Mediocrity

[timwat]

Thread's supposed to be about mediocrity, what makes it and how to escape.

I don't know how to suggest any regimen or behavior that will increase talent level.

 

But one thing mediocrity always settles for, at any talent level:

 

It does not pay attention to details.

 

"My timing is good enough."

"My patch is close enough."

"My articulation is good enough."

"My stage sound is good enough."

"My stage presence is good enough."

"My playing is good enough."

 

Mediocrity was never overcome by settling for good enough. Men often squander the greatest gift every man has - the power to choose how one responds to circumstances. I choose to work to improve, because I am not satisfied with where I am at.

[WillNeverPost]

What makes mediocrity?

 

1. lack of talent

2. lack of time spent practicing

3. lack of desire

4. cluelessness

 

How to escape? There's no cure for #1, but the others can be overcome by dedication.

The cure for #1 is also dedication, IMO. That is to say, unless you are a singer where voice quality has a lot to do with the final result (but see * below), musicians who dedicate themselves to their instruments - which really means a sh**load of practicing - sound indistinguishable from those who are supposed to have "talent". In my experience "talent" is just a function of learning speed.

 

* Even great singers have to practice and learn to do it right to become great singers. For example, by his own admission Frank Sinatra didn't start out with a great voice.

[Theo Verelst]

One could call mimicking others mediocre in itself. Certain lyrics of music that is no music are under mediocre. Bands that are inspiring to begin with but are really eager to be in the spotlight and try to produce their hat off probably are mediocre.

 

It's a matter of what's the comparative standard, unless the meaning of the word is more negative than reflected on here (as it probably should be: depressing, "wrong").

 

So for instance can auntie America think our shout: great, you guys really rock! Or otherwise.

 

T.

[allan_evett]

I'm with Sven, Tony, and Ken on this one. I read the opening post, watched the videos, and thought "What the ____ is this thread even doing here ?!"

 

While I now have a slightly better idea about the original intent of this thread, a more constructive approach to escaping 'mediocrity' just might be to turn off the computer and go play your ass off somewhere..

[cedar]

I don't know how to suggest any regimen or behavior that will increase talent level.

 

This quote gives me an opportunity to discuss one one of my pet peeves about "talent."

 

There are many people who will argue that there is no such thing as talent. Or that talent just isn't that important.

 

For example:

 

http://timelessrepo.com/why-there-is-no-talent

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/07/can-science-spot-talent-kaufman

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/2014/07/15/talent-vs-practice-why-are-we-still-debating-this-anymore/

http://www.psycholocrazy.com/why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-talent-the-10000-hour-rule

 

My view is that some people show unusual aptitudes for certain activities at young ages, but that is trumped by passion and a willingness to practice.

 

For example, when my son was small - from the age of about 4-10 - many people would remark about what a talented pianist was. He was routinely the most accomplished pianist at his school and in various musical groups. By the time he was a teenager, though, I could tell that he did not have as much love for music as others. He did not listen to music constantly (as I did when I was his age). He kept playing, but did not live and breathe it. And by the time he graduated high school, he was still a very good pianist, but he had been surpassed by others who had more of a single-minded interest for music. To those who did not know his background, my son would not have seemed as "talented" as some of the others.

 

On the other hand, when my daughter was very young and she expressed an interest in singing, she did not seem to have much of an aptitude for it. Her voice, frankly, was rough and she was often off-key. But she never lost her love for music and was serious about practicing. Now, her voice is very pretty and she has no apparent problem singing in key in a wide variety of styles. It is a marvel to me how far she has come.

 

The different in the kids, in my opinion, was simply passion and a willingness to put time and effort into their craft.

[Legatoboy]

You can have a lot of chops and produced mediocrity . . . . . It's called playing and sounding 'Glib' . . .

 

If you can't put yourself into your music because technical or trend-oid style perfection concerns become the highest priority then you can/will produce bad art... regardless of how many chop-er-roos you have . . .

 

No matter what people may say, music is one of the arts and probably the most difficult one to boot!

 

But 'chops' alone do not music (art) make . . .

Real art just isn't that easy...as much as we would all, myself included like to think so!

 

In classical music, because you are given the notes...it makes it easy to hide behind...you can hide behind a style too...

 

being bare, alone and with oneself can be hard for people to take . . .expressiveness IS the advanced musical concept...not necessarily 'pure chops'.... that and how it feels to you and the listener!

 

as a side note in terms of this:

Check out Robert Persig's 'Metaphysics of Quality' concepts in his books (Zen and the Art of motorcycle Maintenance and Lila)!

[scriabin]

That Rosanna thing....apart from the key being wrong for Bobby Kimball, Toto's video's recording was so much better and the atmosphere created an excitement that video 2 didn't have. Toto's arrangement seemed more..sophisticated somehow.....but for me what differentiated the two was Toto's rhythm section. The bass player and drummer sounded as though they'd been playing together for ever and ever. They absolutely nailed that song and pushed and pulled it together effortlessly. If the drummer's lagging behind or the bass player's hesitant you're always going to sound mediocre even if you have Horowitz on keys.....

 

[Outkaster]

I don't know how to suggest any regimen or behavior that will increase talent level.

 

This quote gives me an opportunity to discuss one one of my pet peeves about "talent."

 

There are many people who will argue that there is no such thing as talent. Or that talent just isn't that important.

 

For example:

 

http://timelessrepo.com/why-there-is-no-talent

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/07/can-science-spot-talent-kaufman

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/2014/07/15/talent-vs-practice-why-are-we-still-debating-this-anymore/

http://www.psycholocrazy.com/why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-talent-the-10000-hour-rule

 

My view is that some people show unusual aptitudes for certain activities at young ages, but that is trumped by passion and a willingness to practice.

 

For example, when my son was small - from the age of about 4-10 - many people would remark about what a talented pianist was. He was routinely the most accomplished pianist at his school and in various musical groups. By the time he was a teenager, though, I could tell that he did not have as much love for music as others. He did not listen to music constantly (as I did when I was his age). He kept playing, but did not live and breathe it. And by the time he graduated high school, he was still a very good pianist, but he had been surpassed by others who had more of a single-minded interest for music. To those who did not know his background, my son would not have seemed as "talented" as some of the others.

 

On the other hand, when my daughter was very young and she expressed an interest in singing, she did not seem to have much of an aptitude for it. Her voice, frankly, was rough and she was often off-key. But she never lost her love for music and was serious about practicing. Now, her voice is very pretty and she has no apparent problem singing in key in a wide variety of styles. It is a marvel to me how far she has come.

 

The different in the kids, in my opinion, was simply passion and a willingness to put time and effort into their craft.

 

I don't know with music there is another factor, can they feel what they are playing? I see musicians all the time that are not musical if that makes any sense. You can practice all you want and you will get good at that skill set but it doesnt mean you will ever be able to feel what you are doing? I see this at all levels of musicianship. I have seen lessor players run circles around people that could play well technically but had no soul, in fact I see it all the time.

[Markay]

Talent is knowing what you are mediocre at and not putting it on public display.

[Legatoboy]

Yes that is true....without a doubt . . .

But I have changed my views since studying Jazz in recent years..

Many times we bring that psychology home with us and it limits our 'personal music' life...

 

many times you get further with falling down... and learning how to walk and get up with new material..

even if it's at home...at home mediocrity can lead to advanced with work....

 

Many times the 'perfection/professional' world and it's expectations can cut us off from the 'beginners mind'

 

I will take listening to someone perform with imperfections who may be being mediocre in sections if the rest of the performance is taking my breath away....

 

But to honest, these are very improvised jazz sort of concepts...I understand what you say!

[CEB]

[video:youtube]

 

 

[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw8sNoodIDk

[cedar]

 

I don't know with music there is another factor, can they feel what they are playing? I see musicians all the time that are not musical if that makes any sense. You can practice all you want and you will get good at that skill set but it doesnt mean you will ever be able to feel what you are doing? I see this at all levels of musicianship. I have seen lessor players run circles around people that could play well technically but had no soul, in fact I see it all the time.

 

I'm not sure about this. Of course, it's true that some players don't seem to "feel" as well. Others appear to lack "soul." But I think that may often be explained - at least to some degree - by a lack of listening (e.g., listening to records of people worth emulating) and lack of experience playing with other musicians.

[mate stubb]

I absolutely believe in talent. To me it is innate ability and affinity for the skill being learned, which usually shows itself at a young age.

 

I also believe that a person with modest talent and dedication can and usually will surpass a more talented person who doesn't apply themselves.

[xKnuckles]

A very wise man once said to me: "If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly....."

 

[I-missRichardTee]

Cedar said:

For example, when my son was small - from the age of about 4-10 - many people would remark about what a talented pianist was. He was routinely the most accomplished pianist at his school and in various musical groups. By the time he was a teenager, though, I could tell that he did not have as much love for music as others. He did not listen to music constantly (as I did when I was his age). He kept playing, but did not live and breathe it. And by the time he graduated high school, he was still a very good pianist, but he had been surpassed by others who had more of a single-minded interest for music. To those who did not know his background, my son would not have seemed as "talented" as some of the others.

 

On the other hand, when my daughter was very young and she expressed an interest in singing, she did not seem to have much of an aptitude for it. Her voice, frankly, was rough and she was often off-key. But she never lost her love for music and was serious about practicing. Now, her voice is very pretty and she has no apparent problem singing in key in a wide variety of styles. It is a marvel to me how far she has come.

 

The different in the kids, in my opinion, was simply passion and a willingness to put time and effort into their craft". cedar

 

There is a third option... having inborn, prodigy talent, AND not trumping with no lifelong passion, but instead "hitting the ground running". I am thinking of Chick Corea, Herbie Hancock, Wolfgang Mozart.

Just take a gander at the quote from Henry Ford below.

[I-missRichardTee]

[quote=Outkaster

I don't know with music there is another factor, can they feel what they are playing? I see musicians all the time that are not musical if that makes any sense. You can practice all you want and you will get good at that skill set but it doesnt mean you will ever be able to feel what you are doing? I see this at all levels of musicianship. I have seen lessor players run circles around people that could play well technically but had no soul, in fact I see it all the time.

 

My Italian friend, yes, I agree with you.

We are talking very very wide gap between a giant such as Bach, Mozart, and a person who is close to rhythmically weak, or almost tone deaf, or shows no sensitivity in music.

In my view, the main theme here is "Sure, absolutely ANYONE can and should ( if they are inclined, regardless of talent ) play music for the joy of it... nearly everyone should" But that does not mean that a low talent person is likely to reach the talent and drive required to write a great symphony. No, the gap is wider than you realize. On the other hand, once again, "Absolutely, PLAY music, and stop comparing yourself in a negative light."

[MathOfInsects]

There have been studies that show that the primary difference between the "high-performance" class--professional athletes, professional musicians, professional dancers, etc.--is a higher tolerance for their own non-enjoyment of practicing. That is: we all hate practicing to the exact same extent. Successful performers tend to be those who have the greatest ability to do it anyway.

[I-missRichardTee]

There have been studies that show that the primary difference between the "high-performance" class--professional athletes, professional musicians, professional dancers, etc.--is a higher tolerance for their own non-enjoyment of practicing. That is: we all hate practicing to the exact same extent. Successful performers tend to be those who have the greatest ability to do it anyway.

 

I don't know if your point about persevering with unpleasantness, changes the point that the very talented ENJOY playing and practicing music.

In my case as a kid, I unreservedly say, I loved practicing scales .

Even now, away from my first love, the saxophone, I play arpeggios on an unamplified elec bass ( one of the dullest instruments when no amp ) almost obsessively.

I am saying, one of the many markers of talent is an innate JOY in practice the details of music... scales, chords etc.

It is not so much an endurance ( torture ) test, as an obsessive attraction to everything about your instrument and then later, about music itself, and then later how you connect that with the world around you. I am thinking of somethings Herbie Hancock said about, music being about being a human being.

I am still not quite "there". lol

[Legatoboy]

Repetition works, that is the way musicians learn...by peeling off layers to get to the center of it in you!

 

I had always practiced, even as an adult, but I came to realize I didn't do enough repetition...and with my day job/ past gigging schedules, I tended to want to just 'play' when I sat at the piano when I got home after a day of work or after a gig while I was still 'warm'..to create

 

I really had to put it in my mind to repeat a measure/phrase 25 times (at least)with things I wanted to learn or were part of my Jazz studies...

 

I'm finally doing that now like I did as a kid and I think it took me my whole adult life dealing with the outside world and all to finally get back to that! To deconstruct myself to get to do it again naturally. . .

 

It can drive you crazy until you realize that you really are making progress that way...then you get beyond the pain of it and that in itself becomes your main interest for that time . . .

[ademus]

The word talent makes be mad. As, most of the people (not you guys) I hear that word from, think they don't have it. The common quote is " I wish I had your kind of talent". Then wish your ass home and get to practicing. I've spent at least a year of hours practicing guitar and keyboards. That is 8760 hours. Likely more. In my 48 years. And, by all accounts I am a competent musician.

 

I see that word used as negative reinforcement all too often. Sure some people pick stuff up faster than others. But, I've never seen a person that worked at getting better. Not get better. I don't mean playing Judas Priest songs in your basement every saturday and Sunday. Real, concerted practice. I just don't believe in talent

[I-missRichardTee]

Repetition works, that is the way musicians learn...by peeling off layers to get to the center of it in you!

 

I had always practiced, even as an adult, but I came to realize I didn't do enough repetition...and with my day job/ past gigging schedules, I tended to want to just 'play' when I sat at the piano when I got home after a day of work or after a gig while I was still 'warm'..to create

 

I really had to put it in my mind to repeat a measure/phrase 25 times (at least)with things I wanted to learn or were part of my Jazz studies...

 

I'm finally doing that now like I did as a kid and I think it took me my whole adult life dealing with the outside world and all to finally get back to that! To deconstruct myself to get to do it again naturally. . .

 

It can drive you crazy until you realize that you really are making progress that way...then you get beyond the pain of it and that in itself becomes your main interest for that time . . .

 

If I may say... that was brilliant, twelve thumbs up.

With enough repetition, the nectar of Joy will show up!

[Legatoboy]

Thanks I-Miss-Richard-T.. I credit the guy I study with for finally getting me back into it that way . . .and myself for finally getting it through my thick skull again!

[Dr 5ives]

this is just for laughs,

a combination of the two "final countdown" videos posted earlier

 

 

 

[Legatoboy]

Wow! Pretty funny!

 

[timwat]

A healthy contribution to the discussion of talent and practice:

 

Geoff Colvin's "Talent is Overrated"

 

The subtitle is "What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else". And while the title may grate some of us, Colvin is NOT denying talent exists, or even really minimizing it (once you get into the meat of the book). He's simply starting with premise that talent is difficult to quantify, measure or study via empirical research. What CAN be researched is practice.

 

His main point is that mastery not only requires practice, but a specific kind of practice - practice that directly addresses weak areas, practice that is intentional and deliberate, and practice that is more mentally taxing than physical.

 

He offers examples as diverse as Jerry Rice, Jack Welch, Tiger Woods and chess grandmasters, and for my money makes an interesting and compelling case. When I first read it, I had known about the "10,000 hour rule" from Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, but Colvin attempts to take that colloquialism and take a more studied, objective look into it.

 

I think it's a good read, and commend it for your consideration.

[WillNeverPost]

The word talent makes be mad. As, most of the people (not you guys) I hear that word from, think they don't have it. The common quote is " I wish I had your kind of talent". Then wish your ass home and get to practicing. I've spent at least a year of hours practicing guitar and keyboards. That is 8760 hours. Likely more. In my 48 years. And, by all accounts I am a competent musician.

 

I see that word used as negative reinforcement all too often. Sure some people pick stuff up faster than others. But, I've never seen a person that worked at getting better. Not get better. I don't mean playing Judas Priest songs in your basement every saturday and Sunday. Real, concerted practice. I just don't believe in talent

As I said above, and in this I am fundamentally agreeing with you, I think what we call "talent" is a function of how fast you can learn something. If you learn something very fast people will say you are "naturally" talented. However, if you take longer to learn something and compensate by putting in the hours necessary to perfect it, people will also call you talented. The only difference is how long it took to get there, which no one but you (and your family) will know.

 

I'm not saying that all it takes to turn into Mozart or Chick Corea or Herbie Hancock or Jan Hammer is practice. But you'll never know how close you can get without trying.

 

There is yet another factor: The age at which you start affects how fast you can learn something. Young minds are more receptive to learning that older minds and hence learn things faster. How many here have tried to learn another language late in life. Tough, right? How easily do young children learn languages? They absorb them like sponges. If you do it right they can learn five or more languages all at the same time. Young brains are wired to learn, especially languages. And music is a kind of language.

 

Mozart is a great example. He grew up in a musical family, surrounded by music from birth. He had his first lesson (from his father) at four but you can bet he'd been drinking in everything he saw and heard prior to that. But his sister was exposed to the same environment yet didn't rise to the same level as Mozart did. Why not? I think one difference was the great speed at which young Mozart could learn. I suspect he would have become a genius at anything - it just happened by accident of birth to be music.

 

Look at Tiger Woods. A great golfer and on the rise before his "incident" caused him to lose his mojo. How did he get so good? For one thing, his father put a golf club in his hand from the moment he was old enough to grasp it. He soaked the game up. Then he practiced, practiced, practiced. He had determination and focus, with one major goal in life: to beat the record of Jack Nicklaus. If you have determination, a goal, an ability to learn, however slowly, and the time necessary to learn commensurate with that ability, you can potentially master anything. (Potentially if only because you may also need opportunity and money. Life isn't necessarily fair.)

 

BTW, this is a great topic for discussion. Thanks to the OP for starting the thread.

 

[mate stubb]

How about this definition:

 

Talent allows a performer to more easily respond without struggling in new and unexpected situations.

 

I'm thinking of Bach or Mozart improvising brilliantly on tunes called on the spot. Heck, JSB was said to be able to instantly improvise a 4 part fugue on a tune.

 

I could practice for a century and not be able to do that.

[ademus]

Yes, Moe. But, that doesn't prevent you from creating valid art via music. As I've told many aspiring guitarists. " you don't have to be Steve Vai or Joe Satriani or ingwee malmsteen, to create a sound that you and others find pleasing." Hell, look at Jack White.

[WillNeverPost]

How about this definition:

 

Talent allows a performer to more easily respond without struggling in new and unexpected situations.

 

I'm thinking of Bach or Mozart improvising brilliantly on tunes called on the spot. Heck, JSB was said to be able to instantly improvise a 4 part fugue on a tune.

 

I could practice for a century and not be able to do that.

Sure, the agility of your brain has a lot to do with it. But I would argue that this too is a function of your ability to learn. Mozart and Bach could improvise on the spot because, I believe, they had learned and deeply understood the essential characteristics of the various kinds of music of their day (fugue, minuet, allegro, etc.). I'm sure players here who are good at improvising (I'm certainly not one of them) will say that it took a lot of learning and "Deliberate Practice" before they could do it with ease. And while they may be able to improvise in one genre (say, jazz) that doesn't necessarily mean they will be able to just as easily improvise in another, unrelated genre (say, country) - not without a whole other round of learning.

[I-missRichardTee]

Henry Ford came to this realization that "Genius is experience... It is the fruit of long experience in many lives... The discovery of Reincarnation put my mind at ease...

Genius certainly is related to this term talent. All Henry is saying is stopping fretting about talent etc, and have fun with what you love. You have all the time you need. Joseph Campbell said 'follow you bliss'.. that is the bottom line. Play, practice, share your music with joy.