Elvis Presley - The Albums and Singles Thread pt3 The Seventies

Regarding the concept of talent... I can contrast my experiences with the guitar to something I am good at: drawing. I started drawing at a very early age, and something about it always felt natural to me. That certainly doesn't mean I was instantly good at it... I was no better than any other little kid. But I spent hours working at it, and here's the two key things: I enjoyed the hours I spent practicing, and I got better. When I was not good at something specific (such as drawing hands and fingers) I could apply myself, look at examples of others' work, and really focus, and eventually with lots of work I was able to improve and learn to do it competently. Even when I was struggling and there were momentary frustrations, on the whole it was fun. And I became a decent cartoonist eventually.

By contrast, I did not ever enjoy practicing the guitar. I always felt like I was banging my head against a wall or trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The constant emotion I remember is frustration. When I was trying to learn a specific skill I could spend hours and hours working at it, but I did not ever get any better. I couldn't get my fingers to do what my brain wanted them to do, and for that matter my brain just couldn't comprehend some of the things about how music worked. Eventually, I had to accept that as much as I wanted to learn to at least be a competent player, it just wasn't going to happen.

To bring this back on topic, I suspect that how I felt about playing guitar is how Elvis might have felt when he tried to apply himself to writing a song. We know he was not a lazy person. We know he worked hard to improve his singing abilities, and we know he did 31 takes of Hound Dog and 48 takes of Loving You. This was a guy who could focus and work very hard. But he was not able to make it happen with songwriting, and I suspect no amount of hours and effort would have changed that.

I have not read that, and was not even familiar with it until googling just now. If I'm understanding his view correctly, it appears he is someone who focuses on hard work and opportunity too much, to the exclusion of acknowledging the role of natural talent (perhaps I'm wrong about that though, as I just skimmed the wiki about his work). My own view is that to excel at any skilled or artistic endeavor, there must be a combination of natural ability and hard work. Both are necessary, but neither is sufficient on its own.

 

Gladwell's book is a great read and highly informative. He also talks about how cultural differences and just blind luck can have a significant role in people exceeding at some craft or job. Bill Gates had early free access to computers long before they were readily available to the average person. There is a great chapter on airline pilots and why some cultures inadvertently lead to more pilot errors in airline crashes. My family had vast experience in the airline industry, so this chapter was really interesting to me.

The book was quite the rage, and almost every smart person I knew had read the book back when it first came out. It is a relatively short book too and you pretty much do not want to put it down, once you start reading it. It is one of those rare books that really makes you feel smarter after reading it. It answers a lot of questions about why some groups of people are successful in certain fields. It might not be viewed as positively today in these politically correct times, but I found it highly informative and quite fascinating. A lot of famous politicians and entrepreneurs read it as well.

 

i liked gladwell's book, but i didn't think it told the whole story. other bands had the same opportunity in Hamburg that the Beatles did (Ringo's first band for one), but they didn't reach the same heights. i think talent and individual drive are big factors as well.

 

It takes talent AND application. I think Gladwell was clear about that.

If I grabbed a pal and went to Hamburg for a few months, we wouldn’t become Lennon and McCartney. Pete Best wouldn’t become Ringo. But if Lennon and McCartney had not put in the long hours, they wouldn’t have been as good as they were. They would have made albums like Mind Games and London Town.

 

lol

 

Totally agree - if you look at one of the ultimate child prodigies - Mozart - the guy apparently started composing at 5 and by the time he died at 35 he had written about 200 hours worth of music that we know about, much of which is still played and listened to 230 years later. There must have been a lot of hard work involved, but there also must have been a lot of natural musical ability to begin with.

 

Talent is augmented by practice. And all the practice in the world will not give you "talent" if you do not already have it. And what I mean by that, sure anyone can practice enough to play chop sticks, but to get to TRUE talent level, you have to have the predisposition. Here is one of the premier classical pianist of her generation. Pay attention to her commentary as she practices. I would put forth than NO popular music musician ever gets to the level of these best classical musicians. Elton John could practice for another 100 years to no avail:

 

Here is who is considered the best living pianist in the world. Do you think if Billy Joel practiced for 100 years he could ever touch this performance?

 

Yep...fat Elvis ftw.

 

If I practiced for 100 years, I would never be a Wilt Chamberlin. Talent is innate, but can only be developed with practice. It is the nature/nurture argument. But even I.Q. is at least 70% genetic or "nature".

 

The interesting thing I have found with classically trained musicians ... all of those I have been around at least ... without sheet music, they seem lost. A simple jam is not possible.
Certainly that wouldn't be the case for all, but it is for many .... and I find that hard to comprehend

 

I really dig Tchaikovsky and that has to be one of the most gorgeous pieces of music ever written, but what I really admire, besides her virtuoso skills at the piano, is how she dresses like a pop star for the occasion. Having said all that, in my humble opinion, she's no Hargus "Pig" Robbins (Nashville's premier blind piano player for about five decades, who could play everything from jazz to classical, country to pop).

 

It could be as simple as they never learned how to improvise, or weren't taught. Or maybe being able to improvise is not part of their innate skill set. I heard Walt Parazaider of Chicago had to have his solos written for him because he can't just make something up on the spot.

 

It is one thing to be able to play classical well enough for it to be recognized. For example John Hawken of Renaissance, Illusion and Strawbs fame threw in Beethoven a lot in their recordings. But these performances are no match for the upper talents in the Classical world. As you can see by the above Tiffany Poon practice video, such little subtleties make or break a performance. This is a LOT of emotional expression and feel involved. I would rather listen to Peter Green play the blues (or should I say more often, I would). But the talent required for Classical music is the pinnacle.

I would say that a Classical musician COULD play any other style of music easily. But The Ramones are never going to be great musicians if they had 3 lifetimes to practice.

As for sheet music vs jamming. Well when one jams, it is freeform except for the grounding rhythm section and chord changes. (same goes for Jazz). And the next day that same exact performance could not be replicated UNLESS someone transcribed it on sheet music and then the musicians practiced replicating that performance.

There is so much going on with a orchestral classical piece. First off most classical musicians can sight read. Another thing, they use sheet music (once the piece is learned) as a co-ordination device with the other 20-50 musicians. Not easy to keep your precise place when improvising is a NO NO.

Free form improvisation is loose and seldom repeatable. Classical is a perfectly oiled machine. The improvisation comes with the emotional input/output that is unique to the particular performance. And that is typically only reserved for the soloist in a Concerto. The Conductor also has their personal influence on the pacing and expression of the orchestra. Those in the orchestra are the TOOLS that must conform to the conductor.

The discipline and mindset are completely different.

I met a Japanese Classical musician and watched her performance live of Tchaikovsky's No 1. She practiced that piece for 3 years before finally presenting it to the public. Other than having the chops and practicing playing in general, a spontaneous jam does not require any practice or preparation, hence "spontaneous". It really just requires a groove and soloists playing within a chord structure anything that comes to mind. And if it is jazz, heck sometimes you ignore the chord structure, and if you make a mistake, repeat it to convince everyone "I meant to do that".

Imagine a 30 piece orchestra "jamming" it would sound like they were independently tuning their instruments!

 

Do you think Peter Green could perform this EVER? (I LOVE Peter Green) Could Jimi Hendrix? Stevie Ray Vaughn?
Maybe she cannot "jam" though.

 

And if she keeps it up, in 10 years she will be top:

 

And let's face it. With all the practice in the world, most of us could not touch Elvis' talent that was innate. Heck he barely had to practice at all. He just blossomed.

 

Yea, I just find it unusual.
If you know scale structures and melodic intervals, it merely comes down to imagination.

But it isn't even necessarily the improvising part of the equation.
A keyboard/piano player... just play a I,IV,V with emphasis on flat 7ths ... and they look at you like, "but where's the sheet?" ... it is bewildering to me.
I can't imagine not understanding how a groove works, or not being able to just pick up an instrument and start playing along with someone.... that all takes practice, and a sense of rhythm of course, but to study for years at a conservatory and not be able to play without a piece of paper seems to defeat the purpose...
Obviously just my opinion, but it is just weird.

 

I disagree really. Certainly we all have certain physical and mental attributes that lean in certain directions, but playing an instrument, particularly in classical music is merely muscle training and memory.
Certainly one can practice continually and not reach a specific goal, but generally that is due to poor practice habits. Methodical physical training, with mental capability to back it up will reach any goal you are physically capable of.

I got pretty good on the guitar, and practiced a lot... but a lot of my practice was futile, because I would just burn one down and noodle. I wasn't performing strict structural muscle mechanics exercises.
Where most classical players have it over ear, self trained players, is that they are dogmatically exercising the required physical movements of each passage.
Where ear, self trained players have it over classically trained players, is exactly the same thing.... giving different results, with a different feel.

It is a weird thing, but really just comes down to a love or passion to persue something, and enough discipline in practice to achieve it.

Songwriting can be seen the same way.
Classical music is related to a lot of mathematical equations, essentially, and how they work together. The best knew how to emote also.
Popular or contemporary pop, rock, rap, whatever, is studying your field. That's why a lot of eighties music started to become dull, because there were to many formulas and not enough risks... which is the very same reason why a lot of seventies music still has an edge, because there were more risks and less structured formulas.

Just my opinion obviously.

 

I'm kind of thinking aloud, and debating myself here.... apologies

 

I believe author Malcolm Gladwell would back up your thesis as well in his book. I know he actually has a chapter on classical musicians too, but I can't seem to find my copy of his book Outliers at the moment. I did find this interesting article by Evan Williams called The Myth Of The Composer-Genius that references Gladwell's viewpoint on the matter:

The myth of the composer-genius devalues the skill of the composer and portrays the ability to compose as a gift rather than learned. In his book Outliers, author Malcolm Gladwell profiles the work of psychologists and neurologists like K. Anders Ericsson, Michael Howe, and Daniel Levitin, who studied the link between talent and concentrated practice. Their research showed that to master a skill, it takes around 10,000 hours of concentrated practice. Even in the case of Mozart, we see a composer who did not hit his stride until he was 21. Genes, brain chemistry, or divine intervention seem to be unlikely candidates in the formation of musical artistry. Rather, it is more likely that training and financial and social capita are the greatest factors in artistic success. Understanding this is crucial to achieving equity in music performance, dissemination, and education.

 

I guess I think if ANYONE can do it as long as they practice, then it isn't talent, it is a skill. On the other hand if only an elite few can do something (which also requires practice) but other cannot do regardless of how much they practice, that is TALENT. A skill being nurture and talent being nature. I could study forever and not fully grasp all that Einstein understood. He had a talent that I do not possess, even though my I.Q. is between 125 and 130, it isn't enough. Mozart has been mentioned. He definitely and an inherent talent. He was born to be.

The semi-fictional account, the movie Amadeus brings this home in the thoughts of the narrator. That poor bastard could never do what Mozart did even if he had 100 lifetimes of practice.

I understand your frustration as described. Your encounter with Classical musicians who cannot understand how to "just play a I,IV,V with emphasis on flat 7ths" without sheet music is puzzling. But equate that with people today who cannot function without access to Google. Or cannot find an address without Garmin. Or cannot change a tire without seeing a tutorial on Youtube. Once you are conditioned a certain way, it takes some reorienting to think outside the box.

 

Heh heh. My daughter and I took a trip to Knott's Berry Farm (most people call it Nottsbury Farm). And I took out my Rand McNally and wrote down the directions on a piece of note paper. My daughter took a picture of the notes and put it on Facebook. She called it "my dad's GPS".

 

But it is the old nature vs nurture argument, which sometimes has a political motivation.

 

Yeah, Mozart did not hit is stride until he was 21! Ha, ha. Who is arguing that practice is not a factor? Two individuals can have exactly the same practice experience. And the one who comes out on top HAS MORE TALENT. We are NOT born equal. We SHOULD all have equal rights. But even with equal opportunity and input, we will have unequal results.