white people are too good at making music, we need affirmative action in orchestras!
(media.patriots.win)
Comments (692)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
So, what happens when 2 people put in the exact same amount of time and effort and 1 person is better than the other? What would you say makes one person better than the other?
What about when one person puts in far less time and is still better than someone who puts in more time? Are you saying that does not happen?
Are you saying everyone is a blank slate and there are no differences in any of us at all?
If you're 6 feet tall and have long arms, are you going to have an easier time playing the stand up base than a 4 foot tall person? Or the trombone?
What about if you're taller and have a larger lung capacity. You're saying someone small with a smaller lung capacity will be able to hold the notes just as long?
To say that our differences mean nothing is dismissive. Just like when you look at physical sports (football, MMA, etc) your genes make a difference.
I also am skeptical that you think everyone has the exact same intelligence level. There are many well documented IQ research experiments that suggest otherwise. This is tangential to musical talent because site reading is often involved and if your brain is slower, you will be slower to site read and likely make more mistakes.
You've started with an imaginary situation, and then asked me to explain it to you. You're the one who made it up, I don't have to defend it. I'm saying there's no such thing. Find me two people that are perfectly identical in time and effort in reality and I'll analyze the difference critically. Otherwise, it's an irrelevant hypothetical.
Then you put words in my mouth regarding the vague concept of "intelligence". Playing violin takes a certain level of intellectual effort sure, but lets not pretend it's the same as nuclear physics or something. Honestly, the intellectual work in college is often what forces otherwise musically capable people out of college music programs. There's very little relationship between ability to play an instrument and ability to recall the date ranges during which specific composers lived.
Also, if you're actively sight reading an orchestral piece on performance day, then you clearly haven't practiced as much as the next guy. Besides, music isn't like chemistry. Ability to perfectly follow instructions is less important than imparting emotional content in your interpretation. Only non-musicians think getting all the notes perfectly the same as written is the important part. The "soul" of music is all about the deviations. Holding a note just a touch longer, playing it just a touch sharp or flat, playing accelerando, adding a light trill or vibrato...
Otherwise we wouldn't need any musicians or directors. We could just type it all into a computer and let it run.
Ok, so you recognize that people do have different intelligence levels and by that count, I'm also assuming you conceded to my argument about how physical differences makes playing certain instruments easier or harder. Great.
I'd also guess you conceded to my point that some people are just naturally better after practicing less.
I don't disagree with you that practice beats talent 100% if the time that talent doesn't practice. It's true for anything but there is such a thing as talent. Some people naturally have perfect pitch (doesn't mean you can't learn it, you're just behind that person). Some people naturally can hold a temps (doesn't mean you can't learn it. It just means you're behind that person). Some people naturally have fingers that stretch further so they can naturally play harder base lines or piano pieces (doesn't mean you can figure out a way to do it, it's just easier for them. They're ahead of you) It's easier for these people. That means it takes less practice for them than it would for you. If they're just as dedicated as you, they win every time.
So now, I would like to address your comment about how some musicians know how to make some pieces more emotional. You then go on to say that the soul of music is all about deviation. And that we need people to direct the orchestra.
So my question to you is, do you think some people just have a knack for figuring out the deviations that are needed to make the most impact in music? If yes, follow up question, If they have a knack for it from the beginning and they are dedicated to their craft, does that not mean they would win in a competition with someone who did not have a knack for it.
There are only so many hours in the day. Talent matters. It gives you an edge. That edge is important in the .1% of talent. It can set you apart.
And it has very little to do with race.
If practice without talent beats talent without practice, then how do you know who has the talent and who doesn't when you're watching two people perform? Do you see the person that's performing well and assume he's not the talented one, he just worked harder, or do you automatically assume the best performer is the one with talent?
My assumption is that what you're calling "talent" is just the cumulative effect of all the little differences in effort, opportunity, education, equipment, and support that aren't readily apparent to outside observers. Perhaps I'm wrong in that, but whether I am or not, the way you're using the word "talent" (like what makes the 1/100th of a second difference between silver and gold medalist) isn't how it's most often used.
Talent is generally assumed by virtue of performance, and that's what I really have a problem with. I hear the word talent most often as a dismissal of hard work. I see people who have put in little to no effort say, "I wish I were talented like that" as though being good is something that just happens to you rather than admit that their own lack of effort and interest is why they're not good.
Music isn't like sports or math. It's subjective art so objective physical differences like longer fingers aren't automatically an advantage. What is or isn't better is often much more to do with personal opinion than any quantifiable physical ability. Which brings us to the next point. No, I don't believe there's such a thing as a "knack" for connecting with an audience and emoting through your instrument.
I believe that both formal and informal education combined with repeated experimentation in front of an audience while being attentive to their reaction over time leads to mastery of a skill. Just like any stand up comedian spends years making subtle variations on his jokes and delivery and gauging audience reaction to perfect his act.
So if a musician has spent all their time practicing alone to prerecorded music or in the rehearsal space with no audience doing whatever the director tells them , and then only performs from deep in the crowd on stage with no opportunity to experiment and observe the audience, then the reason they struggle to emote through their instrument and connect with an audience isn't because they just weren't born with the knack, it's because they never practiced the skill.