Does Biology Matter?

Talk about things that are not necessarily related to music or the guitar.
User avatar
lucy
Posts: 2071
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: England

Re: Does Biology Matter?

Post by lucy » Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:27 am

twang wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:01 am
D.Cass wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:33 pm
How do we define naturally talented?
The best definition I've seen is the ratio of results to effort.
For an identical effort the person with more talent will improve faster.
This is exactly my view.

Actually, this has been played out in reality:

A man once had two sons and he taught both of them guitar, at the same time. They were a similar age.

At one point, one son was quite a bit better than the other. However, a little later on, the other son zoomed ahead exponentially.

That son became world famous. His brother didn't become a musician.
"There is no duty we so much underrate as the duty of being happy.
By being happy we sow anonymous benefits upon the world."
Robert Louis Stevenson

User avatar
Contreras
Posts: 926
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:13 am
Location: In the Wind

Re: Does Biology Matter?

Post by Contreras » Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:50 am

Without biology we'd all be rocks ...
1929 Francisco Simplicio
1997 Manuel Contreras Doble tapa

User avatar
lucy
Posts: 2071
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: England

Re: Does Biology Matter?

Post by lucy » Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:56 am

Contreras wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:50 am
Without biology we'd all be rocks ...
:lol: :lol: :lol:
"There is no duty we so much underrate as the duty of being happy.
By being happy we sow anonymous benefits upon the world."
Robert Louis Stevenson

Andrew Pohlman
Posts: 1524
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:24 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: Does Biology Matter?

Post by Andrew Pohlman » Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:37 pm

lucy wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:56 am
Contreras wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:50 am
Without biology we'd all be rocks ...
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I always knew I was NOT a rock ... I identify more with the lichen on the rock, but NOT a rock. This clearly makes me a biological entity. :D
2013 Rodriguez FF Sabicas blanco
2015 Trevor Gore custom Neoclassical
- redwood top, Palo dorado B+Ss.

User avatar
Julian Ward
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:52 am
Location: UK

Re: Does Biology Matter?

Post by Julian Ward » Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:54 pm

I am sure any other classical teacher will agree with me here. I see wasted talent very often. You would be amazed at the actual number of POTENTIAL musically talented people there are. Just occasionally you get one....Out of the (reasonable assumption from 20 years teaching) 1 in 30 pupils which demonstrates undeniable talent, only 10 % of those will actually realise that talent. You can only lead a horse to water and all that....
Classical guitar teacher

User avatar
Mollbarre
Posts: 495
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:10 am
Location: Canada

Re: Does Biology Matter?

Post by Mollbarre » Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:46 pm

...sometimes you have talent in an area that doesn't interest you...nothing to be done about that...
2016 Fender CN320AS
2018 Cordoba C10 crossover
2018 Ibanez GA5TCE
...and miscellaneous bits and pieces.

Improvisator
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:54 am

Re: Does Biology Matter?

Post by Improvisator » Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:39 pm

Talent is like money.
Guess what ... it IS money.
And hunger.

D.Cass
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 6:16 pm
Location: Tri-Cities WA

Re: Does Biology Matter?

Post by D.Cass » Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:22 pm

twang wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:01 am
D.Cass wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:33 pm
How do we define naturally talented?
The best definition I've seen is the ratio of results to effort.
For an identical effort the person with more talent will improve faster.

Of course, talent can be a problem too. I've known very talented people that didn't think they had to work because they were talented; they thought it should just come easy. Then they were mystified when someone of lesser talent just passed them by.
Yes, that would be the general assumption. However, in my experience there are other factors that contribute to faster learning. For example, kids that learn quickly are generally high accomplished students in school or in “gifted programs”. They would excel in anything they is conducive to there learning style i.e. memorizing, abstract thought, and spatial relationships. I can’t chalk that up to musical talent as much brain power. Then there are those that have had some kind of music. After school elementary choir, band, or maybe a little piano. Just with a little experience their ears will develop to hear rhythms and harmony.
Then in rare occasions there is that one student that is willing to lock themselves in their bedroom for hours practicing. Obsessed with music from listening to playing and talking about it. An incurable since of curiosity. An unwavering drive to become better. That is what I think is talent. Not only the ability learn quickly, but an unhealthy obsession is the defining factor. These are the ones that will surpass them all. So in other words those that I see are “talented” will simply practice far more because they love of playing. Is this biological? I have no idea.

dory
Posts: 1990
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:29 am
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA

Re: Does Biology Matter?

Post by dory » Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:54 pm

I think that excelling in music is a combination of genes, environment and hard work. I don’t think that genes primarily manifest in large hands/long fingers. I used to feel self-pity about my very short fingers. I have hands that are wide across the base but short, and with short fingers. Not a goid combination I thought until I looked at the accompanist for my choir. She is a virtuoso on both the piano and the harp, and her hands are very close to the size and shape of mine. She does a great deal with small hands. However, I have seen some people I know begin guitar lessons and just take off. I have been studying longer than them and play much worse. One thing is that I don’t practice enough. Another, I think, is that they have a mysterious factor— talent— that I largely lack. I think I would be better if I practiced 3-4 hours a day but I doubt I would excell. And I come from a line of musicians. I think that coming from a musical background helps, but I had every advantage musically while growing up, and am still not a brilliant musician. Someone I know who is a brilliant musician came from a home much more musically deprived than me. He was driven, for unknown reasons, found the classical music section at the library, and trained himself. I grew up constantly surrounded by classical music played on the radio, the record player (what we had, then) and the piano by my musician mother and I am still mediocre. I read recently that talents such as playing an instrument might be passed on through the genes. I absolutely don’t believe that something that soecific can be passed through the genes but I do believe there is some mysterious factor some people inherit that makes them great musicians and that others of us lack.
Dory

Improvisator
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:54 am

Re: Does Biology Matter?

Post by Improvisator » Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:40 am

Audience can be anyone, but still at one specific moment, a specific person will be a performer. (who also could have been in the audience, but for a reason is not, then)
Talent, a mix of dexterity, healthy(?) agression, opportunism, focus, social construction, isolation, etc.
Audience means ‘the listening departement’. Contradictionally the performer might be the best listener. (as Aydin Esen stated: “ I am the first audience.”)

There is satire in the fact, that the quality of listening by the audience to the performer is lower than the listening of the performer him/herself. 😁

I read here a lot about genes. What is that? Lego from WW2? Do we need that kind of J.M. performance?

User avatar
lucy
Posts: 2071
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: England

Re: Does Biology Matter?

Post by lucy » Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:52 am

D.Cass wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:22 pm
twang wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:01 am
D.Cass wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:33 pm
How do we define naturally talented?
The best definition I've seen is the ratio of results to effort.
For an identical effort the person with more talent will improve faster.

Of course, talent can be a problem too. I've known very talented people that didn't think they had to work because they were talented; they thought it should just come easy. Then they were mystified when someone of lesser talent just passed them by.
Yes, that would be the general assumption. However, in my experience there are other factors that contribute to faster learning. For example, kids that learn quickly are generally high accomplished students in school or in “gifted programs”. They would excel in anything they is conducive to there learning style i.e. memorizing, abstract thought, and spatial relationships. I can’t chalk that up to musical talent as much brain power. Then there are those that have had some kind of music. After school elementary choir, band, or maybe a little piano. Just with a little experience their ears will develop to hear rhythms and harmony.
Then in rare occasions there is that one student that is willing to lock themselves in their bedroom for hours practicing. Obsessed with music from listening to playing and talking about it. An incurable since of curiosity. An unwavering drive to become better. That is what I think is talent. Not only the ability learn quickly, but an unhealthy obsession is the defining factor. These are the ones that will surpass them all. So in other words those that I see are “talented” will simply practice far more because they love of playing. Is this biological? I have no idea.
I think this is exactly right. LOVE of playing an instrument/music in general, is a hugely important factor. It takes an enormous amount of time and dedication, with no certainty of reward!!

Conversely, there are those who just never "do the time", but resent those who do. The latter succeed, sometimes, but the former dismiss their achievements as "lucky".

Also, I have to say, controversial as this may sound, I've simply never come across a professional classical musician who isn't highly able, in general. I think this isn't necessarily the case for pop music, but quite often it's the case for that too. It's just classical music is complicated and it requires a certain level of mental aptitude to do it well.
"There is no duty we so much underrate as the duty of being happy.
By being happy we sow anonymous benefits upon the world."
Robert Louis Stevenson

User avatar
lucy
Posts: 2071
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: England

Re: Does Biology Matter?

Post by lucy » Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:57 am

Improvisator wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:40 am
There is satire in the fact, that the quality of listening by the audience to the performer is lower than the listening of the performer him/herself. 😁
Yes, this is perfectly true, for most audience members.

However, sometimes experts are listening, who hear every nuance, error, what could have been better, how they would have played X or Y phrase...
"There is no duty we so much underrate as the duty of being happy.
By being happy we sow anonymous benefits upon the world."
Robert Louis Stevenson

User avatar
Tom Poore
Posts: 1373
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: South Euclid, Ohio, USA

Re: Does Biology Matter?

Post by Tom Poore » Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:24 pm

lucy wrote:Also, I have to say, controversial as this may sound, I've simply never come across a professional classical musician who isn't highly able, in general. I think this isn't necessarily the case for pop music, but quite often it's the case for that too. It's just classical music is complicated and it requires a certain level of mental aptitude to do it well.
Agreed. I often tell students that I’ve never met an excellent musician who’s stupid. Crazy, maybe—but not stupid.

Tom Poore
South Euclid, OH
USA

Improvisator
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:54 am

Re: Does Biology Matter?

Post by Improvisator » Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:39 pm

lucy wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:57 am
Improvisator wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:40 am
There is satire in the fact, that the quality of listening by the audience to the performer is lower than the listening of the performer him/herself. 😁
Yes, this is perfectly true, for most audience members.

However, sometimes experts are listening, who hear every nuance, error, what could have been better, how they would have played X or Y phrase...
Experts are not absolute. They contradict each other often 180 degrees. Nothing wrong with that. That’s an expert’s life.😁

Not so the performer. He is ‘doing’ it.

Improvisator
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:54 am

Re: Does Biology Matter?

Post by Improvisator » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Tom Poore wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:24 pm
Agreed. I often tell students that I’ve never met an excellent musician who’s stupid. Crazy, maybe—but not stupid.

Tom Poore
South Euclid, OH
USA
Otherwise (it might sound stupid):

People buy performer status. They are ‘injected’ by amounts of money (talent=money) and audience do agree to that. The excuse is ‘the bigger picture’....
(we need the money, to bring music in general to a ‘higher level’ or to ‘survive’)

Return to “The Café”