] Bolt won his first annual high school championships medal in 2001, taking the silver medal in the 200 metres with a time of 22.04 seconds.[15] McNeil soon became his primary coach, and the two enjoyed a positive partnership, although McNeil was occasionally frustrated by Bolt's lack of dedication to his training and his penchant for practical jokes.[25]

(my bolding)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemurflames
I had a Blackstar. I felt like I was lied to by Chappers, that fat ****.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roc8995
Rob Chappers would tell you he couldn't tell a cat from a dog if it would get him more hits on youtube.


Dave_Mc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 06:19 PM   #50
Zaphod_Beeblebr
Shallow and pedantic.
 
Zaphod_Beeblebr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind a desk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
Doesnt matter mate if your country requires entry exams and other countries dont or whatever...doesnt change the fact that anyone can go there even the most talentless person but if he has the desire to follow the curriculum to the letter he ll be a very good all rounded musician regardless.


I believe that the point is that there is some ambiguity over whether failing the entrance exams is because of a lack of talent or practice. There is also a fair bit of ambiguity as to whether the people who don't go for them in the first place do so because of a lack of will or a lack of talent. It's almost impossible to know which, in reality.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by steven seagull
Zaphod wins...flawless victory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freepower
Another flawless victory for Zaph!



Zaphod_Beeblebr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 09:51 PM   #51
Jes Johnson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Well, there is something to be said for natural talent. Mozart was playing for royalty when he was like five. But I also think it's very over-valued. Like many others said, what separates great guitarists from the merely talented is a lot of practice and work.

That said, it also matters what kind of practice you do. If things really aren't working for you, you might consider looking for a teacher or possibly online lessons. Something that'll take your playing where it needs to go. But man, if you really want it, don't give up. Trust me, it's worth it in the end.
Jes Johnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 10:23 PM   #52
aerosmithfan95
Call me Billy.
 
aerosmithfan95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the pipes
Well, I thought I'd sneak my way into this argument. Sorry if it's a bit confusing at times since it's getting late and I'm tired.

I personally believe that talent exists in anything and can help people improve. With music, that's finger dexterity, coordination of both hands, good hearing, pitch identification, creativity (improvising, music making), etc. People that are naturally "better" at relating pitches and physical attributes to their instrument (hand coordination for guitar, better lungs for woodwinds) will have an easier time progressing than their peer who doesn't have a great ear or a bit clumsy playing.

Practicing is what sets everything aside, though. If Joe is born into a musical family and has a great ear, pretty good technique, and only plays guitar for an hour a week he can still become better a bit quicker do to his natural abilities. Now, take Bob for example, he has no musical background and a somewhat fair ear for music, and ok technique on the guitar. Bob practices for hours a day, everyday and is very dedicated. Within the first few years, someone like Joe will seem better but his attitude of barely putting any effort in will hinder him whereas Bob will end up becoming a great player with tons of dedication. Take any "shredder" on Youtube since they have phenomenal technique. Even though they play amazingly, they aren't able to produce much of any music while a guy like Slash may be a bit sloppy at times but he'll be dedicated enough to get better and make music.

This argument is very similar to athletics in my opinion. In (American) football, it's considered good for a quarterback to be pretty strong, a great thrower, pretty fast, a smart decision leader, and able to handle pressure of being blitzed. At the high school and college level when most of these players are still physically and mentally developing, you can see a ton of different attitudes. In high school, the school's starting QB is pretty fast and strong while their 2nd string isn't the best thrower, and average in speed and strength. The starter will rely on his natural abilities and not really care how he does in the future while the 2nd stringer continually works to improve. I mean, look at Tom Brady. He started playing at 14, didn't have great numbers in workouts, and he's now considered one of the best QBs in NFL history due to his dedication to become great.

So, talent does exist. What makes someone actually good is their dedication and drive to improve. If they have an attitude of "Yeah, I'm good. I don't have to practice much," they won't get better at it. If the person in question actually has the desire to become great, then their natural abilities will help them get to the level they want to be.
__________________
AF95

Guitar --> Pedals --> Amplifier
aerosmithfan95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 02:15 AM   #53
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphod_Beeblebr
I believe that the point is that there is some ambiguity over whether failing the entrance exams is because of a lack of talent or practice. There is also a fair bit of ambiguity as to whether the people who don't go for them in the first place do so because of a lack of will or a lack of talent. It's almost impossible to know which, in reality.


Its because of lack of dedication.People always complain and usually overdramatize situations to appear as the victims or the ones that were handed natures bad hand but in a dead honest reality they are simply not dedicated enough.If they cant do something in the timeframe THEY THINK it must be done then they go "i have no talent for this" When on the other hand they achieve something through blood sweat and tears they simply say "oh that old thing?hehe it came pretty natural to me"...to appear naturally "talented".

The are about a million reasons why someone fails in something and inate talent is the last in the list.Huge amounts of stress,bad studying plan,Incompetent teacher,lack or drive and dedication,short attention span,personal issues, or usually combinations of all the above.Inate talent is like god as i mentioned earlier.They like it cause it explains everything by default without the need to really analyze and find the heart of the problem.Its useful when you want to envoke sympathy(from the lack of it) or admiration (for having it) but under the microscope so to speak doesnt hold any significant value that ll make or break you .
__________________

Last edited by Dreamdancer11 : 08-22-2013 at 02:23 AM.
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 06:39 AM   #54
Zaphod_Beeblebr
Shallow and pedantic.
 
Zaphod_Beeblebr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind a desk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamdancer11
Its because of lack of dedication.People always complain and usually overdramatize situations to appear as the victims or the ones that were handed natures bad hand but in a dead honest reality they are simply not dedicated enough.If they cant do something in the timeframe THEY THINK it must be done then they go "i have no talent for this" When on the other hand they achieve something through blood sweat and tears they simply say "oh that old thing?hehe it came pretty natural to me"...to appear naturally "talented".

The are about a million reasons why someone fails in something and inate talent is the last in the list.Huge amounts of stress,bad studying plan,Incompetent teacher,lack or drive and dedication,short attention span,personal issues, or usually combinations of all the above.Inate talent is like god as i mentioned earlier.They like it cause it explains everything by default without the need to really analyze and find the heart of the problem.Its useful when you want to envoke sympathy(from the lack of it) or admiration (for having it) but under the microscope so to speak doesnt hold any significant value that ll make or break you .


At no point will you find me arguing that "talent" is an excuse for lack of discipline or practice; I really do agree that if a person practices enough the will become at the very least a competent player.

I'm just clarifying the point that Dave is trying to make; actual concrete proof that 'talent' either doesn't matter or isn't a thing is startlingly hard to come by outside of Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers", which is still the subject of substantial criticism.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by steven seagull
Zaphod wins...flawless victory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freepower
Another flawless victory for Zaph!



Zaphod_Beeblebr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 01:53 PM   #55
Dave_Mc
Chirp and Swirl
 
Dave_Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
^ exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphod_Beeblebr
I believe that the point is that there is some ambiguity over whether failing the entrance exams is because of a lack of talent or practice. There is also a fair bit of ambiguity as to whether the people who don't go for them in the first place do so because of a lack of will or a lack of talent. It's almost impossible to know which, in reality.


yeah, exactly.

But he has it all worked out. I bow to his omniscience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aerosmithfan95
Well, I thought I'd sneak my way into this argument. Sorry if it's a bit confusing at times since it's getting late and I'm tired.

I personally believe that talent exists in anything and can help people improve. With music, that's finger dexterity, coordination of both hands, good hearing, pitch identification, creativity (improvising, music making), etc. People that are naturally "better" at relating pitches and physical attributes to their instrument (hand coordination for guitar, better lungs for woodwinds) will have an easier time progressing than their peer who doesn't have a great ear or a bit clumsy playing.

Practicing is what sets everything aside, though. If Joe is born into a musical family and has a great ear, pretty good technique, and only plays guitar for an hour a week he can still become better a bit quicker do to his natural abilities. Now, take Bob for example, he has no musical background and a somewhat fair ear for music, and ok technique on the guitar. Bob practices for hours a day, everyday and is very dedicated. Within the first few years, someone like Joe will seem better but his attitude of barely putting any effort in will hinder him whereas Bob will end up becoming a great player with tons of dedication. Take any "shredder" on Youtube since they have phenomenal technique. Even though they play amazingly, they aren't able to produce much of any music while a guy like Slash may be a bit sloppy at times but he'll be dedicated enough to get better and make music.

This argument is very similar to athletics in my opinion. In (American) football, it's considered good for a quarterback to be pretty strong, a great thrower, pretty fast, a smart decision leader, and able to handle pressure of being blitzed. At the high school and college level when most of these players are still physically and mentally developing, you can see a ton of different attitudes. In high school, the school's starting QB is pretty fast and strong while their 2nd string isn't the best thrower, and average in speed and strength. The starter will rely on his natural abilities and not really care how he does in the future while the 2nd stringer continually works to improve. I mean, look at Tom Brady. He started playing at 14, didn't have great numbers in workouts, and he's now considered one of the best QBs in NFL history due to his dedication to become great.

So, talent does exist. What makes someone actually good is their dedication and drive to improve. If they have an attitude of "Yeah, I'm good. I don't have to practice much," they won't get better at it. If the person in question actually has the desire to become great, then their natural abilities will help them get to the level they want to be.


+1

I would say though that, in very extreme instances, it's possible to have enough natural talent to get by without much (or any) work. Look at chrissie wellington, or george best, or someone like that.

But it is a very extreme case, and in most instances it doesn't apply.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemurflames
I had a Blackstar. I felt like I was lied to by Chappers, that fat ****.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roc8995
Rob Chappers would tell you he couldn't tell a cat from a dog if it would get him more hits on youtube.


Dave_Mc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 03:38 PM   #56
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Talent is the practise that happens when no one is looking....everything is aquired.Take improvisation for example that seems to be instantanious and totally coming...from the heart.Now dig deep and you ll find out that the improviser was listening to countless albums of this kind of music all his life (so he is resuffling imprinted ideas),most of his other lines are prearranged and though out, add also a good number of stock licks and it leaves only a small window of something truly and utterly improvised. That doesnt mean its not good of course but it means its not truly improvised with the pure sense of the word.

Now we can debate this till the cows come home but in reality the things someone calls innate talents about an individual are simply variables that the researcher isnt aware of but make all the difference in the world.Thats why following the example above you wont find anyone(lets say born in a deserted island listening only classical and pop music) to create or improvise something in jazz or fusion....neeeever gonna happen.... no matter how talented you think he is .
__________________

Last edited by Dreamdancer11 : 08-22-2013 at 03:58 PM.
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 04:07 PM   #57
Dave_Mc
Chirp and Swirl
 
Dave_Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
how do you explain savants, then? or people who have a brain injury and suddenly start speaking norwegian, say?

I mean you can say stuff like that all you like, and I even agree with you- but the important thing is, "for the most part". There are definite, verified, scientifically accepted examples which contradict what you're saying. extreme examples, sure.

even in less extreme examples, take a course in school where everyone is a beginner, and they genuinely haven't studied any of it before. Some people pick it up faster than others.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemurflames
I had a Blackstar. I felt like I was lied to by Chappers, that fat ****.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roc8995
Rob Chappers would tell you he couldn't tell a cat from a dog if it would get him more hits on youtube.



Last edited by Dave_Mc : 08-22-2013 at 04:08 PM.
Dave_Mc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 04:53 PM   #58
sweetdude3000
Registered User
 
sweetdude3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Well I guess I don't have the guitar god gene so I probably want work hard anyway cause I'll never get good and it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy lol
sweetdude3000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 05:40 PM   #59
Dreamdancer11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mc
how do you explain savants, then? or people who have a brain injury and suddenly start speaking norwegian, say?

I mean you can say stuff like that all you like, and I even agree with you- but the important thing is, "for the most part". There are definite, verified, scientifically accepted examples which contradict what you're saying. extreme examples, sure.

even in less extreme examples, take a course in school where everyone is a beginner, and they genuinely haven't studied any of it before. Some people pick it up faster than others.



There are also scientific studies that do the exact opposite mate.....in reality there is no definate proof of innate talent.Savants are autistic individuals that their condition forces the brain to zero in,focus and basically remember things more efficiently.Still do you know any savant or any musician famous or not to create a whole new genre with each impro he does? of course not cause in the end he resuffles what he aquired,what he LEARNED, you cant take someone isolated who hasnt heard a genre of music and then hear him play something remotely similar(or make something totally different) simply because he hasnt....aquired it yet.....hasnt learned it....hasnt been exposed to it.

As i said 99% perspiration 1% inspiration.....of course in the end you can believe anything you want , but seriously worrying about innate talent is the same like worrying about the possibility of a lightning striking you when you walk .
__________________
Dreamdancer11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 05:47 PM   #60
Velcro Man
A person
 
Velcro Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ohio
That's the thing about savant, as stated, their minds are developed to block everything but their particular skill, which allows them to absorb the knowledge like crazy, but at the same time, the moment you try to tell them to play something sad or happy, they don't know what it means, they lack any creative ability.
Velcro Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:02 AM.

Forum Archives / About / Terms of Use / Advertise / Contact / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2014
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.