Joined
·
1,393 Posts
In another forum Spiderjames said:
I see the logic behind the "it's 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" theory of rising to the top in anything one does. But even assuming that that is correct (and I'm up for learning otherwise), I'm still left asking some questions...
1. Perspiration
If everyone put exactly the same amount of time and effort (ie the 99% perspiration) into becoming technically accomplished at playing the sax, would they achieve the same results?
My answer to that has to be "no, different people would use their natural abilities and become more or less accomplished in the different skills that make up technical accomplishment." Maybe other people think different, but I see inate intelligence, physiology (and OK health) making a difference here. ANyone think otherwise?
2. Inspiration
So where does this part of the equation come from (always assuming it exists in the first place of course)? Is it learned and if so can it be formally taught or is it purely experiential, alternatively is it genetic in origin and either you have it or you don't? And what actually is it? Creativity? Artistry? Empathy? Intelligence? Humour? A combination? Could a computer be taught to do it if you had the right computer and the right software, or is it something intangible that only humans have and if so then what?
It's easy to see how for example a top sprinter needs to be blessed with the right genes in order to rise to the very top of their profession, so is it the same for musicians? Do you need "music genes" to be a truly top flight musician in the same way that top athletes need "athlete genes" to rise to the top of theirs? Or is it just a case of receiving the right training?
Anyone out there studied this sort of stuff at uni and have any of the answers? Anyone else have a theory of what makes a musician "great"?
And DanPerezSax replied:Any one of us hobbyists could rival any saxophonist from any era within the next few years, if we put the time and energy necessary to learn the craft. Bold statement perhaps, but it is true. It is a craft and it is learned and earned.
And I thought it was an interesting discussion, but as it was a separate one to the subject of that thread I thought I'd start another one.LOTS of people put in the time and energy to learn the craft, and there are a lot of great technicians out there. Does that put them on a level of innovation to parallel Bean, Bird, Trane or Brecker? No way. Besides there is an element of talent that dictates your potential... I think of it as specialized intelligence. Sure, a cat with no talent who works hard will sound better than a talented guy who never sheds, but he's got more potential. There's a certain spark you hear with some guys, even before they get "good," that soul that they can communicate to a greater degree... some will never have it. You can fake it, but your audience can tell. On the other hand, enough hard work will make you suitable to play any gig, for sure. You'll never be embarrassed by being a technique robot, because you'll always be able to play the "right" thing.
I see the logic behind the "it's 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" theory of rising to the top in anything one does. But even assuming that that is correct (and I'm up for learning otherwise), I'm still left asking some questions...
1. Perspiration
If everyone put exactly the same amount of time and effort (ie the 99% perspiration) into becoming technically accomplished at playing the sax, would they achieve the same results?
My answer to that has to be "no, different people would use their natural abilities and become more or less accomplished in the different skills that make up technical accomplishment." Maybe other people think different, but I see inate intelligence, physiology (and OK health) making a difference here. ANyone think otherwise?
2. Inspiration
So where does this part of the equation come from (always assuming it exists in the first place of course)? Is it learned and if so can it be formally taught or is it purely experiential, alternatively is it genetic in origin and either you have it or you don't? And what actually is it? Creativity? Artistry? Empathy? Intelligence? Humour? A combination? Could a computer be taught to do it if you had the right computer and the right software, or is it something intangible that only humans have and if so then what?
It's easy to see how for example a top sprinter needs to be blessed with the right genes in order to rise to the very top of their profession, so is it the same for musicians? Do you need "music genes" to be a truly top flight musician in the same way that top athletes need "athlete genes" to rise to the top of theirs? Or is it just a case of receiving the right training?
Anyone out there studied this sort of stuff at uni and have any of the answers? Anyone else have a theory of what makes a musician "great"?