What if I can't sing?

[mchalebk]

Originally Posted by BlueBird2

How do you find a good teacher?

Good question. Any local colleges with a music program? Sometimes you can take private lessons as a 1-credit course (often cheaper than actually paying a private instructor). Is there a community college nearby? Sometimes they offer singing classes. Even group lessons can be a good way to start (and I actually found two different instructors this way that I later took private lessons from). I have always been involved with church choirs and have found instructors that way a couple of times. You might also check local music ads and see if anyone is advertising.

[williejohnson]

Originally Posted by JonPR

I've never known, seen or heard of anyone who can do anything that they didn't have to learn how to do. (Other than basic functions like walking, eating, sleeping, etc ).

Jon,
It happens all of time, in fact it has happened to me. Some years ago, I had to have emergency brain surgery. When I awoke in the hospital, I had the uncontrollable desire to draw and prior to the surgery, I couldn't have drawn a stick man or cared less about it. When I arrived home, I still had that uncontrollable desire to pick up a pencil and draw. I had no prior talent or training.

I immediately started to draw things. One of the first things I sketched was my Avatar ( a sketch of Robert Johnson.) An artist friend looked at some of my early sketches and said that I was using certain techniques that would be taught in high school and college art classes.

I was so excited about my new found ability that I called the surgeon to let him know! He told me that sort of thing happens all of time after brain surgery or trauma. His theory was that the blood flow in the brain was now changed and different parts of your brain, that you had not previously tapped into, were now available for use.

I don't have a theory or explanation but I personally experienced being able to do something on a fairly high level rather immediately, with no prior training what so ever.

Here is the sketch....and this is one of the very first things I drew.




Willie

[Bern]

Great story with a happy ending, Willie. Although, your experience had a positive outcome, I'm curious about some negative effects it could have had.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by williejohnson

Jon,
It happens all of time, in fact it has happened to me. Some years ago, I had to have emergency brain surgery. When I awoke in the hospital, I had the uncontrollable desire to draw and prior to the surgery, I couldn't have drawn a stick man or cared less about it. When I arrived home, I still had that uncontrollable desire to pick up a pencil and draw. I had no prior talent or training.

I immediately started to draw things. One of the first things I sketched was my Avatar ( a sketch of Robert Johnson.) An artist friend looked at some of my early sketches and said that I was using certain techniques that would be taught in high school and college art classes.

I was so excited about my new found ability that I called the surgeon to let him know! He told me that sort of thing happens all of time after brain surgery or trauma. His theory was that the blood flow in the brain was now changed and different parts of your brain, that you had not previously tapped into, were now available for use.

I don't have a theory or explanation but I personally experienced being able to do something on a fairly high level rather immediately, with no prior training what so ever.

Here is the sketch....and this is one of the very first things I drew.




Willie

Thanks Willie, I have heard of that kind of thing before.
Of course, it's unnatural, or out of the ordinary! As a result of brain surgery, I doubt it happens "all the time", but I'm sure it's more common than some people think.

BTW, as a professional artist myself (degree level training) I'd say it resembles that of a moderately skilled young teenager. It's obviously copied from a photograph, but the detail and shading are handled carefully and well.
What's lacking (not surprisingly in your case ) is evidence of observation from life. IOW, it's clearly done by someone untrained, with little or no experience of looking at the world with an artist's eye, or understanding of proportion and body structure. Hence the flatness of perspective and certain wonky details.
That's why I say it looks like the work of a young person. It's the kind of thing that a typical kid, whose favourite hobby is drawing, would produce. Of course (thanks to that diverted blood flow ) you've only just discovered this interest as an adult, which is why it looks immature - you're only just starting your journey as an artist!
But the skill displayed is clearly above average, around the level of someone applying to art college (not the best applicant but probably good enough to get in). The evident concentration on detail and subtleties of shading definitely shows a real enthusiasm - and that's the essential thing in any creative sphere.
It's about the level I was at when I was around 13 or 14 - but then I'd been drawing for many years by then!

[williejohnson]

Originally Posted by Bern

Great story with a happy ending, Willie. Although, your experience had a positive outcome, I'm curious about some negative effects it could have had.

The surgeon told me that he had never had any experience with patients losing previous abilities, only picking up new/different ones and interestingly, most of the new skills were in the areas of art & music.

With regard to the natural talent issue, I have had two completely different personal experiences, which shared the same igniter. I would have to say that music is my life long passion. My entry into the world of playing instruments and singing started exactly the way sketching did. By that I mean that when I was very young, I had an uncontrollable desire to play and sing. Not the desire to learn to play and sing but the desire to just do it. That desire has never left me.

Sketching started out exactly the same way. I had that uncontrollable desire to do it. I found that I could do it right away, without any prior knowledge or training. That desire has since left me and I no longer draw although I'm certain that I could still sit down and draw if I wanted to.

[williejohnson]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Thanks Willie, I have heard of that kind of thing before.
Of course, it's unnatural, or out of the ordinary! As a result of brain surgery, I doubt it happens "all the time", but I'm sure it's more common than some people think.

BTW, as a professional artist myself (degree level training) I'd say it resembles that of a moderately skilled young teenager. It's obviously copied from a photograph, but the detail and shading are handled carefully and well.
What's lacking (not surprisingly in your case ) is evidence of observation from life. IOW, it's clearly done by someone untrained, with little or no experience of looking at the world with an artist's eye, or understanding of proportion and body structure. Hence the flatness of perspective and certain wonky details.
That's why I say it looks like the work of a young person. It's the kind of thing that a typical kid, whose favourite hobby is drawing, would produce. Of course (thanks to that diverted blood flow ) you've only just discovered this interest as an adult, which is why it looks immature - you're only just starting your journey as an artist!
But the skill displayed is clearly above average, around the level of someone applying to art college (not the best applicant but probably good enough to get in). The evident concentration on detail and subtleties of shading definitely shows a real enthusiasm - and that's the essential thing in any creative sphere.
It's about the level I was at when I was around 13 or 14 - but then I'd been drawing for many years by then!

Jon,
It was just shocking to me because I knew what I was capable of doing up to that point and these kinds of things just spilled out of me rather effortlessly.
People who had known me most of my life were impressed/surprised but I'm the one who was a little freaked out about it. It was almost as if I went from only seeing things around me in two dimensions, to seeing them in three dimensions if that makes any sense?

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by williejohnson

Jon,
It was just shocking to me because I knew what I was capable of doing up to that point and these kinds of things just spilled out of me rather effortlessly.
People who had known me most of my life were impressed/surprised but I'm the one who was a little freaked out about it. It was almost as if I went from only seeing things around me in two dimensions, to seeing them in three dimensions if that makes any sense?

Yes. The suddenness of the change must have been amazing!
Fascinating story. I hope you're continuing to develop your new talent. Have you tried art classes? I'd really recommend life drawing classes if you can find some locally. Or just take a sketch book and start drawing anything around you; maybe simple still lives to exercise your perception of shape, perspective and depth; get friends to sit for you if you want something more challenging. (The human face is the hardest thing, because likenesses are so subtle and elusive.)

[williejohnson]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Yes. The suddenness of the change must have been amazing!
Fascinating story. I hope you're continuing to develop your new talent. Have you tried art classes? I'd really recommend life drawing classes if you can find some locally. Or just take a sketch book and start drawing anything around you; maybe simple still lives to exercise your perception of shape, perspective and depth; get friends to sit for you if you want something more challenging. (The human face is the hardest thing, because likenesses are so subtle and elusive.)

Jon,
That uncontrollable desire to draw left me after about a year or so, even though I had gotten better at it over time. I still feel like I could sit down and pick up where I left off, I just don't have a desire to do it. I explained in an earlier post, that when I was very young, I had that same uncontrollable desire to play and sing and that has never gone away.

This sketch of Clapton was done early on as well. It was a very cool ride while it lasted!

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by williejohnson

Jon,
That uncontrollable desire to draw left me after about a year or so, even though I had gotten better at it over time. I still feel like I could sit down and pick up where I left off, I just don't have a desire to do it. I explained in an earlier post, that when I was very young, I had that same uncontrollable desire to play and sing and that has never gone away.

Hmm, that's interesting - as if it felt like an unnatural part of you, because it had arrived so suddenly without evolving as part of your personality? I guess it felt a little like an alien skill, that you felt detached from in some sense?
Whereas playing and singing came about more naturally, and had more personal meaning for you? You chose it, in a way you didn't choose the artistic skill?

[williejohnson]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Hmm, that's interesting - as if it felt like an unnatural part of you, because it had arrived so suddenly without evolving as part of your personality? I guess it felt a little like an alien skill, that you felt detached from in some sense?
Whereas playing and singing came about more naturally, and had more personal meaning for you? You chose it, in a way you didn't choose the artistic skill?

Jon,
I don't know the answer but I did enjoy it while it lasted and may, one day, try my hand at it again. I am happy to say that the desire to play and sing has only gotten stronger since it first started more than 50 years ago and never even once, went away.

Willie

[Riverwolf]

Wow.
I never expected this response and read almost all of it.
Right after I posted this thread, I thought how stupid it was, and how I should never mix alcohol with an online forum.
I had recorded myself playing and singing Neil's "Love and War" which is where the reference to him came from.
I thank all replies and ideas, the headphone into my Zoom while recording is a great idea that I would not have thought of.
But mostly I realized I am spending too much time posting and not enough practicing.
So, signing off and learning John Lennon's "Working Class Hero".
I can't sing like him either.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Aaagh! I'm not saying it doesn't exist!

As for definition, the Oxford dictionary simply says "a natural aptitude or skill"

I'm fine with that. But of course that leaves open the big question as to what "natural" means.

Right, so there are either natural aptitudes or skills, talent, or there is not. What does natural mean? innate, inborn. Natural. without training or coaxing.

Simple observation: some people find learning music easier than others. (Whatever you call it, no one can deny it exists. Call it "talent" if you like, most people do, that's fine with me.)
Simple conclusion: it looks natural, so they must have been born with it.

Nope, false logic. Not a valid conclusion at all.

I've presented to you the real argument. This is not a good argument. But yours is nearly exactly the opposite. "well training can achieve similar results to this alleged talent, therefore nothing is innate and it is all training and environment. Or whatever your shifty position might be.

This is the simple argument.

There are 2 main components of completing any action. One is physical, and the other is mental. What your body can do, and what your brain is telling it to do.

The mental portion has 2 components also. The goal of the idea, like going into your car, and then there is the actually physical commands the brain has to send to actually accomplish the task.

If what I say is correct, then the only limitation for a natural talented person, in music, is the limitation of their physical body, and perhaps understanding something that is more complex. For example a fretboard. That is not obvious, it needs to be learned, also discovering or being taught the major scale patter, and stuff like that. So, you cannot use an instrument to notice innate talent.

But singing the same pitch as a drone note is easy. Singing a song karaeoke style on pitch is easy. When children are really young they still have a tough time, because they don't have the best control over their body. But after a certain age, they should be able to sing on pitch. That's one. But I get the impression I think that this is a little bit more common of an ability.

The much more rare ability that is also easy to spot is rhythm. As soon as a person is old enough to control their body in a basic way, then you can notice rhythm right away. You'll notice people moving on beat, and the way they move on beat is telling. The way the music is moving them. You can tell the difference between someone trying to move on rhythm, and someone who doesn't control it, and the music just moves them. The way they move, and the accuracy of timing is obvious. Same for clapping. Everybody can clap. It's an easy motor skill. But not everybody can clap on rhythm. And yes, some people can clap right on rhythm, without any practice, because it just feels right. So, easy. You don't need training for that. You're talking about people getting training or influence that helps them make music, and somehow everybody must have this (for which, btw you have no basis) and that, idk, they must learn super fast or by osmosis or something.

You call some traits humans might have as "disabilities" but the word is meaningless. There are humans with genes. One thing is considered a disability just because of the number of people that have it, and whether we deem the trait as positive or not. Talent, is the same sort of fluke, except it helps you do stuff.

I don't understand how you can sit there, and admit that there are genetic differences between humans that affect human perception, in a negative, or odd, way, like synesthesia, but for no good reason, there must not be any such changes in perception between humans, where they naturally perceive music in a different way. Feel music in a different way.

I'm telling you. I perceive music differently than most people. I even don't understand some times what is the appeal of music for others, because I know parts they are missing. It's not something I trained, it's all feel, the sound of harmonies is all feel. it is not training.

Talent is not the physical part of the action so much. But the mental. The ideas, which are given sometimes with feel, and the knowledge of what you want to hear, because of good hearing, and when the beat hits next, because of good feel, and it is not planned nor calculated nor trained. It is all feel. It just feels so right. It's hard to explain it any other way.

Question: were they born like that (ie different from the majority from the beginning), or did they learn it? Or some combination of the two?
How do we find out?
Ask them?

Born with it. It is obvious to me. I keep saying this, and it's like you ignore it or something. If you watch people walking into walls all the time, you would conclude that they have something with their vision where they can't see the walls. Right? walking is easy, everybody can walk wherever they want. Nobody wants to walk into walls. people are walking into walls that I can clearly see, and would obviously avoid, if I were them. But there they are, walking straight into them as though they can't see them.

If they say they've always had that ability, supposing they learned it - or essential elements of it -before they remember doing it (like we learn to speak)?

Talent is not a skill. That's what I'm saying. It is a feeling. it is sense. it is not ability. I can learn a new language, and think in that one, no problem. I can't learn to see a new color.

Those are physical things. The brain - or at least the mind, the activity of the brain - is mutable. It evolves and grows, it changes.

your understanding of the brain is very basic, and you misunderstand what we know about it. The brain evolves and grows. Ya, the brain does. But you get more memories and learn more. You don't see new colors.

Your grammar is starting to collapse...

if you didn't understand it, then state you didn't understand, and I will explain. If you understood it, then english has served me well, and I don't care for some rules you've imposed on it other than others being able to understand me.

Yes. Those are physical disabilities; malfunctions if you like. Not mutable - although there may be an argument about blurry vision.
Of course they can. Blurry hearing is what most people have until they train their relative pitch - learn to focus it - as musicians.

Talent is also not mutable, it is like disabilities, except without the "dis". I never had to do that. I never had to focus my "blurry vision" That was just always obvious to me.

I've certainly "de-blurred" my hearing over the years, I can discriminate between - and identify - sounds I couldn't before.
How often do you really see sighted people walk into walls? It doesn't happen, not unless perhaps they're distracted by something else, not actually looking where they're going. I suppose you may be using it as an analogy, but I think you need a better one.

the analogy is perfect. you just don't understand it properly. That's my point. People that can see don't walk into walls. So, if I'm a person with vision, and I notice that everybody is walking into walls. I must conclude that they don't see like I do.

Same in music. If I see people messing up rhythm for things of simple motor task, then it is obvious they don't perceive as I do. You know what I mean? I can see, "oh, that should be really simple for them, if they were like me." Just like watching people walk into to walls would let me know people can't see, because avoiding the wall should be very simple and easy.

Then there's you, saying stuff like "people can use sticks, and avoid walls that way." or whatever other method. But I know that. I'm just saying. for some people, avoiding the walls is really really really easy, because they can just see them.

Who says it does?

Nobody. So, your brain learns, and changes, but not all of it does or can. Talent belongs in the class of things that cannot. Like vision. It is perception.

[Monk of Funk]

Bad eyesight is a result of physical factors.
A poor musical ear is not. (Tone-deafness, amusia, is physical and unchangeable, but that's not what we're talking about.)

yes these things are. They are either physical issues with the ear itself, or they are physical issues with the brain. I say issues, but just differences.

Depends how you define "smarter", I guess, but I think a lot of people would disagree. IMO, it gets smarter all the time, until dementia or other physical degeneation sets in.

Ya, a lot of people define smarter wrong. You can't make yourself smarter. You can make yourself know more stuff, make better, smarter decisions, but you can't change your level of intelligence. It is innate. Your mind thinks as it does, and you cannot will it to think any smarter. In fact, you do not even know what smarter thinking is like.

Of course it does! Otherwise what's ear training all about?

ear training doesn't improve hearing. It trains to recognize in the hearing you already have certain characteristics so that you can label things, and identify them. The hearing doesn't get better. Just your recognition does. Some people don't need this, because the things are so easy and obvious to recognize already.

Exactly!
That's what remains to be proved. I've read quite a bit of research on this, and seen no conclusive evidence.
There's certainly plenty of evidence of learning, and of environmental factors, but AFAIK the jury is still out on genetic factors.

I have seen conclusive evidence. It will be many years before they figure out our genetic code that well, but one day science will be able to show you exactly how to program musical talent into a baby fetus.

What makes you think other musicians don't do it that way? It's certainly how I think I hear intervals. ]Right, I'm not saying anything different. We all hear the combined sound, the character of the interval.
It's those with perfect pitch who will hear the individual notes, and might work out the interval from that. The rest of us don't do that.

Then interval training is just putting a name to the sounds. Idk, how you could miss something so obvious as singing the same tone as something else, and why you had to train that. For me, this is so obvious. When I heard tones when I was younger I had the inclination to sing in unison with it. Because it would just feel right.

Right. All skills need to be learned. A newborn baby has none.
That doesn't mean the brain is a blank slate. Certain universal predispositions (instincts) seem to be in place.
The question is whether specific differentiations, specialisations (such as musical ability), are in place. I don't know the answer. I just don't see a need to hypothesize that there are.

Yes, a blank slate, yes, predispositions and instincts of which some are what we call musical talent.
The more one reads about childhood development (and the stories of various "talented" people) the more one sees the influence of environment, and the less one needs to propose any genetic predisposition. (It doesn't disprove genetic factors; there's just no need to invoke them.)
Really? Evidence?[/quote] People are walking into walls, when they should be clearly seeing them.

I've never known, seen or heard of anyone who can do anything that they didn't have to learn how to do. (Other than basic functions like walking, eating, sleeping, etc ).

No kidding, we both agree that a skill is learned. Talent is not a skill. It is how one perceives. The blind man and the guy that sees both have to learn the skill of piano. But one has a different way he perceives the world than the other does. And this may or may not affect their ability or ease with which to learn the piano.

IMO that's the beside the point anyway. The point is that some people find learning easier. Not that they don't have to learn at all. Some may learn so easily that it seems they're not learning. (Eg, savants, who can have remarkable skills. But they still began somewhere.)
Even Mozart had to learn his musical skills. He just learned them all quicker and younger than most people.
That hardly needs showing, it's pretty obvious.
OK...
True. That was me in the beginning.
Not only that. If he'd sung the note to me I'd probably still have failed to match it.
That's because you've learned to ignore timbre, and focus on what matters.
That's not natural. In nature, timbral difference matters at least as much as pitch difference. That's why we find it easy to tell the difference between (say) a violin and flute playing middle C, but (unless we have perfect pitch) we can't tell it's middle C. A cheap tuner can easily identify middle C, but not the difference between violin and flute.

NO! You're not listening to me. I didn't learn to ignore timbre. I didn't learn any of that. Pitch is just very obvious to me. It is not something I had to learn, and I don't not perceive it as hidden within timbre, or anything like that. Pitch to me, is so obvious. It is a completely separate thing than timbre. Obviously appart. I could never make the mistake that you had to train yourself to differentiate. That would be like saying that I must have trained not to walk into walls.

You have begun with an assumption, and you use that assumption to explain all the evidence that is displaying otherwise.

IOW, our ears have evolved to be able to discriminate finely between timbres, but pitched music is a cultural construct, not a natural phenomenon. Pitches may exist in nature, but intervals and chords don't.

yes, intervals and chords very much do exist in nature. Otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for us to evolve the traits. They exist, but not in the context of music. and not like a Cm7, as such. but tones overlap and create "chords".

No disagreement there .
Babies' brain scans can be interpreted to show responses that can be interpreted as recognition.

No, you don't get it. If I show you an apple, a part of your brain lights up, that is the brain seeing apple. Then if I show you an apple again, that same part will light up. So, the brain is detecting the same thing. No kidding. If I record something, I recorded the same sound. Right? My computer could record the same sound twice. But did it recognize the sound? no. Recognition and your brain reacting the same way twice with the same stimulus, are very different things.

I agree that drawing conclusions from that sort of thing is risky. But you should read the full report before dismissing it. (I'll see if I can find a link later.)

It is logically impossible for babies to recognize anything. Two people can hear the same piece of music, and their brains will react to it in a similar way a second time, but how one perceives the piece of music cannot be shown in a brain scan. and that's the important part.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by williejohnson

Jon,
That uncontrollable desire to draw left me after about a year or so, even though I had gotten better at it over time. I still feel like I could sit down and pick up where I left off, I just don't have a desire to do it. I explained in an earlier post, that when I was very young, I had that same uncontrollable desire to play and sing and that has never gone away.

This sketch of Clapton was done early on as well. It was a very cool ride while it lasted!

Did you make these drawings from looking at a picture? or did you draw them straight from your mind?

[bozz_2006]

Well..... I can't play, but that never stopped me