It's all about practice

I second this motion: Outliers is a fine book (as is just about anything by Malcolm Gladwell), and it sheds a lot of valuable light on the {censored}storms that always flare up around here. Get out thy Kindle and download...err, or go to the library. You won't be sorry.

I'll second the seconding - Outliers is a fine book (as is Blink). We should all strive for our ten thousand hours.

I second this motion: Outliers is a fine book (as is just about anything by Malcolm Gladwell), and it sheds a lot of valuable light on the {censored}storms that always flare up around here. Get out thy Kindle and download...err, or go to the library. You won't be sorry.

whats outliers about? i'm one of those lead guitar players trying like hell to sing too. im looking for ANYTHING to help me out

None of the groups of people mentioned were tone-deaf. They already had some base to work with. Practice makes a difference if you have the ability to hone.

do you think that someone be a can great singer without doing any practise at all? The first time they open their mouth and sing it sounds good...?

i'd be very interested to see a clip of an unexperienced singer performing, followed by a clip of the same singer doing the same performance after a year of hard practicing. Before/After kind of thing. I've seen similar things for art students and other instrumentalists but not vocalists. Could possibly be very inspiring for those of us starting out who don't sound very good.

+1

I know a guy who has been playing guitar longer than I have (and I've been playing about 10 years), and particularly over the last few years has been practising his arse off. He can play better than he used to (but that's really not saying much), but he's still musically useless. Just no musical sense at all. He might be able to physically play something, but it's as if he has no connection to it, no feel for it. His ear is also woeful. He can be completely out of key and not notice. Playing half a step flat compared to everyone else? Nothing to worry about apparently!

After just a year of me playing, I was teaching him stuff. And then several years later he asked me to try teaching him again. I tried, he just couldn't seem to grasp anything. Couldn't keep time to a metronome playing basic rhythm parts. Everything had to be explained note-by-note, including which fingers to use for what.

Now he's in a black metal band.

I think there is a certain something that some people just don't have. A very basic innate foundation that perhaps most have and a few don't (no idea what the stats would be). As in, some/most of us have at least the building blocks, even if we can't build for {censored} in the beginning... but we've at least got the blocks, unlike others who seem to be gifted with just an empty container. Some of them might just turn the container upside down and pretend they've got something, but everyone who has done something with their blocks can see what's really going on there.

Not sure how that would work really.

If you never sang at all up until whatever age when you first try, you're not going to have the coordination of an experienced singer. Even if you normally talk with an exaggerated variation in pitch for some kind of misguided emphasis, it's not really going to be the same as singing.

That said, it'd also depend on your ear. Without even being a musician themself, someone who grows up in a family of trained classical musicians for example is (I would guess) more likely to naturally develop a better ear as they simply grow up, compared to someone who grows up in a house of say, 9-5 business people who occasionally turn a radio on in the background.

But even if you unknowingly grow up with perfect pitch, but somehow never sing a single note the whole time, when you finally do, your vocal bits aren't necessarily going to be coordinated enough to hit a perfect whatever-given-note just because you can hear it in your head.

Point being, I'd be surprised if anyone was singing for the first time and pulling it off brilliantly. But due to other background influences and perhaps some degree of natural ability, I'd say some would have a bit of an advantage in the beginning.

I'm a guitarist just learning to sing. I'm positive this would have been so much easier if I was still 20 and magic wand easy if I was 10. I might say that I have some basic innate ability in music. First in guitar then a touch as a singer. Like you said, "building blocks" What I have no ability in is organization and discipline. Puts me way back behind where I should be. I'm also finding that as playing a guitar is a whole job. Singing is also a whole job. Then doing both together is still another different whole job. Singing and playing definitely feels like 3 jobs to me. Is that normal? Does it start to feel more integrated later?

And as far as people being gifted. I've watched time after time the more motivated or aggressive person run circles around the naturally gifted one. Its become a cliche to me. But I guess that wouldn't apply to someone without "any" talent.

Check out the forum thread. I replied that it's funny how guitarist seem to accept the idea of "practice makes perfect"

But it's totally hilarious that when you come to this forum, you suddenly have all this genetic fanatics or "god-given-natual-talent"-people.. LOL

They simply ignores all the research and repeat the same "but... but"

Yeah, I know lousy guitar players that never got better too: It's called NO DRIVE. They simply don't have the drive to drive them through hours of meaningful practice. OK, you can noodle away on your axe without focus, BUT THAT AINT'T INCLUDED IN THOSE 10 000 HOURS; CAUSE IT'S NOT PRACTICE!!! IT's NOODLING!!!!!!

It's also very interesting that all other music teachers confirm the same thing as I did: No one has ever seen someone (gifted or not) become better without practice!!

annnnnnnnnnd we're off.

Outliers is not specifically about singing. Rather, it is about the habits (and the luck) of very successful people. According to Gladwell, successful people have two things in common:

1. lucky breaks: This includes, for example, baseball players born in July, right after the yearly cut-off, making them the oldest players, which begins a cycle of being better than their peers and getting more attention from coaches. Or the luck of Bill Gates, who had all-night access to Harvard's computing facilities when he was a student there. Or the luck of Mozart to be born and raised in a musical environment.

2. 10,000 of practice: Not just noodling around on the guitar, for example, but really working. Gladwell argues that The Beatles (Hamburg) and Mozart and Bill Gates all put in their 10,000 hours before gaining success.

Gladwell does NOT say that there is no such thing as talent or genetic predisposition, but he argues quite persuasively that luck and 10,000 hours matter a lot more than genes.

The point in this research (and others) is that no one could ever explain any genetic predisposition and how it's gonna have any effect. There have not been found any "musicallity cromosome" and there are masters being born into families where no one played music. Research has not been able to pinpoint the genetics included into mastery. Research HAS proven "practice makes perfect"

The whole point of mine is that I bring good news; There is lot you can do to be great!!!

Whereas many others seem to spread the sad news that "There is nothing you can do to be great if you aren't born with it"...

I think I pretty much has linked to research that proves my view. And that is good news for us all, isn't it?

The whole point of mine is that I bring good news; There is lot you can do to be good!!!

Reality edit.

Biology is destiny baby!

People with marginal talent can get better, sure. But they will never be great.

Don't you know any people who are great who don't practice? I do. You know why they are great? Genes.

You know why most talented people are that way? Genes.

No getting around it.

They never even touch their guitar during the week, then play the snot out of it at a gig and sing like birds to boot.

It's a process of self-aggrandizement to do this whole rah-rah thing trying to tell people they can do anything and that the role of the genetic dice doesn't matter. But it does.

terrific topic....

I can tell you when I started playing drums I practiced 2-3 hours per day for a year and got RAPIDLY better. I was reading notation and doing the lessons just like my instructor suggested. I love it and the practice had me playing in bands quickly.

But I agree there was some natural talent there too....I wasn't a genius at all, but I did have good time naturally and was able to feel other musicians around me and what they needed for the song.

So I think it's both. If you have a passion for something and you've noticed a little predisposition to doing it decently, you put in the practice and become very good at that....

I remember a soccer player in high school that was terrible, but after a summer he came back the next year and was one of the best players. He told me he practiced 2-3 hours per day at home during the summer.

So practice can overcome A LOT. I heard Monet and Van Gogh were AWFUL when they started drawing and painting.

Reality edit. Biology is destiny baby! People with marginal talent can get better, sure. But they will never be great. Don't you know any people who are great who don't practice? I do. You know why they are great? Genes. You know why most talented people are that way? Genes. No getting around it. They never even touch their guitar during the week, then play the snot out of it at a gig and sing like birds to boot. It's a process of self-aggrandizement to do this whole rah-rah thing trying to tell people they can do anything and that the role of the genetic dice doesn't matter. But it does.

This is precisely the attitude that needs to be modified. Sure, genetics count, but they are not the whole ball game. And there is not a single sing/can't-sing gene that settles the matter. There's a continuum of genetic influence, and while it's likely that the extremes will never meet, there is no reason to think that someone with less natural ability can't become better than someone with more natural ability. As Bugs Bunny taught us all, the tortoise sometimes beats the hare.

And we can never tell how much influence genetics has, as people are not kept in closets until they're ready to sing--they have families who do or do not listen to music, they have the opportunity (or not) to take lessons, they have a work ethic (or not), etc.

And we all know that vocal talent is not the sole determinant of success (Bob Dylan, Neil Young).

Reality edit. Biology is destiny baby! People with marginal talent can get better, sure. But they will never be great. Don't you know any people who are great who don't practice? I do. You know why they are great? Genes. You know why most talented people are that way? Genes. No getting around it. They never even touch their guitar during the week, then play the snot out of it at a gig and sing like birds to boot. It's a process of self-aggrandizement to do this whole rah-rah thing trying to tell people they can do anything and that the role of the genetic dice doesn't matter. But it does.

I've never met a skilled musician who didn't spend hours honing their skills.

Think we have a ecco here... Well all I can say to you genetics fanatics: Read the research and cry...

echoo echooo lol, great book , enjoy

Reality edit. Biology is destiny baby! People with marginal talent can get better, sure. But they will never be great. Don't you know any people who are great who don't practice? I do. You know why they are great? Genes. You know why most talented people are that way? Genes. No getting around it. They never even touch their guitar during the week, then play the snot out of it at a gig and sing like birds to boot. It's a process of self-aggrandizement to do this whole rah-rah thing trying to tell people they can do anything and that the role of the genetic dice doesn't matter. But it does.

I'm very happy to report you are so very wrong with every stereotypical myth you keep perpetuating in this thread:thu:

You seem to be under some misguided opinion that people who are

(as you think: genetically proficient at musicianship) had NO exposure to

music whilst in the womb, or thereafter BEFORE attempting to play said instrument...

Determination got me to where I am currently and it is only my lack of motivation (at this point) which has become the catalyst for me not doing anything about moving on to the next level: public exposure to my talent.

I was determined to learn, and I did.

I was surrounded by music.

I was surrounded by gang activity.

I was surrounded by drug dealers.

Environment does NOT dictate what the human mind learns solely.

Without sounding overly arrogant I was a musical genius and a prodigy growing up. It wasn't due to *genetics* or innate ability.

There's probably very little genetic impact in learning an instrument. Hands or fingers may play an advantage... or hand-eye coordination.

For singing there's an advantage in genes... doesn't mean you can't develop pitch/support/vibrato/range/style. It does mean your timbre will be different or your tone may be more pleasing to some.

Singing or instruments is the same: Muscle movements leading to sounds. We are thaught that we must use the voice we are born with, and this leads to one of many misbeliefs, amongst others: Your tone is just the way you sound and you are born with.

Search Terry Fator on Youtube. And other videos on Youtube that show you that you can choose to alter timbre/sound with practice. A guy can sound like a woman alto or soprano if he practice.

However, it might not be your cup of tea to alter your sound, but for some of us it can be useful. As for me singing covers, there is nice to be able to add in some variation. I used to suck totally at singing and had (and still have when talking) a strange, almost nasty sound. After a few years HARD practice I now get paid singing everything from Tony Harnell, AC/DC, Marc Cohn and Johnny Cash (in original keys)