How much do you believe in guitar player "naturals"

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by wdean

I haven't read Coyle's book. I have heard Coyle's theory is that "practice" is the real key to being "great" not innate talent. I have read Gladwell's "Outliers" and his theories of both talent and hard work (10,000 hour "rule") is what success is made of which seems intuitively right from what I have observed.

But I am going to read Coyle's book and if he has some "secret sauce" that will move me from an OK player to a very good player in my life time, I'm all ears!! But only one problem, I'm no spring chicken!! I will report back if I get some "astounding" rseults!!

Regarding Daniel Coyle's books, if you want the WHY, the "Talent Code" is the book to read. If you want the HOW, then this companion book:

https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-T...8809681&sr=1-3

Tony

[Al Acuff]

If you're interested in a book to help you unlock your full potential as a musician I highly recommend Victor Wooten's book The Music Lesson: A Spiritual Search for Growth Through Music.

[815C]

When my son was 12 my wife enrolled him in piano lessons (against his will). After his 4th lesson the teacher told us, "You get a student like this once in a lifetime." He was playing some pretty difficult/fast classical stuff within a year. It was almost like,

Q: Can you play the piano?
A: I don't know, I've never tried.

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by wdean

I haven't read Coyle's book. I have heard Coyle's theory is that "practice" is the real key to being "great" not innate talent. I have read Gladwell's "Outliers" and his theories of both talent and hard work (10,000 hour "rule") is what success is made of which seems intuitively right from what I have observed.

But I am going to read Coyle's book and if he has some "secret sauce" that will move me from an OK player to a very good player in my life time, I'm all ears!! But only one problem, I'm no spring chicken!! I will report back if I get some "astounding" rseults!!

10,000 hours equates to about 416 days. After nearly 50 years of daily playing I should be almost god-like given that 'rule'. For some reason I ain't even close

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

10,000 hours equates to about 416 days. After nearly 50 years of daily playing I should be almost god-like given that 'rule'. For some reason I ain't even close

Coyle's books are not about how long we have worked at it, but instead what we do when we work at it. Big difference. Personally, I would rather pay attention to what I am doing, how I am spending my guitar time and what my attitude toward it is, rather than how long it will take or how long I have been at it.

Tony

[ChrisE]

I've always been a "fast learner" at almost everything I've tried. Surfing, tennis, guitar playing, etc. My problem is that I start off fast and then hit a plateau pretty quick and never advance beyond that level.

I don't really play any better now than I did 30 years ago when I was 19 and just starting out. Probably the only difference is that I know more songs now.

And just recently it seems like I've learned to pick out what key a song is in and can anticipate the chord changes based on what key it's in. I was never really able to do that before.

[reeve21]

I have no doubt that we all have different gifts and different levels of potential in whatever activity we may engage in. Some folks are gifted to the degree where the term "natural" applies, but they are rare.

As much as I love certain sports and music, there is no way I could ever make a living at them. I'm quite sure I spent 10,000 hours hitting golf balls when I was a kid (I worked at a driving range!) and I never got close to thinking about turning pro. I saw friends with more "natural" ability do better with much less effort. I also see them years later struggling in the "real world," and can't help but think that not having things come easy to me may have been a blessing in the long run.

Bottom line for me, what I love to do isn't what I am the most gifted at. I feel fortunate I have the time and resources to fool around on the guitar and at sports for fun!

Sometimes I think we put too much emphasis on how "good" we are, instead of enjoying the activity for its own sake. I caddied for a long time (including for touring professionals), and saw very little correlation between how well people played and how much they enjoyed the sport. I was guilty of this myself. As one of our members says in his signature line:

PLAY music!

[Kitkatjoe]

Originally Posted by min7b5

I don't believe in the idea of "naturals" at all. I know for myself I have worked very hard all my life at learning and practicing music. And every pro player I know went through a period of almost total immersion (most live there permanently) where they played six or more hours a day, which of course is not unlike any other serious pursuit in life.

I'm sorry, but I think the idea of "naturals" is often perpetuated by people that work on things less than an hour a day, or they're switching gears all the time, and after many years maybe they're not where they want to be. There is nothing wrong with that at all, everyone has different goals... But it doesn't mean that people that did take it to another level got there because it fell out of the sky.

If I wanted to drop everything and start cold and become, say, an ophthalmologist or practice corporate law, and I put an hour a day, how long before I can honestly expect to established in those fields? I would not assume the people that are successful in those fields were just "naturals." I would assume they worked at it very hard for a long and concentrated period of time.

Furthermore, as a guitar teacher for thirty two years, I have seen no evidence of people just being "naturals" that was easily explained. The young people I've had that have excelled were given tools by family to be hard working and less susceptible to distraction... Just my two cents.

Being a natural does not mean you don't have to practice. So many of the best
guitar players cant read music,but they can play because they are different from the rest. Do they improve as they work at it yes. Take your music stand down the natural does not need it.

[Mandobart]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

10,000 hours equates to about 416 days. After nearly 50 years of daily playing I should be almost god-like given that 'rule'. For some reason I ain't even close

Sure, 416.7 24 hour days. Now let's get realistic. If you play guitar 4 hours a day, every day, that is 2500 days or 6.8 years. If you play two hours each and every day double that to 13.7 years. Most people I know probably average about 6 hours a week, due to work, sleep, other commitments. At that rate its about 313 hours per year, or almost 32 years to reach 10,000. I'm not sure I embrace the "magic" of 10,000 hours, but I'm pretty sure the time spent tuning and noodling don't count in the Outliers book. The key is disciplined, focused practice, and I know that in my 44 years of playing music I can't claim that all my hours playing (which are still probably less than 10,000) have been disciplined and focused.

And there have been a few naturals who actually can read music as well - Pablo Casals, Andrés Segovia, Jascha Heifetz, etc. There is a misconception that a "natural" can't have had any kind of training or instruction, and just knows his/her skill instinctively.

IMO, a musical "natural" is someone with the physical attributes, coordination, ear, attitude and drive in the correct balance to excel in their field. Again, just my experience, but I've heard plenty of people complain either:

1. They could have been a star too, but they didn't have the "natural" talent like (name any star) - or,

2. They are just as capable as (name any star, because there are no naturals out there) but they didn't get the lucky breaks, or couldn't put in the time, or they had this one injury, or one bad teacher, or....

[CSG]

Originally Posted by Mandobart

Sure, 416.7 24 hour days. Now let's get realistic. If you play guitar 4 hours a day, every day, that is 2500 days or 6.8 years. If you play two hours each and every day double that to 13.7 years. Most people I know probably average about 6 hours a week, due to work, sleep, other commitments. At that rate its about 313 hours per year, or almost 32 years to reach 10,000. I'm not sure I embrace the "magic" of 10,000 hours, but I'm pretty sure the time spent tuning and noodling don't count in the Outliers book. The key is disciplined, focused practice, and I know that in my 44 years of playing music I can't claim that all my hours playing (which are still probably less than 10,000) have been disciplined and focused.

I've played guitar since I was 13 and am just about 67 now. I've got well over 10,000 hours, maybe even double that. I'm still a hack. It's all about natural abilities and dedicated, focused practice.

[Shades of Blue]

Guitar playing is a summation of skills. You have hand/eye coordination, tone sensitivity, the ear for it, creativeness, musicality, ect. ect.... The greats possess the entire sum of all the skills whereas someone like me just possesses a couple of these skills.

My talent is typically more in the "playing by ear" and improvisation department than in pure skill. I've known guitar players who could play circles around me, but put both of us in a situation where you just have to play along to a song by ear and I'd wax them.

So yes, there are naturals.

[Christian Reno]

This has been a long thread already, but I do understand the desire to express an opinion, so I will offer one. If one is looking for the easy explanation, it is easy to blame a lack of achievement on a lack of “natural” ability, which disregards an endless combination of other issues. Those combinations of issues are greater than the singular issue of what we are, or are not "born" with.

Everyone knows people who picked up a skill easier (?) or faster than most other people. The reasons behind this are not definitive, incontrovertible or unassailable – pick your adjective.