You either have it or you don't?

True, but if you enjoy doing something, it should be enough for you, the reward is being able to do something you like.. And you dont really need to be big or even popular to make a big difference.

I think talent helps, but for guys like me who just started making beats when I was 26-27 (I'm 30 now) and I have no musical backround, it can take a while. If you can play an instrument and/or understand basic music theory then all you have to do is learn the machine or software. But if you're like me, then you spend a lot of time doing research and learning basic sh!t about the whole thing. It can make it really hard to wanna keep pursuing it and I'm sure a lot of dudes drop out because of the huge learning curve. Especially when you're learning on your own. Basically, you get out what you put it like anything else.

Ibunshi wrote:

rookie wrote:you can't get taught how to sing like MJ,don't care how much time you put in,what we have is the gifts we've been given.the thing you can do waking up out of your sleep is your gift.I know dudes who had all the latest gear and could'nt make a beat if you payed 'em $1 million.just was'nt his lane.you can't jump from the free throw line like MJ in a game, don't care how much you practice,just ain't you.

oh but you can practice how to sing like him, you just cant do it with his vocal cords, but you can learn how to sing and imitate him... but just having vocal cords has nothing to do with skill or "talent" the skill and talent comes from practicing, which MJ also did a lot, and he had a teacher himself, Seth Riggs.

his actual musical skill and talent are a bit separated from physical attributes like that..

if not, its like saying that an actors skill sits in his looks, or that painting artists skill and talent sits in his hand or paintbrush and not in how he looks at things and how he uses that paintbrush.. those things are just part of the techniques he uses, they are very important of course, as they are part of your limitations and walk hand in hand but they are just physical attribute and i cant see having a hand or owning a paintbrush as talent or skill in itself.. and a musicians knowledge and view on things does not magically disappear simply because he loses his voice or instrument

and it is those non physical things that can be learnt, as long as you have a somewhat normal brain and dont suffer from extreme learning problems, even the physical parts can be learnt... a pianist might have some advantage with longer fingers and someone with abnormally short fingers is going to have problems performing, but those are extreme cases, most people have "normal" fingers and "normal" brains

if MJ was born with different vocal cords, he could still have done great.. but even with the voice he did have, i dont think he would have gotten that far if he never had pracitced singing and practiced how to control his voice.. if he had lived his life and never started singing, and then suddenly tried to sing at the age of 30, he would have faced the same problems that anyone else would face in the same situation.. but he did pracitce, a lot and he did it since an early age.

dude either you can sing or you can't, if it was that simple I would do it. I cannot make the NFL no matter how hard I try,neither can I train myself to think like a rocket scientist.certain things are in a persons DNA,it has nothing to do with practice.There are people who took piano lessons for years and still don't get it,why? it just ain't them.Take for instance a savant,who can play Bach after hearing it just 1 time,but he can't remember how to spell his name,thats a GIFT you can't practice that no more than you can sing like MJ.If I'm a bass and he's a falsetto how in the world do I sound like him?

rookie wrote:but just having vocal cords has nothing to do with skill or "talent" ... his actual musical skill and talent are a bit separated from physical attributes like that ... its like saying that an actors skill sits in his looks

I disagree. Michael Jackson's inborn talent includes (but of course is not limited to) the quality of his voice and the way he applies varying inflection and pitch to it. Practice does not make Michael Jackson. Practice plus natural talent does.

In the same way, an actor's natural talent includes (but of course is not limited to) his ability to convince you (through facial expression, vocal inflection, and other verbal and non verbal cues) that his 'act' is genuine. Practice does not make Robert Deniro. Practice plus natural talent does.

In the same way, the painter's talent includes (but of course is not limited to) his control over the way his fingers, hand, and arm moves while holding a paintbrush up to a canvas. Practice does not make Pablo Picasso. Practice plus natural talent does.

The trumpeter's inborn talent is his control over his breath, lips and fingers. The guitarist's inborn talent is his control over his fingers. And so on. Practice doesn't make Jimi Hendrix or Miles davis. Practice plus talent does.

The composer's natural talent is his ability to manipulate differences in pitch/timbre and timing in an emotionally pleasing way. The producer's natural talent is his ability to orchestrate a musical masterpiece from a collection of disparate elements (whether that's a bunch of samples or a band of musicians and a singer) through focused and concentrated listening. All of us here are some combination of composer/producer, and that means our natural talent is in our ears. Practice doesn't make Mozart, Quincy Jones or Dilla. Practice plus talent does.

There is an element to art that is inborn. There has to be. If there wasn't, there would be no separation between two individuals that work equally hard at their craft.

@mp3 i agree, and i already said that it goes hand in hand.. just as a pianist with longer fingers will have it easier than someone with short fingers, he can use it to his advantage when it comes to technique.. technique and musical knowledge goes hand in hand..

when i said separated i meant that those are just physical attributes and alone has nothing to do with musical skill and talent.. a persons agile fingers and memory can be compared with many other non musical situations, basket binding, knitting and whatnot, i mean it is separated in that it will mean nothing unless you have the musical knowledge and skill and with musical skill you can choose other ways if you have short, non agile fingers for example.. a guitarist without musical knowledge might aswell have been using his agile fingers to do something unrelated to music.. but the musical skill is something he can learn, agile figers or not.. it is just learning and he can learn it and still achieve greatness.. unless his brain is damaged in some way and stops him from learning.. and i also meant separeted as in you dont need both to make great music.. either can be enough depending on the music you want to do..

Art is art and subjective, but to me the thing that sets apart the good and bad is how an individual uniquely expresses themselves with their music, technical ability or not.

Ibunshi wrote:@mp3 i agree, and i already said that it goes hand in hand.. just as a pianist with longer fingers will have it easier than someone with short fingers, he can use it to his advantage when it comes to technique.. technique and musical knowledge goes hand in hand..

when i said separated i meant that those are just physical attributes and alone has nothing to do with musical skill and talent.. a persons agile fingers and memory can be compared with many other non musical situations, basket binding, knitting and whatnot, i mean it is separated in that it will mean nothing unless you have the musical knowledge and skill and with musical skill you can choose other ways if you have short, non agile fingers for example.. a guitarist without musical knowledge might aswell have been using his agile fingers to do something unrelated to music.. but the musical skill is something he can learn, agile figers or not.. it is just learning and he can learn it and still achieve greatness.. unless his brain is damaged in some way and stops him from learning.. and i also meant separeted as in you dont need both to make great music.. either can be enough depending on the music you want to do..

Oh ok I got you. I read your quote wrong.

I have to disagree with this point though:

i believe most people can make music (or anything in general) and become extremely good

I believe certain people have a natural ability to do certain things very well. I dont believe that anybody can set their mind to anything and become great at it. I think we're drawn to do the things we have a natural ability in. (I also believe we are drawn to do the things that interest us, but that's different, that's where the producer who can't make a good beat comes from)

I think you're right as far as having the physical tools (longer/faster fingers) and putting the time into practice, training and gaining knowledge. But I think you're missing what brings those two things together to create a great work of art. Artistic creativity.

The creativity itself is the talent. the ability to create a captivating piece of art that generates a strong response in the listener; that is the natural ability.

I believe everyone has a natural talent. Something that they are born with, and something that they could be great at if they harness that natural ability and combine it with study and practice. I do not believe that everyone has a natural talent that involves artistic creativity.

mp3 wrote:

Ibunshi wrote:@mp3 i agree, and i already said that it goes hand in hand.. just as a pianist with longer fingers will have it easier than someone with short fingers, he can use it to his advantage when it comes to technique.. technique and musical knowledge goes hand in hand..

when i said separated i meant that those are just physical attributes and alone has nothing to do with musical skill and talent.. a persons agile fingers and memory can be compared with many other non musical situations, basket binding, knitting and whatnot, i mean it is separated in that it will mean nothing unless you have the musical knowledge and skill and with musical skill you can choose other ways if you have short, non agile fingers for example.. a guitarist without musical knowledge might aswell have been using his agile fingers to do something unrelated to music.. but the musical skill is something he can learn, agile figers or not.. it is just learning and he can learn it and still achieve greatness.. unless his brain is damaged in some way and stops him from learning.. and i also meant separeted as in you dont need both to make great music.. either can be enough depending on the music you want to do..

Oh ok I got you. I read your quote wrong.

I have to disagree with this point though:

i believe most people can make music (or anything in general) and become extremely good

I believe certain people have a natural ability to do certain things very well. I dont believe that anybody can set their mind to anything and become great at it. I think we're drawn to do the things we have a natural ability in. (I also believe we are drawn to do the things that interest us, but that's different, that's where the producer who can't make a good beat comes from)

I think you're right as far as having the physical tools (longer/faster fingers) and putting the time into practice, training and gaining knowledge. But I think you're missing what brings those two things together to create a great work of art. Artistic creativity.

The creativity itself is the talent. the ability to create a captivating piece of art that generates a strong response in the listener; that is the natural ability.

I believe everyone has a natural talent. Something that they are born with, and something that they could be great at if they harness that natural ability and combine it with study and practice. I do not believe that everyone has a natural talent that involves artistic creativity.

yeah, most people that does become very good at something does so because they enjoy it and are drawn to it, but not everyone.. there are enough artists that absolutely hates their work.. and many professional musicians, the ones that has it as a job and get hired to play in bands etc are very uncreative and has poor imagination and could not make music on their own, like that flute player i mentioned earlier in this thread.. she was someone that has just practiced and practiced until she became very good at playing, but she can not create music on her own, she can only play other peoples music and can not improvise.. i would say that she lacks the artistic creativity to do so, stile very very good at what she does.. compare that to a jazz flute player that can just pick up the flute and improvise and play along with any music that is played..

and things like artistic creativity, i believe everyone has it, but it is something that comes and goes and some people has more of it, and some artistic people get periods where it iss blocked.. and there is many things that can come to play that decides just how much you are feeling it, the chemical balance in your brain, things that happens in your everyday life.. personally i try to only make stuff when i feel that creative flow, and its best when i simply cant stop myself after having stayed away for a ling time.. but its is not always there, and i can still continue to practice until it comes back and i could still make stuff by utilising what i have learnt.. i dont need that creativity too make things, i just want it because it makes everything much more enjoyable, otherwise its like any other job that you do but might not like.. and loving what you do makes it easier to become good because nothing feels like its hard when you are patient and take your time.. i started late 1997 and thinking about it is quite long, but i does not feel like it, it feels like i have only just started and i really see no end to it, i am patient and i know that it is going to be hard as i am not naturally gifted, but the training is there to make it natural for you..no one is born to play the piano, but you train to make it into an extension of yourself.. not many people makes it easily, but many people train hard, and by having patiencve and not giving up they reach success.. i know, its easy to say that they succeeded because they had it, but you can as easily say that no one will vever know if they have it unless they really put in the time and effort

im just saying that most people would be able to do it if they really put their mind into it, but it will be much harder if you do not enjoy yourself.. and there is a risk that even if you become extremely good, your lack of love for what you do will show in how you do it, because you are just machine doing something without feeling and it can show ... but this would only really be a problem for a solo artist, it can work for a band or orchestra where you just need an instrument to fill gap, and just to be functional.. many of these autistic people with savant syndrome are just repeating what they hear, they have no artistic creativity and can not put any feeling into it because they lack the basic understanding of emotions and can not connect with music in the same way that most normal people can

and i think most normal people has some imagination and can learn to improvise upon that, the rest is just hard practice learing how to do so, its just a big scale of knowledge and you cannot take it all in at once but you take little steps, first you might try to memorize all those keys that would confuse any beginner.. next you might have to train for years just to make your fingers agile enough for you to play the way you want.. or you might go into just writing sheet music


but i think a lot of people confuse something they think may be fun to do, with a real passion, especially kids that doesnt really know themselves yet or think that learning will be a walk in the park.. so they buy some gear and gives up after some struggling.. lacking real patience, patience is the key


actually, heres parts of a good read that talks a bit about patience/difficulties and solitude: http://the99percent.com/articles/6977/R ... -Difficult

mp3 wrote:

rookie wrote:but just having vocal cords has nothing to do with skill or "talent" ... his actual musical skill and talent are a bit separated from physical attributes like that ... its like saying that an actors skill sits in his looks

I disagree. Michael Jackson's inborn talent includes (but of course is not limited to) the quality of his voice and the way he applies varying inflection and pitch to it. Practice does not make Michael Jackson. Practice plus natural talent does.

In the same way, an actor's natural talent includes (but of course is not limited to) his ability to convince you (through facial expression, vocal inflection, and other verbal and non verbal cues) that his 'act' is genuine. Practice does not make Robert Deniro. Practice plus natural talent does.

In the same way, the painter's talent includes (but of course is not limited to) his control over the way his fingers, hand, and arm moves while holding a paintbrush up to a canvas. Practice does not make Pablo Picasso. Practice plus natural talent does.

The trumpeter's inborn talent is his control over his breath, lips and fingers. The guitarist's inborn talent is his control over his fingers. And so on. Practice doesn't make Jimi Hendrix or Miles davis. Practice plus talent does.

The composer's natural talent is his ability to manipulate differences in pitch/timbre and timing in an emotionally pleasing way. The producer's natural talent is his ability to orchestrate a musical masterpiece from a collection of disparate elements (whether that's a bunch of samples or a band of musicians and a singer) through focused and concentrated listening. All of us here are some combination of composer/producer, and that means our natural talent is in our ears. Practice doesn't make Mozart, Quincy Jones or Dilla. Practice plus talent does.

There is an element to art that is inborn. There has to be. If there wasn't, there would be no separation between two individuals that work equally hard at their craft.

for the record I did'nt write that BS some philosopher,mentalist wrote that.I said you CANNOT will yourself to sound like MJ or fly from the free throw line like MJ.Somethings are just a gift that YOU have and no one else.You can try to imitate somebody,but you cannot imitate their spur of the moment response's to things or express how they feel at a particular moment during a recording or in a game.

Yeah I think we all figured that out. No need for hostility... And for the record I agree with you. If you have a natural talent at something you can be great at it if you put the work in. If you don't you can't, no matter how much you study or practice.

Of course, no one said it was possible to play your piano so that it sings with the voice of a trumpet.. Silly thing to even suggest anyone said that.. I said you can train to sing like MJ, not train your voice so that you transform your vocal cords into an exact replica of someone else.. If i had meant that, then really, that is exactly what i would have said..

Lol at mentalist though.. Maybe i should be lazy now and say "you either get it or you dont" and continue to stay ignorant and never try to find out what lays behind the corner.. Sorry, wont happen, i'm going to try to stay open minded for as long as i can.

But whatever, back on topic, im sure that the people that train hard their entire lifes, arent one bit offended when they hear that their hard work is being extremely simplyfied into the black or white thinking of "you either can do it or you cant" making all their hard work and sacrifices worthless.. Blood sweat and tears, all pointless etc

not being hostile,but many peeps put blood,sweat n tears into things,that other's told them that they simply were'nt good at,but stubborn determination kept them going,(kinda like a nerd trying to be a thug) sometimes you just have to let them learn on their own.but what ever dude I'm done,just be great at what you do!!!peace.

rookie wrote:not being hostile,but many peeps put blood,sweat n tears into things,that other's told them that they simply were'nt good at,but stubborn determination kept them going,(kinda like a nerd trying to be a thug) sometimes you just have to let them learn on their own.but what ever dude I'm done,just be great at what you do!!!peace.

To quote the Underground Resistance track Transition:
"There will be people who say 'don’t mix this with that' and you will say "watch me". There will be people who will say play it safe, that’s to risky - you will take that chance and have no fear. You wont let these questions restrain or trouble you. You will point yourself in the direction of your dreams. You will find the strength in the sound and make your transition."

Ibunshi wrote:
But whatever, back on topic, im sure that the people that train hard their entire lifes, arent one bit offended when they hear that their hard work is being extremely simplyfied into the black or white thinking of "you either can do it or you cant" making all their hard work and sacrifices worthless.. Blood sweat and tears, all pointless etc

But that goes back to my point that if they didn't have the natural inclination to be good at it, then they probably wouldn't have ever gotten interested or focused in it enough to put years of hard work into it.

And don't get me wrong, I think natural talent comes in shades of grey, not black and white. Like Neyo versus MJ. Both born with natural talent, one more/better than the other. Or MJ and Harold Miner...

I think alot of times we tend to broadly categorize peoples talents - like Jordan's talent is that he is a 'great athelete'. or MJ is a talented singer and dancer, implying his talent equals what he is succesful at.

the talent itself isnt what we normally say or see i.e."talented beat maker" or "musicianship" or whatever the category is, talent is not the end result. talent isnt success.

talents combined with passion,practice, and environment make a forumula for success or "being good at something". we miss construe what talent is and tend to equate talent with "being good at something". yes, talent is the natural ability for something, but it is also just a part of a formula to an end result - whatever that is.

we all have talents. and even if you compare 2 'good beat makers' they may actually not have the same forumula of talents.

I think because we tend to generalize these things sometimes we think we "dont have it" and we dont recognize our own talents. we say things like: "i want to be a great beat maker like dj premier" so we imitate, ignoring our own talents, and fail to create our own formulas. or because we arent famous like MJ, we equate that with not being talented. we tend to define our measures of success based on other peoples and what we see as success or "being good at something" we call talent.

even if you have 2 people with same set of talents, that does not mean they will both end up being great or successful.

and even if you are talented, does not mean you will be great or successful.

and even if you are great and succesful, it does not mean you are the only one with a given talent or got there the same way someone else did or are even talented at what you are successful at.

if you think you are not a talented beat maker, maybe you are ignoring your own talents? maybe you are trying too hard to not see your own talents...maybe you are a great beat maker. maybe you need to nurture your own set of talents. "do you" and be great in your own way.

i dont know where im going with this, but i hope you see what im saying. talent and success are two differant things. being good at something does not mean you are talented and having talent alone, means nothing.

peace