Re: [Harp-L] Deliberate Practice

[Richard Hunter <turtlehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert Coble WROTE:
<I've also read "Talent Is Overrated" by Geoff Colvin (ISBN 976-1-59184-224-8). The <subtitle is: "What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else." To <make a long story short, it's NOT that all world-class performers are born with <overwhelming talent; it's a consciously thought out program of "deliberate <practice." Several interesting examples are given in every field. All of the myths <and legends surrounding great performers are examined in detail.
<
<It's not specifically oriented to music, although there are several examples of <musicians in the book. However, the major theme of the book is "deliberate <practice." Too often, there is a tendency to think that we are born with (or <without) a "talent" and that there is nothing we can do that will change our <capability to perform. The book takes great pains to show the fallacies involved in <that attitude. It also details the difference between "practice" (as most of us do <it) and "deliberate practice" (which is how great performers in any field do it).

I haven't read Colvin's book. I have recently read Marcus Buckingham's "First, Break all the rules," a book that is based on analysis of 1.8 million data points gathered by Gallup corporation over a 20-year period.  What Buckingham says is that in general an individual's capabilities are derived from: 

1) Talent, which is something that is intrinsic to the individual and can't be taught.  One example Buckingham offers is empathy--the ability to feel others' emotions--which is critical to a nurse's success in producing better outcomes for patients.  Empathy can be faked, but the presence or absence of empathy is not something that can be induced in a person by training.  It is a talent.
2)  Knowledge, which can be taught and learned.
3)  Skill, or applied knowledge, which can also be taught and learned.

I believe that Buckingham is more right than not.  Certainly talent for music is something that one possesses to a greater or lesser degree, and I'm not going to be as good a composer as Beethoven or Mozart no matter how much time I put into it or training I get.  The thing is, you don't know how much talent you really have until you try hard. I'd say that one good leading indicator for talent in music is how well and deeply you listen.  When you hear certain records, do they thrill you at a deep level--is the experience totally consuming, to the point that you MUST learn how it was done?  Do you find yourself picking out certain parts of the music as critical to your emotional experience--for example, the way a certain phrase or certain note was played?  Those are signs that your mind is working on the music while you listen, which in turn is a sign of talent. 

The other thing is that no matter how much talent you have, you can't develop the talent fully without skill and knowledge.  There are lots of ways to get skill and knowledge, of course.  I had formal training, but plenty of great musicians don't.  The important factor is devoting time and attention to the acquisition of skill and knowledge (as per Malcom Gladwell's 10,000 hour rule).  People who have plenty of discipline or desire can find that time on their own in many cases.  Some people find that taking a course or a degree program makes it easier for them to make the time.  And almost anyone can learn things from other people--teachers, players, or listeners--that they can't or won't figure out on their own.  

Which brings us back to listening.  Ultimately, great musicians are great listeners.  The most direct way to learn to play better, once you've acquired a baseline of technique, is to listen better.

Regards, Richard Hunter





author, "Jazz Harp"
latest mp3s and harmonica blog at http://myspace.com/richardhunterharp
more mp3s at http://taxi.com/rhunter
Vids at http://www.youtube.com/user/lightninrick