How many teachers?

I'm a big fan of the Blank Slate theory too, but I believe there are limitations. Shaq is a bad example because his skill/talent is based largely on size.

To continue with the basketball analogy, let's look at John Stockton. He is roughly the same size as me, but he is a hall of fame basketball player. Are you suggesting that if I practiced as much as John Stockton I would be a hall of fame caliber basketball player. I really don't think so.

I might be REALLY REALLY good, and I might end up playing for a top division one college, but I won't be as good as John Stockton (most likely). In fact, I might even shoot free-throws with the same accuracy as Stockton, but he has something that I don't. I don't know what it is, but he has a certain TALENT for distributing the ball to open players. I can practice my technical form for hours and hours, and I can shoot and dribble as well as most players, but if I don't have that intangible 'it" I won't be as good as Stockton.

I think the same applies to guitar. Guitar is a metaphysical experience, so while it is the manipulation of your fingers and wrists that makes sound, there is something out there that makes MUSIC. And let's face it - people who are good at things tend to continue with those things. So, when a 10-year old kid catches on to the guitar pretty quickly the odds are that he or she will practice and become better. Whereas, the other 10-year old kid who just doesn't "get it" off the bat might not continue to play. Perhaps a form of natural selection?

By the way, those 10-year olds who didn't grasp the instrument and threw it down in frustration are probably the same folks who picked it up again at age 30. At 30 you are more likely to stick to practicing, and therefore getting better.

Oh, and that wasn't me - this thread is from no particular personal motivation. I never touched an instrument - aside fromthe air guitar - until I was 30.

Kingpatzer - "Your analogy is flawed."

Okay so i'll restate it.
If I have a very similar musculature and physical makeup as Nolan Ryan and I practice pitching everyday, 12 hours a day, eat, sleep, breathe baseball, read eveything I can, strength train, etc... I'll be able to throw just as fast as Nolan Ryan.

I still say no...

Nolan Ryan was more than a skilled player, he also had a natural athletic ability.

Shaq is an excellent player, but I can find people off the street who have similar builds and have them train with Shaq but they will never be Shaq.

Talent and physical makeup, or talent and skill are separate. However talent can influence the skill just as you can use your physical makeup to your advantage, aka Shaq.

As the Dali explains, there is an "it" factor that some have and others don't. I'd call "it" specified talent. By that I mean individuals can have a specified natural ability in a specific area. Some individuals have athletic talent, some do not. Some have musical talent, some do not. I'm sure you can teach anyone to play a Jimi Hendrix or Beethoven song, but that does not automatically mean they have the "it" those two had.
Nothing Hendrix ever played is beyond my capability. I can faithfully reproduce anything he played, even his mistakes, at tempo reliably time after time. I can reproduce Giacometti paintings to my hearts content but I'll never be Giacometti. Reproductions and the originals are never the same.
He was just the hard working talented musician of his day whose style and ideas caught the public attention. This is what I'm saying, Hendrix was more than a skilled player who worked hard at his skill. He also had talent.

Great musicians, whether they are world famous or not, are not great just because they practice a skill, it also involves talent to some degree or another otherwise they would simply be normal.

Great ballplayers, whether they are certain size or not, are not great just because they practice their skill, it also involves talent to some degree or another otherwise they would simply be normal.

Please note: I'm simply using Hendrix and Beethoven as examples. I'm not saying they are comparable to each other.

This is what I'm saying, Hendrix was more than a skilled player who worked hard at his skill. He also had talent.

"talent" is just applied skill.

He was talented because he practiced and worked hard.

His fame has much more to do with luck than with some ephemeral magic that he alone is graced with.

There are far more skilled/talented musicians out there that you've never heard of who just didn't have the luck of being in the right place at the right time.

And you might not be Stockton, btw, but again it wouldn't because he possessed something you didn't. Stockton had plenty of luck on his side as well. Starting with the luck to be paired with someone who could do something with his passes.

Do you think if he was passing to Donny Marshall who had a career FG%'age of 32% instead of to the Mailman that he would still be a HoF player?

He was also lucky enough to stay very healthy for his whole career. If instead of averaging over 79 games a year for 19 years he managed to tear an ACL in his first year he'd be an HOF'er?

This isn't to take anything away with these folks. They had the character and work ethic to do something with the opportunities they had. But it isn't something mystical that is out of reach of anyone else with the same genetic limitations.

Music isn't something that's determined by how loose or tight your ligaments are. Or how many fast twitch muscle fibers you have in your ankle. But even in those situations the reality is that while you may not be the biggest, fastest, strongest, or whatever, that doesn't stop you from being a top flight performer in those fields as well. It just means you have to perform within what your limits are.

But those things aren't talent. Being blessed with great lateral vision, or amazing speed isn't "talent," anymore than being tall or fat are talents. Those things by themselves don't make for a great athlete.

The same goes for musicians. Great musicians are made, not born.

Surely it isn't just the physical ability?
As mentioned earlier, a poster claims he can copy Jimi note for note and I have heard similar from Robert Cray amongst others; However, it was Jimi who visualised and then realised that sound to bring it out, and that is the natural ability. Can the same guy write songs that everyone wants to play? I could probably practice and become a better guitarist than Lennon, but I couldn't write 'Tomorrow Never Knows', 'Imagine' or anything approaching that. Similarly I could probably learn to become a half-decent rhythm guitarist, but I couldn't improvise a solo like SRV, BB or Vai for eg! I just don't get songssounds etc appearing in my head like the musical geniuses do, and that is what can't be learned IMO.
And yes there may be more talented musicians out there but I'd doubt they wereare 'far more' talented than Hendrix, otherwise why would so many other excellent musicians claim him to be exceptional?

And yes there may be more talented musicians out there but I'd doubt they wereare 'far more' talented than Hendrix, otherwise why would so many other excellent musicians claim him to be exceptional?

Because we want to believe in heroes after which to follow.

Very few people have the courage to first go against the grain, and even fewer are going to publically say that they are most influenced by that old blues guy who sometimes busks on K street.

If for no other reason than making money as a musician means playing what's popular.

Hendrix's fame is far more about his public appeal than about his skill as a musician.

The one point made that I do agree with is that the inspiration to make up those songs is something that people don't understand. But that also is just another aspect of being a musician.

Is someone who can faithfully play dozens of classical pieces with flawless technique less of a guitarist than someone who writes their own riffs?

If you say yes, I'd suggest that Segovia might disagree

This thread has taken an interesting turn...

A random thought (like most of mine) about guitar. Before I picked up the guitar for the first time I had a mystical view of musical instruments. I believe most people feel this way. There is a perception that a person must be supremely talented or have some kind of hidden ability to play a musical instrument. I think that most people don't even try because they don't think they have "it"...

After my first lesson I was amazed by the fact that learning a musical instrument is much more than simply having talent. It is hard work, practice, and an open mind.

This statement may seem to contradict my previous posts, but I felt like I should mention it. I do believe that innate talent and physical limitations DO exist. I find it nearly impossible to believe that genetics play NO PART in how good an individual can be with regard to any skill, but I am definitely willing to admit that anyone can learn how to play an instrument. I think the speed of learning and ultimate ceiling of each individual is based largely on genetics.

OK, now I'll go away.

"talent" is just applied skill.
I disagree. Talent is NOT "just applied skill". Talent is a natural ability towards a particular skill.
He was talented because he practiced and worked hard.
Again I disagree.
His fame has much more to do with luck than with some ephemeral magic that he alone is graced with.
So is every person who is famous, only so because he happened to get lucky? Doubtful.
There are far more skilled/talented musicians out there that you've never heard of who just didn't have the luck of being in the right place at the right time.
I'm certain there are skilled and talented muscians who were/are better than Jimi at playing guitar but I have to question the "right place at right time" perspective. Some are famous because they have the drive to be so. I have a friend who is currently in Nashville working his tail off to become a "famous" musician. Sure some get lucky, but I'd say the majority have worked hard to get where they are.
I could probably practice and become a better guitarist than Lennon, but I couldn't write 'Tomorrow Never Knows', 'Imagine' or anything approaching that. Similarly I could probably learn to become a half-decent rhythm guitarist, but I couldn't improvise a solo like SRV, BB or Vai for eg! I just don't get songssounds etc appearing in my head like the musical geniuses do, and that is what can't be learned IMO.
I agree.

My original point from the very beginning of all this is that it takes more than skill to play a guitar. It takes, skill which is earned by practice, hard work, determination and ambition. But it also takes talent. To be great you need to have the "it factor". Some people have it. Some don't.

My younger brother started playing a few years or so after I did. In about a year he'd caught up with me, and another year after that he'd gone way past the level I was at. Both of us worked at it about the same amount back then. It's not just matter of him being a quicker learner, or more dexterous, or anything like that, he's just naturally talented. It's all about the feeling he generates in his playing, and he's got it in spades. There are subtle nuances in his playing that make my jaw drop. I can see what he's doing, analyse it (over-analyse maybe :)), copy it and I will - with much effort - be able to begin to see a little of in my own playing. He's not even thinking about it, he hasn't been taught it, he's not spent ages scowling with concentration at other people's playing like I have, he's just doing it.

All the argument in the world will not convince me that anyone can apply skill and produce talent beyond a certain, limited amount. The way I see it is that natural talent is a something that multiplies the skill you work up, rather than add to it or start you a little further along the road. The difference is very little if there's no work put in, and hard work will improve any level of player (that's why I think other people think there's no such thing as natural talent), but when you see it first hand, as I have in my little bro, there's no doubt how it works as a multiplier :)

That's not to say it's not worth doing if you're not "a natural", it's just about realism. Should there only be one band in the world, made up of the best guitarist, the best bassist, the best vocalist and the best drummer? (one of them being the best songwriter, naturally). Everyone else should go and sulk in the corner because they'll never be quite as good, no matter how close they can get? Nope, I didn't think so either. :)

(PS, Can you tell I'm intensely proud and jealous of my bro all at once? :mrgreen:)

Darn it - you edited your post before I finished!

Some would say that the Mailman was the Mailman because of the passes received from Stockton. A lot of dunks and layups courtesy of the passed from Stockton. Classic chicken or egg question.

I think what my point is can be summed up from a quote of yours:

"Music isn't something that's determined by how loose or tight your ligaments are. Or how many fast twitch muscle fibers you have in your ankle. But even in those situations the reality is that while you may not be the biggest, fastest, strongest, or whatever, that doesn't stop you from being a top flight performer in those fields as well. It just means you have to perform within what your limits are. "

Each musician has to perform within his or her limitations. Contrary to your assertion above, not everyone can play speed metal. Some people just can't move their wrist that quickly. They just can't! As much as you want to say that they could practice and practice until they could - they might just not be able to (or their wrist might fall off trying). In those instances they have to adjust. Just like your boy Django.

I'd love to believe that we all can "be whatever we want to be" but that isn't reality. We can be as good as we can be, but that might not be as good as we want to be.

Anyway - I agree 100% about successful musicians - all the "guitar gods" in the world may not be actual "guitar gods" in terms of playing ability, but I think song writing skill over a period of time is actually what makes them "guitar gods" anyway. For instance, to me Jeff Beck is a solid guitar player, but not a guitar god. Why? I just don't think his music is all that enjoyable to listen to, and it doesn't seem to "work" with a large amount of people. He's technically very proficient, but his writing skills to me are lackluster overall. Then you look at Angus Young. Well, pretty decent guitar player, but overall his chops are probably not up to Jeff Beck's. Everyone loves Angus Young, though, because he writes catchy tunes and wears a school-boy outfit...(?)

I'm certain there are skilled and talented muscians who were/are better than Jimi at playing guitar but I have to question the "right place at right time" perspective. Some are famous because they have the drive to be so. I have a friend who is currently in Nashville working his tail off to become a "famous" musician. Sure some get lucky, but I'd say the majority have worked hard to get where they are.

Sure, some did.

Some didn't work at all. What instruments did Micky Dolenz or Davy Jones play before the Monkeys again?

But fame comes from a roll of the dice. Many are famous who don't "deserve" it, and plenty more who have worked far harder are simply never heard of.

Sure, some did.

Some didn't work at all. What instruments did Micky Dolenz or Davy Jones play before the Monkeys again?

But fame comes from a roll of the dice. Many are famous who don't "deserve" it, and plenty more who have worked far harder are simply never heard of.
Sorry, this time I have to question your comparison! Neither of those to would claim to be a musician, however both had been acting for many years prior to the Monkees! Again, hard work, a certain charisma and some acting ability helped.
And do you consider either of those to be musical geniouses?

Some didn't work at all. What instruments did Micky Dolenz or Davy Jones play before the Monkeys again?

But fame comes from a roll of the dice. Many are famous who don't "deserve" it, and plenty more who have worked far harder are simply never heard of.

I agree with some of that. Some didn't earn it or work hard for it. I can think of a few pop "bands", put together by record labels, who didnt have an ounce of talent and the world loved them.

I will also agree that there are several who didnt "make it" but should have.

The Dali: well said..
ChordsandScales: also well said..

I'll tell you, growing up I had aspirations of becoming a pro bmx freestyle rider. I grew up riding bikes, from my first 20" Mongoose Expert, I lived for it. I eventually got pretty darned good. I rode with some of the best of them, Lucky, Taj, Dave Mirra, although I wasn't at the level they were. These guys had something I didn't.

Kingpatzer, I'm honestly not trying to argue with you. I simply disagreed with some of the points you made. Just a friendly debate! :)

This is an interesting thread and I have always been of the belief that not everyone will be good at something no matter how hard you try. The examples of sports etc., are alittle scewed since much of that has to do with physical genetics that the individual has no control over.

But how about this, if you took a group of 10 people and started them on some task, whether it's guitar playing, singing, basketball, golf, anything it doesn't matter and they all were given the same equipment the same teachers, practiced for exactly the same amount of time I think you would find at the end of the experiment that you have 10 people of varying skills...so what do you attribute that too? Maybe the people the one that was better than everyone else has something the others don't...natural ability.

I think everyone has certain limitations so in theory it's great to say that if you put your mind to it and your determined you can do anything, but reality says for most people it ain't gonna happen.

Each musician has to perform within his or her limitations. Contrary to your assertion above, not everyone can play speed metal. Some people just can't move their wrist that quickly. They just can't! As much as you want to say that they could practice and practice until they could - they might just not be able to (or their wrist might fall off trying). In those instances they have to adjust. Just like your boy Django.

But I'm not asserting that anyone can play speed metal.

I'm asserting that anyone can be a premier musician.

BB King can't play speed metal. Do you want to claim that means he's not a great guitarist?

Maybe you don't have the musical imagination of Hendrix, so play Classical where improvisation and compositional skills aren't that important.

Maybe you can't play very fast, so play blues, country or jazz where a well placed single note is more important than speed.

Whatever your personal strengths and weaknesses are, you can rise to an elite level. All it takes is focused hard work and time.
But how about this, if you took a group of 10 people and started them on some task, whether it's guitar playing, singing, basketball, golf, anything it doesn't matter and they all were given the same equipment the same teachers, practiced for exactly the same amount of time I think you would find at the end of the experiment that you have 10 people of varying skills...so what do you attribute that too? Maybe the people the one that was better than everyone else has something the others don't...natural ability.

But no one is saying that everyone will get to the same level in the same amount of time.

Some people will take more time than others, but it isn't the case that they can't get there.

And frankly, as a teacher, I've found that many of the people who "practice really hard" don't practice well, which is why I've continually stressed properly focused hard work in my argument.

Just because you have a guitar in your hand and you're trying to improve doesn't mean you'll be successfull if you're not practicing properly -- and being taught how to practice well is one of the biggest advantages of a good teacher (and one of the biggest draw backs of a poor teacher!)