to young prodigy

A true aspiring composer cares for the uniqueness of his material. So please always care and explore. :)

And I can assure you 2 things:

1. The more material you explore, the least authentic you will be.

2. Originality has little to do with how much talent you possess, but more with how much you have dug into your mind.

This is why a brilliant talent can always be overcome by a less brilliant one that has become a genius by truly creating his art.

I'm afraid I'll dissagree with both your points. :)

1. The more you know, the more you can use. The more you see, the more you'll know to avoid, if you wish, so you can be original. Can a monkey be original, or rubbish? will a child 4 years old write the best masterpiece in the world because he is not filled with the works of ye old?

Additionally, authentisity is something debatable really. finding your own voice does not mean to be a monk in a mountain all alone without ANY input from the world, but it means to be able to put your own filters, thus be authentic and true to what yuo do.

2. Originality is almost irrelavent to anything. No one should strive to be original! Again, it is highly important to have your own voice, but if ones voice leads him to write Romantic music, so be it. I wouldn't be doing that, nor I would expect this someone to be a professional and survive, but still if (s)he needs that, let it be that!

Talent has very little to do as well. It's work, work, work, and experience, experience, experience, along with knowledge, knowledge knowledge. I'm certain that I didn't have my father to play music to me every day, and I wasn't "forced" (to a point) to study piano, I would have scraggy talent really! This, of course is debatable, as there is no way to know really, but still I doubt that without fiddeling with music for 25 years, I would be who I am today...

How do you measure overcoming? Success? I love all music, and can say that I prefer the stuff that Robin posts, or QCC posts, more than commercial ones. Does this mean anything really?

If you are talking commercial success, I can accept that originality and "truly creating his art" has a very little to do. The rest is work, luck, knowledge, personality, etc... (even beauty I have to admit. Let's be honest, a hot chick who is brilliant in composing has better chances than Quasimodo also a genious in music...)

At least my POV. By all means, let me know your thoughts :)

1. The more material you explore, the least authentic you will be.

Assuming "authentic" sort of means unique and creative (or anything good), I've heard this (or, I should say, read--I'll get back to this) so many times that I won't bother to be very polite about it. Hope you'll excuse me. This is BS. I won't go to any length in pointing out what's wrong with the argument itself (and Nikolas summed up the main flaw in a single, short sentence). I'll just make an observation. Back in the days when I actually posted on forums now and then, I occasionally came across this idea of not spoiling creativity by avoiding input, or avoiding intellectual knowledge, or whatever (Nikolas might remember what I'm talking about from another forum), but guess what? It was never suggested by a musician. I know this borders on an ad hominem argument, but I feel it does suggest something about the validity of the idea that I've never heard it from anyone who actually does music (or anything creative) to any extent and succeeds. (Do not take this personally, claudio. I don't know anything about you, so this does not include you.) I've grown up with music. Most of my closest friends are musicians in some way or other. I have never even heard of this sort of argument IRL. These empirical observations lend credibility to the idea that avoiding exploration, study or learning gets you nowhere at all.

The word talent is one of the greatest insults and degrading words. Everything that I know as a composer and a pianist came from years of study, work, trial and error, hours at the keyboard etc. For someone to chalk up a performance or composition to talent erases all that work. The word talent implies that you didn't need to work to get to where you are, you just woke up one day able to play wicked hard music or to write amazing stuff. Therefore all the time spent was wasted.

We NEED to study. Not necessarily to copy what others wrote but to learn from them. What did composer X do that worked? Well why did composer Y never make it to the mainstream? Discovering why some things worked while others didn't in other peoples music is what Da Vinci refered to as experience by proxy. In other words, learning from the mistakes from others in order to avoid doing them yourself. (This takes less time than making all the mistakes for yourself.)

......For someone to chalk up a performance or composition to talent erases all that work. The word talent implies that you didn't need to work to get to where you are, you just woke up one day able to play wicked hard music or to write amazing stuff....

I don't know. Some people have it, others don't but almost all the big names were single-minded and dedicated to their art.

We NEED to study. Not necessarily to copy what others wrote but to learn from them. What did composer X do that worked? Well why did composer Y never make it to the mainstream? Discovering why some things worked while others didn't in other peoples music is what Da Vinci refered to as experience by proxy. In other words, learning from the mistakes from others in order to avoid doing them yourself. (This takes less time than making all the mistakes for yourself.)

In context this is true if you're following the same path as the 'mistaker'. If striking out on your own you are as fallible as anyone in others' eyes. Studying what others have done is important for someone taking up music commercially. Just my viewpoint, though I'm having difficulty understanding what a mistake is in this context. Do you mean technical mistakes?

Certainly a good knowledge of theory is an asset because it helps composers control what they're doing.

Technical mistakes, sure but also mistakes in interpretation. Compositional mistakes include putting in one too many repeats in a section, not changing harmonies or dynamics or articulation the second time a theme comes around. Setting an accompaniment that implies jubliance against a melody that implies sorrow etc.

The single-minded dedication to ones art is not talent, it is dedication to making all the necessary improvements and corrections to ones work.

I'm not trying to suggest that I am the perfect composer or performer. I'm not. All I'm suggesting is that we can learn from the mistakes...and success...of others to better our own music.

Talent: inate ability; particular ease with a subject

Having musical talent makes much of the music making that much easier.

Without that "inate ease" one can surely come to nearly the same level of technical proficiency, however, there are good chances that the "spark", what sets one musician apart from another, might be lacking... that is generally a (yes, very arbitrary and subjective) sign of talent or lack thereof.

Why was Salieri all but forgotten by history, while Mozart was not? Surely, Salieri worked as hard and had access to the same formal training as Herr Mozart (possibly even better training)? Maybe what was lacking was that "spark"... talent.

If one of my students shows that inate ability, I will demand much more of him than from a student who struggles and needs to perpetually work at his hardest to achieve the same or lesser results.

Yes QCC, but your student was born like this, or was there something in his life that changed his attributes?

Modern teaching IS based on the fact that different people have different stimulates in different parts of the brain. And that there is social intelligence, math intelligence, language intelligence, music, sports, etc... One can be benefited in one or more (I'm crap at sports for example! but rather good in math and music). The question is if we are born with these settings preset, or someone needs to kick starts us in life.

There is no doubt that some students do better than others. I've been quite priviliged in life and all my teachers in music saw the "talent" in me so I was treated especially. But I'm not sure if it was the talent, or the personality and everything I picked up in my life.

I do think that one fact is rather "certain" (notice the ""):

My father, would put me for sleep with playing his guitar, or maybe while playing the piano I would fall asleep in the high chair or something. Lovely memories. At the age of 5 I found a piano, and tried to come up with the melodies I had heard. Father saw it, got me lessons, I hated them for around 10 years.

I was stuck with very strict teachers, who had the idea that a proper student must do 28/30 Czerny etudes (all of which suck as you know) and other rubbish, so I was actualyl forced from the age of 6-7 to start playing my own stuff. Along with the fact that I never studies so I developed quite a skill in sight reading, it makes sense that I was "gifted" in composition. Kinda...

So I doubt I had talent in composing really, but since I picked up composing SO early, and got my first keyboards when I was 13 (so started orchestrating and making midi sequences in the keyboards sequencer) it seems to me that with 20 years of "experience" in composition, I'm good... I did pick it up rather early in life as well...

So talent in composing? Doubt it... something else probably...

Everyone is unique regarding how they learn and work, so I'd say play to your strengths, do what inspires or satisfies you, but keep in mind that talent will only take you so far... the rest is hard work and study.

It doesn't matter how much "talent" you have if you don't follow it up with hard work. You could also have little talent, but have a good work ethic.

So I guess what you get out of music depends on what you put into it, either way.

Well here's my two cents

You can explore as much material as you like. In fact, I find it's very helpful to explore as much different music as possible. Broadening your horizon is probably the best way to develop your own sound. When you listen and compose, do what Fender says "Innovate, don't emulate"

And as far as being original goes, I don't believe that everything has been done by far, if anyone says this, just say "You mean to tell me that you've heard every possible musical idea ever?!" :P

Anyway, that's my take on it

I love how Young Prodigy hasn't even responded yet.

Isolation is an artistic fact. Knowledge will help you develop what the artist has already discovered. Very great examples: Ludwig Van Beethoven, Vincent Van Gogh, Ruben Dar

Isolation is an artistic fact. Knowledge will help ___ develop what the artist has already discovered. Very great examples: Ludwig Van Beethoven, Vincent Van Gogh, Ruben Dar

You are aware that Beethoven studied extensively music, right? And if not mistaken (not sure though) with Haydn as well!

Poof... there goes your arguments.

Can you find a better word than 'fact'. This is not preschool "the apple is red" (<-fact). This is about music. Very few facts (except maybe the lower ranges of most instruments! :D)

Can you also define 'original' music? Cause I can't say I've ever heard anything original in my life! :D:D

Lastly notice the smileys, and take everything with a pinch of salt!

I do not care if you try diminished me, but you simply don

I do not care if you try diminished [sic] me, but you simply don

And everything he created was his fantasy, but if you are narrow minded, i do not expect you to understand this.

And everything he created was his fantasy, but if you are narrow minded, i do not expect you to understand this.

Oh...okay. I won't try and understand then. :whistling:

the writing is the least, dony worry about it, relax.

--------------------------------------------------

the talk has become to ridicou...

Please don't go around insulting people when all they're doing is correcting some false information you are basing an argument on.

If the past bunch of threads are any indication, this thread will become flamewar and we will get nowhere.

Makes for good entertainment though....

And everything he created was his fantasy, but if you are narrow minded, i do not expect you to understand this.

I don't know squat about Beethoven's life, but I strongly disagree with this --

Alot of people will agree that harmony exists separate of time and space (and I would argue that so does everything else), that it already has existed before the composer "created" it -- Wagner wrote words to that effect in one of his hated essays.

Thus, I don't understand how he could have created or portrayed what is not real. Does anyone know with absolute certainty what doesn't exist? Have they seen it in the process of not existing anywhere?

Yes QCC, but your student was born like this, or was there something in his life that changed his attributes?

Modern teaching IS based on the fact that different people have different stimulates in different parts of the brain. And that there is social intelligence, math intelligence, language intelligence, music, sports, etc... One can be benefited in one or more (I'm crap at sports for example! but rather good in math and music). The question is if we are born with these settings preset, or someone needs to kick starts us in life.

There is no doubt that some students do better than others. I've been quite priviliged in life and all my teachers in music saw the "talent" in me so I was treated especially. But I'm not sure if it was the talent, or the personality and everything I picked up in my life.

I do think that one fact is rather "certain" (notice the ""):

My father, would put me for sleep with playing his guitar, or maybe while playing the piano I would fall asleep in the high chair or something. Lovely memories. At the age of 5 I found a piano, and tried to come up with the melodies I had heard. Father saw it, got me lessons, I hated them for around 10 years.

I was stuck with very strict teachers, who had the idea that a proper student must do 28/30 Czerny etudes (all of which suck as you know) and other rubbish, so I was actualyl forced from the age of 6-7 to start playing my own stuff. Along with the fact that I never studies so I developed quite a skill in sight reading, it makes sense that I was "gifted" in composition. Kinda...

So I doubt I had talent in composing really, but since I picked up composing SO early, and got my first keyboards when I was 13 (so started orchestrating and making midi sequences in the keyboards sequencer) it seems to me that with 20 years of "experience" in composition, I'm good... I did pick it up rather early in life as well...

So talent in composing? Doubt it... something else probably...

I agree with you. It's very unusual to see someone who is successful in whatever musical (or any) endeavor who denies talent --

Once I got into an argument with a singer, about the existence of objective talent among singers. THe person gave me all the "nature vs nurture" data, saying how some people were genetically "not built" for singing-- that, while some "nurture" affects the outcome, it is largely up to genetics as to whether a "good" tone is produced. Alot of people would then argue the other side, but you cannot deny that some voices are more pleasant than others - it is a matter of timbre.

So I said, that it doesn't matter what the voice sounds like in terms of its quality - what matters is the variety among voices which is ultimately the only thing that makes singing fun. If everyone sounded like the Italian opera stars, the lack of variety would make singing boring. If Mime sounded just as pleasant and mighty as Siegfried and Wotan and Brunnhilde, you would lose alot of the character.

He simply did not understand that beauty does not come from beauty itself but from the whole of all individual (infinite) things. Obviously that won't work for any cosmopolitan, urbane, sophisticated, humanity-glorifying dilettante person....

So I do not think the question is nature vs. nurture. As you said, some people have linguistic intelligence, mathematical, kinetic, musical, spacial, interpersonal, or intrapersonal, intelligences. Everyone is really unique. But regardless of their affinities only the pretentious sophisticates will make the pathetic attempt to define what is good and what is bad.

Wagner, it sounds like you are agreeing with someone who is actually saying the opposite of you...

Lest anyone misunderstand what I said, I did not say that I do not believe in talent.

I DO believe there is something that is an inate ability in whatever field.

I DO believe that hard work is also a substantial part of the equation.

I believe that two children, with the same nurture, can have different abilities. Which would point towards "nature" rather than nurture.

Over the years, I have seen plenty of extremely hard-working musicians, who just didn't "have it". I believe that that missing element, that missing "spark", was what we are talking about here - talent.

That spark is what allows one person to transcend the hard work and bring something unique to a performance. that flash of brilliance that sets that impeccable performance apart from another impeccable performance. Or even better.. that flash of genius that sets a "not quite perfect" performance head and shoulders above what would be under normal circumstances considered a more technically perfect performance.

Genius will allow the imperfection to take on a life of its own and distinguish that art from one that has technical perfection, but no... "spark".

However, before this gets out of hand.. I really don't think we're well placed to be making any sorts of judgements on this. I think only time will tell when someone really is a "genius" or a vessel for that talent.

I do not care if you try diminished me, but you simply don

Here we go again everybody!