Talent vs Practice

Regards the ability to play guitar, which is more important?

Consider the following 4 scenario's before making your poll selection:

1. Tons and Tons of natural ability and talent, but NEVER practices or works at it.

2. Tons and Tons of practice and hard work, but ZERO talent/ability.

3. Some natural ability/talent and lots of hard work and practice.

4. Lots of natural ability/talent and some hard work and practice.


Which is more important to being a good player?

It depends what kind of music you wanna do. The common formula for all arts is 10% inspiration 90% transpiration … sounds true to me.

There is no such thing as someone who is good, with a lot of talent, who never practiced. It doesn't happen by magic. Now they may not practice scales, arpeggios, etc, but if you're playing tunes constantly, that is a form of practice. Of course, they may not have to practice as much as others. Then you look at a guy like Ted Greene who said he had no talent whatsoever and see what practice will get you.

We had a big thread about this last year, discussing the "10,000 hours of practice" theory, that what separates the "talented" from the mediocre is the time they spend actually mastering something...

Tim

There is no such thing as someone who is good, with a lot of talent, who never practiced. It doesn't happen by magic. Now they may not practice scales, arpeggios, etc, but if you're playing tunes constantly, that is a form of practice. Of course, they may not have to practice as much as others. Then you look at a guy like Ted Greene who said he had no talent whatsoever and see what practice will get you.


I disagree - in theory.

The could be, right now, in your very neighborhood, the most naturally gifted guitar player ever. BUT if he never picks up the instrument, no one will ever know.

Point being, that talent with no outlet is a possible outcome. But, you're right of course to say that to be "good", you must play and talent alone isn't enough. But which of the two is "more important"? If you had some of both, which would you rather have a bit more of?

What gets missed in this equation is the talent to be happy to practice...

being able to concentrate and focus and work toward a goal... that is a great natural talent that is very difficult to acquire...

would you rather be touched by an angel, or meet the devil at the crossroads, at midnight?

What's more important to being a "good" player?
Practice.
What's more important to being a "great" player?
Talent.

Change it to sports. To get to a point in basketball where you can shoot baskets consistently and dribble effectively, there's no substitute for practice.

But no matter how much I practice and how much I improve, I'm never going to be Michael Jordan. I'm going to reach a point where I'm just not getting any better. (I did something pretty close to that in tennis, actually.)

That's what the NBA Dev league and AAA baseball is, a bunch of guys who reached the ceiling of their talent. (Mixed in with some talented guys who weren't willing to work hard enough.)

Talent or practice? You need both.

What gets missed in this equation is the talent to be happy to practice...

being able to concentrate and focus and work toward a goal... that is a great natural talent that is very difficult to acquire...

I agree completely. My brother DEVOURED the guitar when he first started playing at age 12, and it's been a constant part of his everyday life ever since. He got good quick, and now he's just a monster guitarist.

I, on the other hand, as the poster child for ADD :cool: have always had a whole lot of interests, one of which was guitar playing. I've acquired a certain proficiency over the years, but am hardly exceptional.

I will say that my playing has improved considerably over the last seven years, something that I attribute to playing a whole lot of gigs (hours spent playing are hours spent playing, right?).

Tim

What gets missed in this equation is the talent to be happy to practice...

being able to concentrate and focus and work toward a goal... that is a great natural talent that is very difficult to acquire...

Took the words right outta' my mouth!

I don't really know any top level professional musicians but I have been around a few professional athletes and I will have to give a slight nod to natural ability. Balance, eyesight, flexibility, spatial perception, some people have real deficiencies that no amount of hard work can overcome.

The pro athletes I've been around were good at a lot of sports because of natural ability. They got to the top of one sport because of focused hard work in that sport, but try going up against an NFL player in the local shoot around or play a round of golf, these guys are just plain smooth in a way that no amount of hard work has ever given me.

public radio just did a feature on the talent vs. dedication idea.
the view that they espoused was that talent was a bit of a misnomer and that practice and dedication was the key to mastering anything.
they used the example of Mozart, who is viewed as a child prodigy, but in reality composed his known works AFTER childhood and years of practice.

that said, if you look at alot of the "masters" they gave up nearly everything in order to accomplish there goals...including social life, stable living conditions, etc.

practice does make perfect.
i have become much better at guitar in particular after taking some lessons and studying and PRACTICING.

my girlfriend started practicing piano about 2 years ago and is now a very good classical piano player because she plays every day, often, for several hours

Every great talent and virtuoso is born with a gift, and part of that gift is an obsession with perfecting it. The most talented people are also the ones who practice the most obsessively - and not because they have to, but because they can't stop themselves from doing so.

would you rather be touched by an angel, or meet the devil at the crossroads, at midnight?

What does the angel look like, and what is she wearing?

Practice. And practice some more. Then apply it. See where you need more practice. Then practice again.

Talent is no good if you don't use it.

You have to practice to get good. You aint born that way!

Practice doesn't make perfect - wanting to play all the time does.

Practice doesn't make perfect - wanting to play all the time does.

Not any different from wanting to practice, is it?

Tim

Not any different from wanting to practice, is it?

Tim

The word "practice" has always had negative connotations to me, a bit like "homework" :grin:. It sounds like playing scales by rote and generally not being very artistic.

I wonder, do GuitarHero players consider their activity "practice"?

I hear you! I do think that time spent working on one's guitar playing, trying to get better, to learn songs and master techniques, comes a lot easier when you're obsessed with playing!

That's my excuse for not being any better than I am, anyway...

:oops:

:mrgreen:

Tim

Talent is subjective.

If a space craft full of aliens who never heard music before landed in Bakersfield (or substitute any music city), what would they think of the sounds they hear? Would they know if someone has practiced 10,000 hours or not?

Lot's of folks can pratice and rip on a guitar, but it is the ones with talent who are able to break out of the pack and offer something different. These are the ones who make their mark. SRV, Albert Lee and the countless others have talent. They probably were on to something after just a little practice, then the talent took over.

I say talent is the main thing that separates the great players from guys like me, without it, practice will only get you so far.

Practice doesn't make you think up cool grooves or give you feel. It just makes whatever your doing happen easier, and that might be a bad thing.

Talent is subjective.

If a space craft full of aliens who never heard music before landed in Bakersfield (or substitute any music city), what would they think of the sounds they hear? Would they know if someone has practiced 10,000 hours or not?

are they cool aliens or the Dorky kind?

About 6 years ago I stumbled into being a high school guitar teacher. The most enjoyable job I've ever had. I have about 130 to 150 students a year, as well as a few private lessons. I am always blown away by the kid who has been playing for less than 2 years, and can play circles around me... and there has been at least one almost every year. Fortunately for me, they still need to understand what they're doing, and even pro athletes still need a coach. I agree that practise and time are important, but I play often six or seven days a week, and have been playing for many years, and I will never be as good as the talented ones. Having said that, I still love to play, and like playing with people better than me, as they make us all sound good.

Aren't talents advantages you're actually born with, like photographic memory. The word is being stretched to refer to people who've worked very hard, and isn't the desire to play music was something that was developed?

I gotta say practice, if for no other reason than it's a positive thing that everyone can do. EVERYONE can get better, most people can get good, only a few can become great. My natural talent is at best mediocre, and perhaps it has helped me along the way, but the REAL changes to my playing have ALL come from specific practice.

If you practice well and often you WILL get good one day....eventually....

Too many variables to come to any real answer, IMO.

Who's to say what we percieve as talent isn't, to at least some extent, the result of practice we didn't realise we had because we don't associate the actions/events with guitar playing/music? For instance, a person who spent time studying foreign languages may years later pick up a guitar and, as a result of their study find it easier to memorize and figure out melodies, chord progressions from hearing a song. Not a great example but hopefully it illustrates my point..

Practice will only take you so far - far enough to be "good" as in the OP Poll question. to be great takes both.

How good are we talkin' here?

What's more important to being a "good" player?
Practice.
What's more important to being a "great" player?
Talent.

Change it to sports. To get to a point in basketball where you can shoot baskets consistently and dribble effectively, there's no substitute for practice.

But no matter how much I practice and how much I improve, I'm never going to be Michael Jordan. I'm going to reach a point where I'm just not getting any better. (I did something pretty close to that in tennis, actually.)

That's what the NBA Dev league and AAA baseball is, a bunch of guys who reached the ceiling of their talent. (Mixed in with some talented guys who weren't willing to work hard enough.)

Talent or practice? You need both.Pretty much.

Eric Johnson put in 6-8 hours of practice a day to get as good as he was. No matter how many hours I put in, I won't be able to play as well as he does.

What gets missed in this equation is the talent to be happy to practice...

being able to concentrate and focus and work toward a goal... that is a great natural talent that is very difficult to acquire...This, too.

I don't have whatever it takes to put in 6 - 8 hours a day of practice.

- - - - - -

All this being said, I do practice, and when I do, I work on not only improving speed and technique, but also learning more... more about scales, chords, fingerings, licks and their applications, etc.

This makes me a better player.

Bottom line?

Practice lets you achieve your talent. Practice doesn't make perfect. Practice makes permanent, so be sure and practice well, and the right way.

- - - - - -

The trouble is that practice can be defined and measured, i.e. number of hours spent in the woodshed, on stage, etc.

No quite so clearcut as far as talent is concerned.

My point? Not sure, just an observation, hopefully pertinent in some way to the discussion.

I believe that talent comes naturally in many cases. Some people are simply born with it. You only need to look on YouTube and see 16 yr old kids playing amazing stuff with perfect timing. They may have practiced hard for a few years but when you've been playing many years and can't play that good you know that they were born with the gift. Not to say you can't develop what you have by hard work.

I think there is also some separation with regards to being a guitarist, and musically gifted. I have listened to guys who can tear up a fretboard like crazy, but have been more blown away buy the guys who may not have the scales chops, but by the ability to play THE perfect notes and fills at the perfect time.

Timing and musical sensibilities are as important to the mix to me as absolutely shredding the frets are to the angst-ridden teenage hopeful.

A perfect example for me was going to see Chris Duarte and watching his very impressive skills on the guitar. However, the guy that opened up for him was Chris Beard, who is the son of legendary bluesman Joe Beard.

Duarte obviously has the chops of a guy who attacked his guitar with zeal, and can absolutely tear it up. But after watching 45 minutes of perfectly timed, tasty, right-where-they-were-supposed-to-be ringing notes by the opening act, it made the thrash blues scales disguised as Countrified Rock seem boring and senseless.

So, could one argue that although Duarte might be a better "guitarist" based on his chops and his frenetic movement around the scales, would perfectly placed notes at a slower pace, and at just the right time and volume- might actually make Chris Beard a better "musician"?...

syf

"Every musician adds something to a song; some when they play, and some when they don't."

********************

I just read this in TxTeleMan's signature.

So completely andundeniably true.

syf

If we assume that everyone practices then what separates the great players from the average?


Talent.


You can practice all you want but if you lack talent that banging sound will be your head hitting your talent ceiling.

IMO.

Too many variables to come to any real answer, IMO.

....

I'm sure you're right. None the less, there are some really good thoughtful answers here.

I'm sure you're right. None the less, there are some really good thoughtful answers here.

Definitely, wasn't suggesting otherwise.

1. Tons and Tons of natural ability and talent, but NEVER practices or works at it.

I don't think this actually happens. Malcomb Gladwell has the 10,000 hour rule where he's found that people who are considered "Unnaturally talented" like Tiger Woods have also spent over 10,000 hours perfecting their skill. Practice seems to have a much larger effect than so called natural talent.

Think about that. That's a full time job for 5 years. If you practiced 40 hours a week for 5 years you'd easily be as good as your favorite musician. This also explains why there are so many great child musicians. They go to school, get their homework done, and then play music and practice for the rest of their spare time. After only 2 or 3 years of that they've already logged over 1000 hours.

I had a bad injury in July that's kept me from practicing, but before that injury I was logging my practice sessions and was trying to get 10 hours per week of practice. Even at that level that's 520 hours per year. If you're practicing efficiently you can gain a lot. I saw a serious change in my playing after about 3 months of 10 hours per week.

2. Tons and Tons of practice and hard work, but ZERO talent/ability.

Again, to have ZERO natural ability is so rare as to be essentially nonexistent. Tons of practice (proper practice, not just noodling) will help you gain a lot of ability. To have zero ability you'd almost have to be physically handicapped in a way that keeps you from performing the activity.

3. Some natural ability/talent and lots of hard work and practice.

This gives the greatest return.


4. Lots of natural ability/talent and some hard work and practice.

This gives far less return than one would imagine. And as I've mentioned before, I don't think there's such a thing as natural ability without practice. Natural ability is probably better described as a passion for whatever they're practicing. You have to have that passion to allow yourself to practice for 3, 4 , 6 or more hours a day.

Chris Thile said that he practices a minimum of 3 hours a day. It's closer to 5 hours a day, even when he's on tour. He started when he was 7 or 8 so by 12 years old, when he produced his first CD, he's already practiced roughly 5000 hours. Now that he's in his 20's he's easily surpassed the 10,000 hour mark and it shows. He has the technical ability to play pretty much anything he can hear in his head.

As a music teacher for the past 5 years I think that, unfortunately, the majority of music students actually fall into a fifth category: In love with the IDEA of playing guitar, but without the passion or commitment to actually spend the time practicing.

I have pondered this a lot, given my self-imposed idea of limited natural ability. I used to think that you just had to make due with what you were born with, be it little or much. But over the course of my life I have seen desires and talents and ability that seem to spring forth from nothing into something amazing in people's lives.

I have come to believe that there are seasons in everyone's lives and that you can actually "grow into" more talent or ability as you grow older. Not raw physical skills, such as running fast, but creative skills like music, writing, art, teaching. And as some have said, the discipline to practice may come later in life.

I think we much too easily buy into the idea that if you weren't born with it, you can never have it. We give up too soon in life. My byline says "not dead yet." While I may never be a famous guitarist, I have decided I want to become as good as I can and that I am not going to limit that by some idea of how much talent I may or may not have.

I am enjoying practicing and playing more than I ever have and it is really like a completely new musical chapter in my life. Where did it come from? I don't know, but I am running with it.

Forum members, if you had put in those mythical 10,000 hours of practice, could you have been a professional ballet dancer?

Hmmm... at 6'8" tall, and 255 pounds.... coupled with size 16 ballet shoes, and a custom made leotard....

I am guessing not.

syf

Forum members, if you had put in those mythical 10,000 hours of practice, could you have been a professional ballet dancer?

Just can't deal with that thingy that men ballet dancers have to wear.

Hmmm... at 6'8" tall, and 255 pounds.... coupled with size 16 ballet shoes, and a custom made leotard....

I am guessing not.

syf


But the pics would be pretty entertaining. :mrgreen:

1. Tons and Tons of natural ability ....

I don't think this actually happens. ....

2. Tons and Tons of practice ....

Again, to have ZERO natural ability is so rare as to be essentially nonexistent. ....

3. ....

4. ....


The first two are obviously extremes. I find it useful to consider extreme cases - it helps frame the range of outcomes by asking, "what if?" It's also useful in identifying limits for possible outcomes.

The other two, were more realistic - a mix of the two variables - that have now been bracketed by the possiblities at the extreme ends.

Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.

Then again, nothing replaces pure talent when it is put to good use.

Paul McCartney is what I would call a "gifted" musician. He admits to writing plenty of "clunkers", but sometimes he would simply sneeze and a great song would come out; many were written before he was old enough to have 10,000 hours of practice invested.
..........I think there are very few people on his end of the spectrum, and many people like me on the other end of the spectrum. People tell me I'm "very talented", but the truth is I don't really have much natural talent; I'm just stupidly stubborn and actually fought with the guitar for a long time to make it do what I wanted it to...It felt good to finally win; but it meant being diverted from a lot of other things in life. No complaints though.

What is talent, really? Some people become better musicians because they have a certain kind of intelligence for understanding music, but I don't think that's talent.

IMO, talent is when someone has the ability to create something all their own... something that makes you say "How'd they come up that? Where did that come from?" I used to play in a band with a guy who'd write three or four songs a week... and they were all good. It wasn't like he had to struggle with it... it just came naturally for him. To me, that's talent.

Again, to have ZERO natural ability is so rare as to be essentially nonexistent. Tons of practice (proper practice, not just noodling) will help you gain a lot of ability. To have zero ability you'd almost have to be physically handicapped in a way that keeps you from performing the activity.

I will say, but I've never done the work to prove myself wrong, I do not have any natural talent for drawing/painting/penmanship. I can draw a square house with a triangle roof. Beyond that my whole life experience of any type of art is horrible in perspective, flow, and detail.

So I could work at art 6-8 hours a day for a long time and gain some proficiency, but I just can't believe I will become a better artist than the people I know who from a young age could easily, naturally, without any training, create pleasing art.

I will say, but I've never done the work to prove myself wrong, I do not have any natural talent for drawing/painting/penmanship. I can draw a square house with a triangle roof. Beyond that my whole life experience of any type of art is horrible in perspective, flow, and detail.

So I could work at art 6-8 hours a day for a long time and gain some proficiency, but I just can't believe I will become a better artist than the people I know who from a young age could easily, naturally, without any training, create pleasing art.

My wife is an interior designer and graphic artist so she knows how to draw. But when she was in school they had to take drawing classes. She said there were people there who thought they had no drawing skill at all. But by the end of the class, with proper instruction and enough practice, every one of them was able to draw at a much higher level than they had expected.

This comes back to my comment that "Natural Ability" can be more correctly referred to as "A passion for the art". If you're passionate about playing music you'll find the time to practice because it's not work, it's what you love. Some people call that passion a natural ability, but I think passion is a better description.

Forum members, if you had put in those mythical 10,000 hours of practice, could you have been a professional ballet dancer?

yes.

I had a knee/back injury in high school and it was suggested that I take ballet as part of my rehab. I'm 6'3" and at first (this was the 70's) so, at first, I was pretty freaked out... within a couple of months, it was pretty amazing (to me) what I could do in terms of flexibility and grace etc...

My teacher was very encouraging and told me I had the work ethic and the 'grace' to become a very good dancer (which thrills me to this day) I continued to pursue baseball (and definitely put in the 10K hours there) but, I think had I stayed with ballet, I would never have been a lead dancer, but there are lots of roles to play...

One other thing I'd note is that for all the teasing I took from my friends (not as much as I'd expected) lifting hot female forms and having them lay back into you is a benefit that is easy to understand....

So, I get your point, but, if a person is willing to put in the time, they can make dramatic progress.

I believe its got alot more to do with talent you are born with. My uncle who taught me can pick up a guitar after not playing in months and still play circles around me regardless of how much I practice. He is also left handed and a gifted artist.......funny thing is he hasn't got a lick of common sense. Anything that requires artistic thought he is good at. I have absolutely no artistic abilities......or musical for that matter. I have to practice really hard even to suck as bad as I do.

For guitar players, we all eventually reach the combined limits of our comprehension and motor skills, no matter how much time we put in.
Some people are just born with more natural ability than others.
If I practiced 10 hours a day for the next 10 years, I'd never be able to play like Shawn Lane.

For guitar players, we all eventually reach the combined limits of our comprehension and motor skills, no matter how much time we put in.
Some people are just born with more natural ability than others.
If I practiced 10 hours a day for the next 10 years, I'd never be able to play like Shawn Lane.

No doubt--but imagine how much you would have improved?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1qCczGgSxw&feature=related

No doubt--but imagine how much you would have improved?

I am confident there is not one person on this board or any place else that would disagree that practicing will improve any individuals skills.

But to the OP of which is more important I wonder why in the world of performance there is such a thing as talent scouts? Why are there tests for an individual’s aptitude? We hear the stories of how some singer walked into an agent or record company and a person heard something there that they don't hear in the other ten thousand singers they hear.

Now of course if that natural talent did not put in the work to get to the top they don't go anywhere. But my guess is there are very few times a producer/scout/agent hears someone and says "you're just average, but lets put in 10 hours a day and see if we can get you to the top".

Here's a thought; I wonder if we like the idea of hard work so much because we can then infer we are the same as some great talent, we just chose not to pursue that skill to it's fullest extent?

Here's a thought; I wonder if we like the idea of hard work so much because we can then infer we are the same as some great talent, we just chose not to pursue that skill to it's fullest extent?

Here's a thought: I wonder if we like the idea of 'talent' so much because we can then infer that our lack of ability isn't our fault, we just weren't born with 'what it takes'?

My experience is that people who don't like to practice embrace philosophies and 'findings' that support the idea that tons of practice isn't 'necessary', and that people who love to practice embrace philosophies and 'findings' that support the idea that anything is possible with tons of hard work.

Someone once said "You won't get to the top on hard work alone, but you won't get far without it."

I teach grad students in another creative field and the ones who succeed are all over the map in terms of talent but wicked persistent & disciplined. but once in a while a real Jimi Hendrix / Pablo Picasso comes along and gets a whole lot of stuff done in a tenth of the time it would take a plodder like me. (A successful plodder, I hasten to add.) At the highest level, talent shines. And you can go places without much discipline if you have that kind of talent -- just look at Hendrix, Joplin, Gram Parsons, etc. It's an interesting question, especially for those of us who are non-geniuses. I guess I'd rather be as good as I can be at being the writer that I am -- a thing that is pretty much a function of how much dedication, persistence and work I put into it -- that go around mooning about the genius I am not.

Here's a thought: I wonder if we like the idea of 'talent' so much because we can then infer that our lack of ability isn't our fault, we just weren't born with 'what it takes'?

My experience is that people who don't like to practice embrace philosophies and 'findings' that support the idea that tons of practice isn't 'necessary', and that people who love to practice embrace philosophies and 'findings' that support the idea that anything is possible with tons of hard work.

Someone once said "You won't get to the top on hard work alone, but you won't get far without it."

I disagree. People are born with talents. I see it even with my children. My oldest son was born with tremendous hand eye coordination. He is a lot like me. Good at any sport that requires hand eye coordination or balance. On the other hand, he like me has no artistic skills whatsoever. There is nothing wrong with it. My daughter has artistic skills but no athletic skills....she seems to pick up music pretty easily but for now she prefers drawing and painting. My youngest son.....5.....lacks hand eye coordination but is a good runner and is very skilled with things that involve balance and he has considerable more artistic abilities than his older brother. Each child is different and their individual skills showed up by the age of 3 or 4 years old. It has been really cool to observe.

I think alot of it with art and music goes to the old left brain vs. right brain.

The key is to have fun. I suck at playing the guitar but I enjoy practicing and picking away even though I know I will never impress anybody with my playing skills.

Talent and ability come (mainly) from hard work and practice.

I think talent is a side-effect from continual encouragement and positive reinforcement.

If you've ever trained an animal to do tricks you can clearly see that their talent is actually just a very stong desire to please peers.

I watch that video of Brad Paisley that was posted yesterday. I know he has been practicing ever since he could hold a guitar. I get that. What I can't get my mind around is how he can play like he does and sing at the same time. That has to be something he is born with......to be able to multitask his brain to sing and play the way he does is beyond me. I can sing a little I can play a little but I can not do both at the same time. My mind doesn't work like that......Its one or the other. I don't think that is something that can be practiced and learned by someone who just doesn't have it.

Talent:

endowment: natural abilities or qualities
a person who possesses unusual innate ability in some field or activity


wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

(emphasis miine)

The missing link here is organization.


One can have the talent of Leonardo (who, as an artist, was labeled a "hack" by his contemporary Michelangelo, because he started far more projects than he finished, and because his fresco techniques were substandard). Fortunately, Leonardo had lots of ideas and projects that were hundreds of years beyond their time. One can have the tireless drive and curiosity of Thomas A. Edison (who was famously quoted as having said, "Genius is 99% perspiration, 1% inspiration").

Most of us aren't da Vinci or Edison. Organization is key for us mortals. As to music, whether we're talking arrangement or improvisation, all the talent and hard work in the world won't bring a targeted pursuit to fruition without a sense of organization.

When I've fallen short of my goals, the culprit has been lack of organization. Hard work is a given. Talent is an intangible.

..

I watch that video of Brad Paisley that was posted yesterday. I know he has been practicing ever since he could hold a guitar. I get that. What I can't get my mind around is how he can play like he does and sing at the same time. That has to be something he is born with......to be able to multitask his brain to sing and play the way he does is beyond me. I can sing a little I can play a little but I can not do both at the same time. My mind doesn't work like that......Its one or the other. I don't think that is something that can be practiced and learned by someone who just doesn't have it.

I get what you're saying. People are wired differently. I can't dunk a basketball on a regulation-sized goal and I'm not mechanically inclined. That said, I haven't devoted thousands of hours to dunking basketballs and working on engines and carburetors. I couldn't swim until I was in my early twenties.

I'm not Brad Paisley... but can it be learned? Absolutely. I played naturally from an early age, and I sang naturally from an early age. Playing and singing simultaneously was a highly unnatural thing for me. I worked my butt off at it and I went through the necessary (in my case) process of failure over many years on the bandstand before beginning to pull it together.

As you say, it's multitasking. It's like playing piano or drums, or rockabilly or Travis-picked guitar with decidedly different syncopated rhythms. I had to work p a i n f u l l y slowly at it it first, and I used a metronome, and the rest fell together (or apart) on the bandstand over time. A good gauge is "Day Tripper" by The Beatles. The syncopated riff and lyrical vocal melody combination that McCartney played. Playing bass and singing simultaneously is far more difficult in my opinion than is playing guitar or piano and singing.

I doubt I'll ever be able to dunk a basketball, at my age. But I teach kids and adults about playing and singing simultaneously most days of my life. It can be learned, no question. It can't be learned unless one is willing to do the work, that's for certain.

#3 for improv. stuff
#4 for written, set stuff

The way I look at it is
If your a guitar who wants to be distorted:
Talent = Resistance of pickups
Practice = The "gain" knob on the amp.

You need both for great tone.

I'll say the same thing I always say in the 'talent' threads ...

The talent or genius lies in the love and desire to do the work as well as the ability to find and realize early on what it is that you truly love to work at.

There's no substitute for practice to develop your skills, howver, I've seen enough people attempt to learn an instrument that it's obvious to me that natural talent is essential to progressing faster and further.

Hard work will help your skill set, but what are you going to say with those skills? A person with innate musical ability hears things at a deeper level, and their playing reflects that. Practice just facilitates transferring from mind to fingers.

Just take a look at Sol P., for instance. He has undoubtedly put in a tremendous amount of time practicing, but I'd bet there are thousands of others that have done just as much practicing as he did, that will never reach the level he's achieved in just a few years, no matter how long they continue to play.

Some people just have "it."

Forum members, if you had put in those mythical 10,000 hours of practice, could you have been a professional ballet dancer?

Barring size, age, etc., yes. Would you have been the greatest pro ballet dancer in the world? Maybe not...

How about the idea that ability, talent, gifted, what ever the words are, is just the starting point we all have and which is different from everyone. I would suggest we experience people with different starting points as seen in two people picking up a guitar at the same age/experience, both practice a couple hours a week and in one month one is still struggling to make chord changes and the other is playing Stairway To Heaven pretty fluently at Guitar Center.

In no way does this predict which person will in five years be playing skillfully in a band. But how many times in that situation might we say about the person who picked it up so quickly, "man if only that guy stuck with it he would be great now" .

Think back to people you've seen start out who just really struggled, did you really think to yourself, "if that guy would just practice more I can really envision great things coming from him"?

I believe both are equally necessary and it is the shortcoming on either side that sets the limit. 5+5=10 2+5=7 as 5+2=7 Doesn't really matter what your 2 is, practice or natural ability, thats your limit.

....a interest desire passion to learn and understand is justly as important as natural talent physical ability


as training and practice refine the advantage of prepared routine


music is a devine universal concept within us all

I think talent is a side-effect from continual encouragement and positive reinforcement.

If you've ever trained an animal to do tricks you can clearly see that their talent is actually just a very stong desire to please masters.

I love my dogs and they love me, but we aren't peers.:mrgreen:

The thing is: how do we know how much talent we have? If Joe X says: “Even if I played 10 hours a day, I'd never be as good as (insert name of well-known guitarist here)" he's right in a way, but he'll end up being a way better Joe X. And then someone else will say: “Even if played 10 hours a day, I'd never be as good as Joe X." And they wouldn't, they'd be their own man (or woman) on guitar with their own well-developed voice. None of us have a signpost that says "Your Talent Ends Here". Yes, some people seem phenomenally and (sometimes) unfairly gifted, but we all have something to contribute, and what that is and how we express it might change from day to day, hour to hour, or song to song. But practice allows us to realize our potential, little by little. Hopefully, it also makes us realize that the worst of our limitations are the ones we impose upon ourselves.

I meet people who are supposedly "soooo talented" and it's a lot of pentatonic wanking and instant gratification flash when I hear them play. Throw an unfamiliar musical situation or chord change at them and they crumble.

Anybody who can play worth a damn has worked their butt off to get there. I will stand by that comment till I die. I will never be proven wrong.:mrgreen:


On the 10,000 hours thing, it depends on the way those hours are really spent. If my math is right, I'm darn close to 10,000 hours on the instrument, and I'm no master. I like to call myself "competent."

I would say 10,000 'solid work' hours to be able to call yourself and work as a professional musician ... if that's what you desire(?).
I think that the phrase 'master musician' is used more in the sense that: one who could conceivably make a living at playing and be considered not to suck at it.
*Obviously the economics for an artist are subject to many things, especially now.

Then there is taste and sensitivity. Or maybe artistic sensibility. One thing i look forward to is seeing paintings by undergrad and grad art students. Technique aside, every now and then I will see something so beautifully conceived and realized, that i think, "why haven't I ever thought of that?"

I experience that with musical styles, too, but at a much slower rate. Using my 1968 ears and head, who could have imagined the Eagles, disco, punk, Sting, rap? Sadly, I cannot look 10, 20, 30, years into the future and predict what music will sound like. And all of the music I cited uses the same chords, notes, and rhythms, just in different ways.

While driving to a meeting at church today I had the pleasure of listening to RiverWalk Jazz. They played excerpts from interviews with the Legendary Johnny Mercer. GREAT songwriter. Love many of his songs. I was quite surprised to hear that he could not write musical notation and played the piano with 1 finger. Yet this man composed full songs, melody lines and immensely captivating melody over which he found phrases that lead to complete lyrics. His technique according to the show was often to lay on his couch almost asleep as he worked out his music. Strange, very strange.

In the interview he went on to say that he learned songs by other song writers and memorized them starting from an early age. He knew all of the popular songs of his youth and as he grew into the famous man that we know, he often met these songwriters and sang parts of their songs to them, including verses they had forgotten.

When I view this discussion I think of several things. Greatness is talent dependent. There is no question that any one who achieves great things has some inate talent, ability, gift to perceive their craft in a way that others don't. Often the talents that make us great may not be immediately related to the thing that we become great at. But that tangental relationship affects them in profound ways. I also find that people who are great at something spend an amount of time studying, practicing, failing, reviewing their failures and correcting their mistakes that is far in excess of those who do not become great at the same thing.

The unconcious mind is much more heavily involved in these processes than we like to admit. A music teacher once told me that he no longer practiced to learn how to play but practiced in order to learn how to handle his mistakes. I didn't understand it at the time but I am coming to grasp it more as the playing years go by.

Those of us who do not have the inate ability to create something, whether it be a drawing, building, song, lyric, sculpture or mathmatical equation by pulling it out of seeming thin air must labor to create them from the tools of our trades aquired through continual repetition, trial and error. Those who seemingly pull it out of thin air have generally filled themselves up with ideas, pictures, notes, phrases, concepts long before they are needed and then call on this supply when necessary to do things that the rest of us call genius.

In short even those with natural talent have to develop the resevoir of stock tools to use, these can only be obtained through the same methods that we mere mortals use, they just use them better, and on rare, very rare, occasions create new ways of doing them that never existed before.

I have pondered this a lot, given my self-imposed idea of limited natural ability. I used to think that you just had to make due with what you were born with, be it little or much. But over the course of my life I have seen desires and talents and ability that seem to spring forth from nothing into something amazing in people's lives.

I have come to believe that there are seasons in everyone's lives and that you can actually "grow into" more talent or ability as you grow older. Not raw physical skills, such as running fast, but creative skills like music, writing, art, teaching. And as some have said, the discipline to practice may come later in life.

I think we much too easily buy into the idea that if you weren't born with it, you can never have it. We give up too soon in life. My byline says "not dead yet." While I may never be a famous guitarist, I have decided I want to become as good as I can and that I am not going to limit that by some idea of how much talent I may or may not have.

I am enjoying practicing and playing more than I ever have and it is really like a completely new musical chapter in my life. Where did it come from? I don't know, but I am running with it.

I'm right there with ya! There are some benefits to aging...:mrgreen:

In this discussion many have compared musicianship to sports ability. I think they are similar, but with musicianship, age is not always a limiting factor. Actually, I often feel that musicians get better as they age. Jeff Beck, Willie Nelson, Chet Baker, Al Hibbler, Sonny Sharrock -- all of these musicians are more interesting in their later years.

The talent that you desire already exists within you. The more desire you have, the more talent you have. It is that simple. Some people find a quicker path to successful playing because their brain processes things faster than others. For "the rest of us", our brains just don't work that way and we have to beat our head against a wall over and over before we have our epiphany.

I have hit the proverbial brick wall in my playing hundreds of times over the years. It is at those stages, however, that my greatest gains in technique and style blossomed. In my view, talent and desire are one and the same.