TubeNet

"Good leaders are born that way, no amount of training is going to change the fact that a man is born to lead" Patton


I am of the mind that says, with enough hard work, anyone can learn to play an instrument to the highest caliber, however, true musicianship is not something ANYONE can learn. Let's face it, either you got it or you don't. You can learn a few tricks here and there, but they are just that tricks, not innate expressions for which you have no explanation other than it is right. Some of the best musicians I have ever heard were not the best players, but they always were held in regard for that certain quality in their playing that defied explanation but everyone knows is special.


Chuck

.

I like what Rich Matteson had to say on the subject.

Listen Here: http://www.richmatteson.com/Track09.mp3

or read it on his site: http://www.richmatteson.com/philos2.html

Gen 4 :20 And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock.
His brother's name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. (and the tuba)

Winston, I couldn't disagree more. I know plenty of players we now consider virtuoso masters that were never even considered to be average players during their development. I think it is a very dangerous road we go down when we believe that nobody can do what we do unless they have some undefineable quality that we can neither identify nor legitimately determine a source.

This is a metaphysical argument, much like "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?". The whole presumption of the argument is flawed. That presumption, that playing music at a virtuosic level requires some "gift" that you're either born with or not, presupposes that there aren't learnable skills associated with such playing. You'll often hear the phrases "natural player" and "prodigy" but what exactly are we defining? In my experience, playing at the highest levels is a skill that one commits to learning or not. I can also cite you many examples of players who had "it" and became engineers, carpenters, store clerks, and anything else you can imagine that has nothing to do with music. Having "it" is neither required to become a virtuoso player nor is it a ticket to that level of playing. It is simply a gauge of how quickly an individual learns the process. In my experience, anybody can learn to play at those levels and the ones that don't just don't work hard enough, based on how quickly they are capable of learning the skills.

I would propose a much more accurate way to judge a player's capacity to be a virtuoso player: How much do they desire to be successful? In my experience, desire outclasses all other factors. The players that feel the need, the absolute necessity to be a performing musician, are the ones that find the path to their dreams. All others seem to enjoy music as a very rewarding hobby. I have yet to meet the student that had the desire to be a performer and could not find the way there. The path is littered with those that thought they would like to be players but, when faced with the amounts of work required to be successful, decided it was just too difficult to achieve.

Who knows, maybe a supreme level of desire is the "gift" we hear so much about. I know folks don't see it that way, I hear the statements all the time about how a player has the capacity to emote at such a deeper level than others that the player "speaks from the soul" or some such nonsense. At that point we're just debating semantics. Suffice it to say that my position is that just about anyone can learn to play at the highest levels if they have the desire and commitment to do so. Like much in life, there is no magic or shortcut. Hard work produces results.

I also agree with Jay, for the simple reason that no one is born knowing how to play a tuba (or any instrument). Therefore, everyone is on equal footing and anyone with the will to work has an opportunity to be the best. The best tuba player of my generation that I know of is definitely a more advanced player than myself Is he untouchable? By no means. If I decide to put in the work necessary, I can catch up to him. The same can be said for the greatest player of all time. Even he had to start somewhere.

I think that Jay is correct in what he says, but I don't think that the original post was really about virtuosity, per se.

I interpreted the original post to be referring more to a person's ability to communicate with an audience (on an emotional level), and not whether they can play notes really fast.

Am I misreading the post?

It's a good point Z so let me clarify. Virtuosity is measured in many ways. I specifically used that word because Winston used it. Primarily, I was reacting to his comments. But even the original post addresses this issue:

"What is it that separates the good from the spine-tingling, suspension of reality great?"

also:

"What is the difference? Is it inborn or can musicians learn this through study?"

My assertion is that you can learn to play great, that it is a skill set that anyone can work to develop. While virtuosity was the term that Winston used, virtuoso playing isn't limited to technical prowess. I believe virtuosity is a good way to describe exactly what the original post was addressing. For me, the conclusions are the same in either case. Learning to play in that way is a possibility for anyone who is willing to work hard enough to achieve that result.

I don't think you're reading the post wrong, just maybe limiting your interpretation of the word virtuoso to only define technical finesse. And maybe that's a good place to start in regards to our own thinking. Maybe we don't put enough emphasis on the emotive qualities as musicians and we therefore limit ourselves in our true capability as a musician. I am always preaching to my students (and myself) the necessity of communication when playing. We are speaking a unique language and the process must include an idea to be conveyed and be coherant to the audience. I suspect the very best performers think in these terms all the time. The very best performers are virtuous in this manner and that skill isn't any less important to the best musicians than technical prowess. Both are required if the musician is to be complete.

It seems to me that we're discussing something that we haven't defined, yet. What is "great" playing? Is it the ability to play lots of notes per square inch at blistering tempi? If so, a fair number of middle-school trumpet players would fit that mold.

Playing in tune and on time? Those are mechanical skills and can be learned by most. Just takes work and attention.

I think great playing is being able to communicate effectively with one's instrument. Of course, to communicate, one has to have something to say. Which is why most of us would rather listen to a great performance played through a tin can than a mediocre one on HDTV with surround sound.

So, to me, a great performer has the following characteristics:

• A reasonable facility on his instrument.
• The ability to communicate with his instrument
• Something to say

Perhaps the first two can be learned with hard work, but the last one's the kicker. It requires an understanding of the material and a sense of theatre (drama) to interpret it. And that last one may be a result of life experience or deep personal connection with the music. The best most of us can do is to imitate the great performers.

While most of us just see a squashed possum on the highway as just more yucky roadkill, there's someone gifted who will see it as an expression of a deeper message.

So, IMOHO, one can learn to be a very competent player with dedication and hard work, but to be the one-in-a-million true artist requires some sort of gift. I'm not sure that one is necessarily born with a gift, however--or if the gift is a result of some special experience.

.

In my opinion, this is a very important topic to all musicians. We all have seen those great players of all instruments get up and pound away the notes perfectly to what the composer would have intended, and we all have seen those great players who put so much emotion into the music that it becomes great, even if there is a lack of techincal ability there. I think that these to players are both lacking. To me a complete musician should be able to both play music technically to the specifications of the composer (not the performer) and bring out senses of emotion from the audience through the music. Whether you're born with it or you can learn to show emotion can be debated for eternity and I find that argueing it is futile because human minds are so steadfast that one person's opinion (especially over an internet bulletin board) can not and definitely should not sway one's own opinion.

This goes into an entire different subject here. Music from the late Viennese Classical period was truly "music for music's sake" (in the words of my music history professor.) Mozart's masterful piano sonatas and concertos were never meant to bring out the emotion in the audience as compared to maybe a Romantic composer would. These were entirely to showcase the performers abilities.

Fast forward to the twentieth century. The "pendulum of time" (to quote my music history professor again) has swung. All the twentieth century movements such as primitivism, expressionism, impressionism, neo-classicism and such are all just renovations of past ideas. And many of them go back to the idea of "music for music's sake."

In conclusion to this quite lengthy post (sorry for that), I think- which should have no bearing on what you think- that one can learn to show emotion through become a master at what they do. You can't show emotion if you struggle through a piece of music to get right notes and rhythms. The human mind can't do that much at once. However take in consideration the musical period that you're playing from and try to recreate the ideas of that time and what the composer (who probably performed the piece themself) and play to the best of your ability.

.

Winston,

Lighten up! This is a discussion board and we're having a discussion, as far as I can see. Just because we disagree means nothing more than we have different opinions. Here in the US, we allow folks to speak their minds and most times both sides come away stronger with new perspectives. There's no need for you to get all defensive.

Perhaps I misunderstood your original post:

"Natural talent is something you're born with, and what someone was meant to do."

Okay, so substitute "gift" for "something". It is the same idea, your comments presuppose that folks need something that they're born with which-

"You can't learn how to be a virtuoso without natural talent."

-ultimately determines whether a person can play at the highest levels or not. This is where we fundamentally disagree. Barring real physical limitations (and even many of those can be overcome), I don't believe there are limits to how well a given person can play if they work hard enough at it. In this regard, I see music as the great equalizer. You get out of it only as much as you put in. This allows anyone with the requisite drive and desire to be successful, even to become a virtuoso player. Of course, having a more instinctive understanding of the process makes the work load less but it doesn't obviate the vast majority of the work required to reach the highest levels of playing skill.

I guess I'll never believe that my playing is governed by any outside force. My experience teaches me that "not meant to be" is a rationalization made solely by the person affected by a decision. I try and teach all my students to have the courage to pursue their dreams or to see their real desires for what they are.

See? No fight here, just an honest disagreement. Check out one of LV's posts for some insight into the value of that.

Jay Bertolet wrote: Barring real physical limitations (and even many of those can be overcome), I don't believe there are limits to how well a given person can play if they work hard enough at it.

But this was asked:

What is it that separates the good from the spine-tingling, suspension of reality great?

(I think maybe the original poster meant "sensation" and "really great", but that's beside the point).

I define "really great" as the one-in-ten-billion genius. To say that everything comes with hard work doesn't explain why every violinist who puts in the hours doesn't play like Heifetz, or any painter isn't a da Vinci, or any physicist who hits the books isn't Einstein.

You know, real genius. A musician who can move you to tears by playing the kazoo.

Yes, with hard work, determination and the right teaching you can become proficient and competent in what you do. But there's a genius in a Rubenstein or a Beethoven or a Bach or a Mozart (in addition to the hard work).

To say that genetic predisposition has nothing to do with genius isn't being fair to the individuals who are working as hard as humanly possible to attain what they do.

Did Mozart at age 9 compose his first complete symphony (he'd been composing since age 5) solely because he put in sufficient time on the keyboard?

Jay Bertolet wrote:Who knows, maybe a supreme level of desire is the "gift" we hear so much about.

Years ago, I saw a program on PBS that talked about teenage prodigies. In the show, the prodigies set themselves apart from the merely good by being single minded in their pursuit of excellence in their chosen form of expression. In all cases, this is what they preferred to be doing when not being forced to do something else. They never seemed to have to motivate themselves, or sit around feeling guilty for not pursuing their abilities. That drive (compulsion?) seemed to be built in.

They grew up in the same sorts of houses as their schoolmates in most cases, and much of the time their parents were not only not exemplifying such single-mindedness, but in fact were a bit worried about it.

So, I agree that incessant work is the tool for achieving greatness. And I agree that the drive and desire to work incessantly on one skill may well be inborn.

That some skills come with the genes is to me self-evident. I can easily understand sometimes complex mathematical arrangements. I've always been able to do so. My wife cannot, and has never been able to do so. But she has a sense of people that defies logical analysis, while I'm constrained by logic even when trying to understand the utterly illogical. Nothing will persuade me that these were learned traits--the desire to be good at them goes too far back into childhood.

I also don't think it means that one must have that drive from birth. The drive may well appear later in life as the distractions are cleared away, but that doesn't mean it wasn't part of the original wiring. Thus, anyone who is constantly too unmotivated to achieve excellence in whatever it is that they are doing may well need to consider an alternative. In music, especially, those who succeed are the ones who didn't have to be forced to work hard at success.

Rick "who tortures himself pursuing competence in activities for which he has no aptitude" Denney

I think the original question boils down to someone who "plays" music versus someone who "makes" music.

I think there can be technical wizards who can do amazing things, but are still "playing" music.

For some, I think no amount of practice will lead them to "making" music. For others, I think what is needed is some sort of epiphany. Something needs the change the individual's outlook.

In my field I've met people who had vast amounts of knowledge stored in their heads. Mind boggling amounts. However, all they could do was spit back what they already knew. They couldn't use their knowledge to create new knowledge or solve problems. In other words, they could tell you what all of the pieces of a puzzle looked like (amazing technical skill), but they couldn't assemble the puzzle, because they didn't realize all the pieces fit together (that there is more to it than a bunch of notes strung together and getting from pt A. to pt. B).

I personally have been slowly approaching a reasonable level of technical competency. Now, in addition to working on that, now that I don't have to worry some much about getting the right buttons down at the right time, I'm concetrating more and more about how I think the music should be played. You know the times when things are clicking just right, you are in a groove and you get shivers down your spine because it just sounded so cool.

Here's another analogy. Think of your professor who knows the material forwards and back, but who has the monotonous delivery versus the one who is engaging and uses relevant examples and when you leave the class, you are thinking about what they said. Which would you rather perform like?

Doc wrote:Phillip,

Sounds like what you are saying is that you have to EFFECTIVELY communicate. In a nutshell, of course. Isn't that what we're all saying, in effect? Communicate your message (music in this case) in such a way that it connects with the audience and leaves a lasting, positive impression.

Doc, I humbly submit to you that music isn't the message, it's merely the medium. The better one's performance skills are, the easier it is to communicate the message, whatever it is--an emotion, an image, an impression, a mood-- whatever.

To me, the genius in a performer is the ability to convey something using music that no one else does in quite the same way.

Whatcha think?

---------------------------
Chuck (hoping that he's not in over his head here) (G)