- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
Les Paul died on August 13, 2009, at the age of 94. He is known both for his guitar-playing skill and also for his inventions. He is one of the first people to create a solid-body electric guitar. He invented multitrack recording, which changed the way music is produced. In his obituary in the New York times, though, I was struck by one sentence. Read More
Not sure I wholly agree...
Art,
Fascinating article and one that raises some real questions about cognitive process. For my part, though, and despite what the research may purport, as a life-long, conservatory-trained (Hartt & Julliard) musician, my experience has always been that there is a vast difference between a technician and a musician.
It is undoubtedly true that, if you have music at all, the more you practice, the more skilled you become. Despite that, there is an X factor that defines the plateau at which, when it comes to skill, each musician will level out so that some technically adequate musicians can enthrall, while some technically extraordinary musicians wallow in obscurity.
Examples that spring to mind are one of the most well-known guitarists in the world who, self-admittedly, can't ad lib and has embarrassed himself in live situations on many occasions. He lays claim, however, to one of the most extraordinary and well known studio solos ever recorded...see the band in concert and he plays it note for note. Sigh. Clapton, on the other hand, garnered the moniker "God" in the 60's and 70's hanging on one note for 18 bars. How's that work? I wish I knew, actually.
By the same token, I have worked with studio musicians who can lay down an astonishing "one off" without even listening to a track all the way down. Then again, there are several well known sidemen who can terrify you with their skill, but are unable to write a thing.
Finally, there's the sex...being able to hear a beat in three parts...behind it, on it and ahead of it...is not something that you can learn, nor is it something that can be taught. It's feel, it's groove...it's that X factor. Technical anticipation is one thing -- like the way Miles Davis will play the note a step above the one you expect, or how Sting blends disparate styles (did you know Roxanne, that bastion of reggae-infused neo-punk, is actually a Tango?) into something totally engrossing -- but the thing that makes us want to move across a dance floor is something -- at least to my mind -- not only indescribable, but, ultimately unquantifiable.
Just my two cents and maybe that music teacher was just in over his head!
Blessings,
Michael
Thanks!
Michael,
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
In the end, there is still a question, though, about how much of all of these abilities reflects time on task--and what kind of time on what kind of task.
As you point out, music is far more than just technical expertise. But, listening, and working on timing, and exploring ideas are also elements of practice. As an amateur jazz sax player, I'll say that I have learned to hear and find parts of the beat that I did not know existed before trying to play jazz. That experience has affected both my ability to play, but also my ability to hear what other musicians are doing. That said, I still struggle to find something to "say." Your example of Eric Clapton is a case of someone who has something to "say."
Thanks again!
-Art
Great point...
I've been struggling with that whole "something to say" thing forever. I understand what you're saying. It's an important contrast that you point out in your learning to hear note-space and tempo differently as a jazz player. I always assumed that was something innate...I stand corrected!
Best,
Michael
What about singing?
I tend to think of singing as an ability / talent, not a skill. You can certainly improve your singing, like breathing technique and hitting the right notes, but I get the feeling that it's just what you're born with. If people don't like the timbre of your voice, you can't change it and you're just screwed. What do you think?
That's a great question. I'm
That's a great question. I'm no expert on singing, but I suspect that there are two components to it. First, you body serves as your instrument, and so there are going to be aspects of the shape of your head that influence the way sound resonates. That will affect the best quality of tone that you can get from your body.
From there, though, provided that you have some basic sensory and motov abilities (like the ability to discriminate between tones), you should be able to maximize the quality of the sound that comes out of your instrument.
I'd love to hear from someone with more expertise on this, though.
Feeling?
As a musician who has played in bands all his adult life, and has endured hundreds of auditions, I can tell you that the one thing you can't learn is feel. You have to be born with it. And it's the only thing we're really looking for. Everything else is mechanics, which can be learned.
But...
Elements of feel have to be learnable. You certainly don't have any feel at all when you first learn to play an instrument. There is a lot that people learn from the give-and-take of playing with other musicians. It is subtle learning, and it is clearly something people have a hard time talking about. But, ultimately, it is something that is learned.
replying to anonymous...
Instruments in Western music are strictly the invention of man, and are by definition, entirely mechanical by design. The variant is exactly how any individual affects their touch on any of them. Precocious children like Mozart were handed instruments as toddlers and displayed the ability to play them masterfully, both technically and expressively, with absolutely no training.
Most Westerners define this as talent rather than skill, because skill is learned and talent is inherent. The definition blurs with prodigies, but the real question is how to define what acts are really talent. In the US, we label those who can instantly perform on musical instruments, perform complex equations, exhibit athletic feats or create complex art as talented. Personally, I don't entirely agree with this, given that musical instruments specifically are sound contraptions created for the human hand.
The bar breaks down when you define what instruments are supposed to replicate. Standard Western instruments all attempt to mimic some aspect of the human voice: for example, a violin is a soprano, a viola is a tenor, a bassoon is a bass. That leaves the human voice as the most exemplary of instruments – an instrument without being built. In that regard, the ability to sing is to a significant extent, born, and somewhat cultivated by good training. But if the singer sounds like Fran Drescher, the music will never be on a level with Maria Callas.
Thanks for the response.
Thanks for the response.
On Les Paul, SKILL & Ability : Sense !
YEs The man was a great "mechanic" on the instrument of his design, and many that he revolutionized, where would we be without his efforts?
In response to Al, yes, you are Absolutely correct!There is NO but to it , Dr. Markman. In this regard, you are inaccurate.
Sense
Yes, anyone can learn the mechanics, and with practice(direct correlation to level of skill in mechanical ability is present), however, the inherited? sense ("the feel in me")that some of us have, does not have correlation to skill.
In an example , I do not know if you recognize the phrase " chicken-pickers" - however these are some of the best guitarists in the world, blues,jazz, ans they play by what they sense, not a sheet of music. Yes formal instrument training is recommended for "professional endeavors", but, realize, Music is expression of self and the tangents thereof.
The "Natural":
As the old adage is " You either have it or you don't", I refer to it as a sense of body/mental harmonics: in 1,3 rhythm , most have 2/4 rhythm.
And yes, the Human voice is the MOST exemplary of all the instruments as it cannot be "duplicated,completely" and once again 1,3,not 2,4 defines the greatness of a vocal performance.
Yes, what a mouthful, a fantatsic article, and we will miss Les!
Post new comment