Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
Deliberate practice entails more than simply repeating a task — playing a C-minor scale 100 times, for instance, or hitting tennis serves until your shoulder pops out of its socket. Rather, it involves setting specific goals, obtaining immediate feedback and concentrating as much on technique as on outcome.
I've always approached learning with the view that we are all created (basically) equal and if person X can do something, then so can I given the right training/learning/etc. I think that once you accept that you can attain something, then you will continue to work until it is achieved instead of using the excuse that the other person must be born with something I don't have. Most professionals aren't that much better than serious amateurs, they simply have a greater skill in taking their art to the next level of perfection. Thanks for the link.
hmm.. I think nobody can learn how to compose deep feelings in music. If your heart and character is bad, you can only compose bad. If your heart is good you will be able to compose wonderfull things.
Maybe they had many problems or the world was not ready for them... Its like the wonderfull and the beast. The beast didnt looked very sensitive..only in the disney cartoon.
I don't think it is true that you cannot learn to be more musical to a degree. If you grow up in a musical house you have a a lot of music 'built in' because you are surrounded by it. But if you've never heard jazz but then listen to jazz, play jazz and study jazz you will eventually begin to express yourself in jazz. I can't think of anyone who spontaneously became a great jazz musician. For instance, there are recordings of Heiftz playing violin when he was 6. He doesn't sound like the master we all know him to be. All great players have studied with someone, and not just technique but also interpretation and they got better. Admittedly, some better than others and others that are so musical you can't imaging that it is learned. But I argue that it is absorbed from somewhere.
I think it is all a matter of focus and concentration. I believe ability to quickly learn and internalize new material in children is generally related to lack of external distractions in their everyday life. It is a common mistake that people think if one starts something at a later stage in life, he/she can never achieve the same level of excellence as if he/she had started it as a child. Of course, as an adult you're faced with hundreds of more issues to deal with on a daily basis which turns valuable mental resources from learning. But I believe with focus resulting from a genuine interest in any discipline one can achive very high levels of talent. As Edison put it: "Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration".
Ramin
_____________________________
What we are today comes from out thoughts of yesterday and our present thoughts build our life tomorrow: our life is the creation of our mind. -Buddha
Hmmm, as far as writing great music that is a rather subjective thing, isn't it? What makes something great, its complexity or its popularity? Or some combination? We better be careful or else J-bash and Deniz are going to take this one over!
I think we can all become composers. As Henrik said, it is a skill like anything else. We all do have limits, too, in composing just as we do in picado. How they are intrinsically different in this regard is beyond me.
I do agree that in composing, especially it is visible that "no matter where we go, there we are." Some local musicians, you hear their stuff and it is just _them_. My friend Monty is kind of Sedona-new agey, vegetarian and has an unusual religion I've never even heard of. Well, his music is pretty new-agey and definitely reflects his age and his influences. Another guy, Kurt, just loves Ottmar Liebert. He has a kind of corny, hammy sense of humor and to me this is all reflected in his compositions.
I am just a beginning composer, so who knows where I'll end up. I notice that at this stage, anything I write has a direct antecedent, usually within a week or so (of hearing it on CD).
As far as skills, you notice that some people seem to start fast and the sky is the limit. Ohter people start slow and never really get it. To me, this reflects, not particularly innate talent (hard to say how much of a contribution genetics really represents, isn't it?), but attitudes and mental techniques of study. Time and time again, you notice the really great players are very detail oriented, practice maniacally, and have tons of discipline in regards to their craft. Maybe not all of them, but a lot of the greats are like this.
I was just reading a Paco De Lucia interview I came across online and he answers this question and it seemed to relate to this topic.
quote:
What inspires you?
I wish I knew where inspiration comes from, but I believe inspiration is something that results from working. I guess I would have to say that I don’t believe much in blind inspiration... that’s something that we artists dreamed up. You have to have passion for what you do, and you have to work at it, it doesn’t come easily. You’re not going to be inspired by just lying around in bed, although sometimes, rarely does that happen.
I think it is all a matter of focus and concentration. I believe ability to quickly learn and internalize new material in children is generally related to lack of external distractions in their everyday life. It is a common mistake that people think if one starts something at a later stage in life, he/she can never achieve the same level of excellence as if he/she had started it as a child. Of course, as an adult you're faced with hundreds of more issues to deal with on a daily basis which turns valuable mental resources from learning.
Not true, my friend. Children are biologically primed to absorb information far more effectively and fruitfully than adults. An extreme example: Noam Chomsky's linguistic research showed that children under the age of 2 (or 5... one of the two) are capable of over 5000 phonetics. Once they learn a language, it drops to something like 1400 - the rest becomes alien. A manifest example is the accent: you will always have it if you learn a language after the age of 12 if only because you are simply not capable of a foreign language's phonetics.
To return to music: the earlier you start, the more of the rudimentary techniques you can internalise (just like how the child holds on to the the rudimentary phonetic blocks of his language, and dispenses with the rest). Starting early allows the child to not dispense with some of the mechanical techniques and neurological networks associated with higher levels of musical aptitude. So it's actually not true that we can all attain the same level of proficiency given the right amount of practice. To be sure, I am not advocating a self-defeating mentality, but merely clarifying a statement that purported to be scientific.
Hard to argue with that however can we consider this
quote:
So it's actually not true that we can all attain the same level of proficiency given the right amount of practice.
Assume that there is a level of performance after which the level of proficiency becomes so detailed that to 99.9% of outside observers cannot distinguish a noticable difference. Let call this the level at which you are considered professional. Many, regardless of innate, god-given or pre age 12 learning can achive this and therefore to those 99.9% who cannot distinguish the difference, anyone can learn to the same proficiency. It all comes down to the granularity of your assessment of proficiency.
This is my view. That regardless of where I start from as long as I can achive a result that is percieved by most as an skilled accomplishment (such as "Sean, this is the best pecan pie I've ever tasted") then I have reached a proficiency that I am happy with.
Assume that there is a level of performance after which the level of proficiency becomes so detailed that to 99.9% of outside observers cannot distinguish a noticable difference
That's not merely an assumption, but an empirical claim, and a very broad one at that.
As for attaining a level of proficiency that produces happiness for oneself... that's an entirely different conversation, and I completely agree. Most of us never set out to be quasi-virtuosos anyway.
bahen you seem like a really bright person, so this is interesting to discuss with you if you don't mind.
If you want to abstract my assumption to divide a given sample of listeners into those who can and cannot discern a difference from one performance to another, then so be it. The point I was trying to get at is that proficiency is subjective based on the listener and that though it is clearly true that a younger learner will have a distinct advantage over an older learner, if the observer cannot disinguish the difference in the two outcomes (the younger learners perofmance vs the older learners performance) then how can we access that older learner has not achieved the same proficiency as the younger learner?
To the touch, polished stone and glass may have to same exact smoothness however, the coefficients of friction may tell us otherwise. But we can't tell this from touch so to the fingers they are the same.
how can we access that older learner has not achieved the same proficiency as the younger learner?
Easy - give them both a piece that specifically targets the ability to understand and execute a given rhythm or technique or 'duende'. It's not that the young learner is better per se, but rather that he has kept more of the potentially beneficially neurological circuitry and mechanical memory involved in playing a particular piece that demands higher levels of proficiency.
quote:
To the touch, polished stone and glass may have to same exact smoothness however, the coefficients of friction may tell us otherwise. But we can't tell this from touch so to the fingers they are the same.
Very clever, and I could not agree more. I for one am not in a position to fully appreciate the virtuouso's edge over the guitarist who has worked day and night to perfect his playing.
I think that with a little cleverness, a "virtuoso" level can be simulated, perhaps to the 99% degree.
Maybe many of us remember the first flamenco we heard, a whirling dervish of picados, mysterious machine-gun like retorts, sharp percussive cracks, and exotic rhythm. Who was the guitarist? Just another player perhaps... I think that many listeners will experience the alien and exhibitionist nature of flamenco the same, even if they are educated in classical or other styles of music.
It is too simplistic to say that Esteban has proven that a certain degree of skill, married with cleverness, that is within everyone's reach, is all that is necessary to satisfy the average intellect or taste.
I actually think the language analogy is a strong one. A child of absolutely normal genes will easily learn his native tongue, yet an intelligent adult would find the same feat very difficult if not impossible. It is probably true that to a certain, although perhaps lesser, degree this applies to mastery of a musical instrument. After all, we are hard-wired for language specifically and certainly not for playing guitar.
Yet Conrad was not a native English speaker. And Heart of Darkness was a pretty good book.
By the way, Harold Taylor, who wrote The Pianist's Talent, claims that the talent of a natural virtuoso will always shine over one not similarly gifted.
Printable Version
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread