Question:
Critique this!
The following statement was in a recent issue of Jazz catalogue from Jamey Aebersold:
"No one is a born player-Good instruments and good teachers are important but in the end, the player makes himself". p.11
From my standpoint of view, I'd think that some players are genetically enabled to handle certain instruments. It is true that without exposure to correct forms of composition and what constitutes proper sax tone, technique etc is acquired. However, there are some people are obviously naturally well endowed to handle the instruments. If that were not the case then all players would learn at the same rate despite the level of experience and training. Of course experience and exposure when coupled with natural talents creates exceptional sax players. I'd hasten to state that it's not only the player that makes himself but it's a combination of all of the above mentioned factors. Some players may be the result of fine teachers while others are "born players".

Answer:
Most really, really, REALLY good players are "born players" -- that is, they have a good degree of talent playing their instrument.
Example:
I used to be a very decent bari player; I'm currently a few years out of practice, so I'm not that decent anymore. I played in about a half-dozen different bands and orchestras before college. I even auditioned on a NYSSMA solo one year and the bari player from the Amherst Sax Quartet said my tone was "excellent". I also played for a couple of "pro" gigs (i.e. I got paid).
Then I got to college and attained the highest level of my incompetence.
I had two beyond excellent teachers in college, one an original student of Sigurd Rascher (and a phd in woodwinds) and the other a student of that teacher (and a masters' in woodwinds). However, even though I had these excellent teachers AND practiced an average of six hours a day, I only got marginally better as time progressed and eventually changed my major -- and eventually, my profession: I conducted two church orchestras (running one music department) and was an assistant to the director at a third church. I'm now a very decent computer tech.
However, my sister is an extremely talented flautist. She did a NYSSMA solo about 6 months after picking up the flute and got sent to the All-State orchestra (on flute. That's competition. I auditioned on bari). Teachers? Well, just the band director -- a lady who was a woodwind person, but not a flautist.
My sister also hasn't played professionally in a longer time than I have. She still can pick up the flute and play a grade 6 (i.e. "really difficult") solo almost perfectly. I know. I've tested her.
Now, could I eventually be TECHNICALLY as good as any other player? Perhaps, depending on how many years I practice, because there is a theoretical limit on what you can play on any instrument -- but I also think that a talented player could probably learn MORE than me and be even better if he practiced for the same amount of years. However, I don't think I could ever be as creative as, say, Paul Desmond, no matter how long I practice.
Wrapping this up:
* Creativity is a combination of talent and technique. It's difficult, if not impossible, to teach the former, although some folks can fake it well.
* Technical ability comes through training, but how far you progress is dependant a lot upon your talent.
How can you tell who's talented and who isn't? Train them both with a good teacher for the same length of time and see who's better. I betcha the talented player would be considerably better and more advanced than the untalented one.

Answer:
It's always best to keep in mind that time spent practicing is not nearly as important as focus of practice and the student's level of curiosity. If you really care, and really have a passion for it, then it will seem to come more naturally.
I can cite a similar example... my brother, a very excellent and talented drummer, has always seemed to have more passion for music than me, thus he progressed at a higher rate. He never had a teacher, lessons, or anything of the sort. He simply listened to recordings, played with bands, and studied from books, practicing all the time. Even now, when I am practicing more than him, he seems to make more progress than me. I think that's just because he cares about it more. It doesn't really pain me to admit that, I just don't care about it as completely as he does, and that's okay by me. But when I play with him... well it's some of the best musical feeling I've ever had, since I think playing with him rubs a bit of that passion off on me. And which is why I've already asked him if he would play on my senior recital, even though I'm only a freshman, but that's another story. :)

Answer:
I personally believe that everyone is pretty much born with equal potential (barring any sort of defects, etc) but it is how they are brought up in those first few years that really makes the difference. If an exploritive, creative spirit is embraced or at least accepted at a young age, I think, there is a good chance that it will carry with them. Things like creativity, interest and focus can brighten a musical future, but only if they are given the chance to stand out front in the beginning. Of course there are exceptions to these.

Answer:
If you can devote alot of time early on and have good teachers you will do very well but I noticed growing up (in my teens) that the "greats" Miles, Dizzy, Charlie Parker, Trane , Lee Morgan, etc, were very very good at 17 or 18 and got more mature but had "it " at that early age. You can always get better no matter where you're at ( I picked up my axe after a 15 year layoff and am approaching how I played as a sophmore in collage) but the greats had something special. K

Answer:
I've observed that the "born" players naturally know what to focus on in their practice and playing, thus are much more efficient. They also have the discipline that is fed by passion for the art (discipline alone won't do it). An efficient learner who has discipline and passion...now that's scary.
Milla Jovovich (of Fifth Element fame) said it best: Talent without discipline means nothing.

Answer:
Oops, I forgot. An efficient learner who has discipline and passion and a good teacher...now that's absolutely frightening!

Answer:
Originally Posted by Keith Ridenhour If you can devote alot of time early on and have good teachers you will do very well but I noticed growing up (in my teens) that the "greats" Miles, Dizzy, Charlie Parker, Trane , Lee Morgan, etc, were very very good at 17 or 18 and got more mature but had "it " at that early age. You can always get better no matter where you're at ( I picked up my axe after a 15 year layoff and am approaching how I played as a sophmore in collage) but the greats had something special. K
It works both ways...Dizzy and Parker and Morgan and Hubbard (he just picked up a trumpet and started playing) and Miles were all naturals...but it took them a hell a lot of work to become "greats." How much did Trane practice? How much did Miles realize he DIDN'T know when he first got to NY? Parker was humiliated at a jam session when he was about 18, Dizzy was humiliated at a trumpet lesson by a guy from his home town now one has ever heard of. It took them LOTS of dedicated practice.
Yeah, people with natural ability will progress much faster...but dedication and passion counts for a lot more than natural ability. I've known several "naturals" at music, on saxophone (not the level of a Parker, obviously, but good) and yet I've surpassed them all now, not because I'm a naturally talented player (which I am most assuredly am not.) I practice a lot, but not necessarily more than the people I've known. But in terms of passion, especially for jazz, none of my peers growing up came even close to me. And now I'm farther ahead then the people I grew up with and played with.
In case this sounds like I'm disagreeing with Keith, I'm not, just stating something useful to think about for anyone who doubts themselves because they are not a natural. I know have. Dedication and passion are the biggest keys to music, when all is said and done.

Answer:
I have seen entirely too many young, born-to-play-the-saxophone kids burn out by graduate school to believe for a second that talent plays a major role in a final artistic product (although there are very few exceptions to this admitted generalization).
That said, I have also seen entirely too many young, talentless-but-hungry-and-working-like-hell-to-get-it kids also burn out by graduate school to believe that "the player makes himself".
Personal experience, optimism, and pessimism aside, I do believe that the final successful product in any idiom is the result of a combination of tireless work ethic, ruthless efficiency, open-mindedness, the right teacher/influence/support, the right time, and (above all) the street smarts (this is learned, not innate) to allow one to do what he is called to do.
In other words, you need to do whatever you can to get it done, no matter what you were or were not born with. Be absolutely relentless in your pursuit of your art. Leave no stone unturned. Listen to everything, talk to everyone, be everywhere. And when I say "every", I do mean "EVERY".
OANegrin

Answer:
I somewhat beleive in "talent" but I prefer calling that a "pre-disposition".
There are different types of intelligence: Rational/mathematical intelligence, verbal/linguistic Intelligence, visual/spatial intelligence, musical/rhythmic intelligence... just to name a few
Everyone is born with all of these but since we are only human, we tend to specialize. And since we're each very unique, we specialize differently. E.g.: I'm thinking ringht now of an extremely "talented" musician that I know who doesn't talk much, is very intoverted and who isn't very good at communicating with others. The explanation to that probably is that he's specialized more in music than in linguistic skills.
So if you wanna call that "talent" go ahead but I think there is something more to it. For instance, what is the determining factor that does that a person specializes in musical/rhythmic skills? I think that perhaps the social and cultural background that a person is brought-up into has got a lot to do with it - My boyfriend is an experienced music teacher and I remember at one point he had a student who had no ear whatsoever and a very poor sense of rythym. At first I was suprised that my boyfriend asked his student if he (the student) grew-up in a family where people sang, clapped hands and danced - But then after the student said "No"... I dunno, it kinda made sense. Not that the student had no talents, just that he never had the chance to developp it.

Answer:
I've struggled with the question of talent many times over. Sometimes I felt there was no such thing and other times I felt it had to be. I believe I've come to the conclusion that talent does indeed exist and that some people are "born players".
It is true that we all have the capacity to learn and given the desire to excell in a particular discipline we can all achieve excellence as the result of work and dedication. However, not all of us can be a Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Einstein, Stephen Hawkings, or Babe Ruth (pre-steroids ;)) no matter how hard we may try. This doesn't mean we can't be superb musicians, it just means that we will be one of many thousands of superb musicians who don't stand out as Parker, Miles or Trane did.
I have always had an interest in how things work. As a kid I used to take my toys apart to see how they were designed, what made them go, and then I'd put them back together just they way they were supposed to be and continue to play with them. By contrast, I've seen my own kids take things apart and then bring me the pieces for reassembly because they couldn't (or wouldn't) put them back together. Nine times out of ten I've been able to fix their stuff.
This ability of mine to figure out how things work has spilled over into music. I'm fascinated by how music is put together and consequently have a keen interest in composing. That's why I majored in composition in college. I'm currently a member of the in NYC and continue find excitement in hearing the music I've written performed. As much as I love playing the sax, and I feel I play very well because I've worked at it, I believe I'm a better writer than player since writing seems to come more easily to me.
Perhaps I could have developed this ability in another area such as mechanical engineering, but my interest was in music not mechanics so I consider myself a composer first and a player second. I've written music that has impressed a good number of people who have said they could never write anything like it. I believe them not because they couldn't learn to write good music but because it just seems to come to me naturally. This gives me a perspective on composing that others don't have. To me, composing is just something I do (ie: my talent) whereas others have to search for melodic ideas that may never come.
I think that everyone has a talent for something but many people live their lives never having found it. I consider myself lucky to have found mine.

Answer:
The so-called "great talents" were also the hardest workers. Is it any coincidence that Trane practiced as much as he did? Of course his personality and his genius came into his playing, but I think that if he'd applied as much work and thought to engineering as he did to music, Trane would be internationally recognized as the best engineer that ever lived.
I've never met an accomplished player who didn't work very hard for it. Lots of people say they work hard but are really inefficient; this could account for many of the comparisons between those who seem to have a talent for music and practice very little, and those who seem to have no talent and practice a whole lot. The former think things through more, have conceptualized to a greater degree what they want to accomplish, and do most of their work in their minds. The latter tend to do things over and over, with no regard for accuracy, organization, or conceptualizing what they want to achieve. The more you conceptualize, the better you are able to become... so it's not so much having more natural musical talent as it is having a lot more desire, discipline, and mental ability. Call it talent if you will. I call it mental muscle.
The analogy of taking things apart and putting them back together again... that represents a certain kind of thinking that is stronger in you than in others. You can remember how things were assembled, see where the pieces should go, how they will function together in the whole once reassembled. A lot of people just don't think this way. A lot of people don't care to. But I think we all have the ability to if we wanted. I have a similar ability and have been moving into composition, but that is not my greatest mental strength. My greatest strength is in copying what I hear, and memorizing written and recorded music VERY quickly. I also have a seemingly natural ability to apply what I've heard and practiced to new music. Some call this a "natural ear". Still, I didn't know I could do this until I tried, very VERY hard to be able to do it. My ear used to be utterly terrible, but the more I worked at it, the better I got, and now I have an uncanny sense of relative pitch, hearing harmonies, and hearing timbres of instruments, etc. It is the thing I have worked the hardest at, not some random ability I happened to discover one day.
Therefore I can't really say where I stand, just that it's somewhere in between, leaning toward "no". The more you try, the more musical you strive to be, and the more you are willing to conceptualize and to create, the better you will become. It's also very key to learn how to PACE oneself. Many people tackle and tackle and tackle a task, rather than approaching it with a goal in mind, very slowly, soaking in what they are getting back from their hard work. This is the same reason that successful athletes tend to be very smart indeed. I never had a knack for math (except for when I worked really hard at it), but I can learn tunes pretty durn quick!

Answer:
Interesting thread. I think people have inborn talents that are latent until they discover them. In music, there so many skills that are involved and one might discover they learn a certain aspect of music faster than others. I believe my talent which I discovered early was in improvising. I remember struggling with sight reading for years but could improvise lines on the spot even if I did not know the changes. When I was a young child I would sing second harmonies w/o instruction. I doubted my musical abilities for years because I couldn't sight read as well as others. But with years of hard work, my sight reading had improved.
The self doubt plagued me for years. What kept me going was on certain musical situations, I would hit the "zone" playing with others and the feeling was so strong that I could not let go of playing. I would also have a similar elated feelings when other musicians hit this zone (live or on records). This "zone" playing was elusive and I could not control when it will come. It was discouraging but I kept on because of the love of music. Today the other skills involved in music has caught up and I can play at a consistently high level, but it took years of hard work.
I've thought a lot about Miles Davis who had limited technical skills on the trumpet when he started. I think he recognized that he had other conceptual skills which he knew was special. Fortunately other musicians recognized and encouraged him to keep on. Eventually he overcame the technical difficulties of the trumpet and became the legend that he is.
I'm very thankfull for JAZZ and it's language because if I had to play written music for the rest of my life, I would have stopped playing years ago.