DRUMMER CAFE

Hey Mateus,
 Your not the only one who does'nt own a copy of "stick control"!
 Anyway in my humble opinion, TALENT will only get you so far at anything. What's really important is the DESIRE and the NEED to play. Not everyone can become a technical genius on the drums, everyone has to find there own level and realise they're limitations.
 I think we all go through a period of worrying about our technique, and wondering if we will be as good as Vinnie or Gadd, but the important thing is to strive to be as good as YOU can be. If you can do that, you have REALLY accomplished something. I've always taken practice a bit lightly, favoring playing along to records rather than knuckling down to Moeller, and my technique is DEFINATELY not as strong as it should or could be. But I love playing, and after all, the reason I started playing was so I could play WITH other musicians, not sit at home practicing my ass off!

This may sound like rant guys but it is'nt, in fact I wish I had the dedication that you guys seem to have!

I know this is a little of the point, but thanks for listening!

Gadd makes some great points.  I understand your views on Gadd's talent.  I do however think he has some native talent, but it has definitely been elavated through his experiences.  I also agree that Vinnie's talent is more native.  His ability to hear things in his head that I can only understand on paper is uncanny.  Although I do think the musicality, groove, and chops are things he developed through HIS experiences.  Listen to recordings from 10 years ago(he would be in his 30's at this time), and compare them to recordings of the last 2 years.  It's an obvious difference in musicality, or maybe maturity.  the studio work has always been great, but I am referring to the live and studio stuff that he is allowed and/or encouraged to play "Vinnie stuff".  On the Karizma album Document, or the Dyno-Four at the Baked Potato, he is all over the kit, all around the time.  He is a mad scientist at work.  But it ALL sounds like it has a point.  It doesn't ever lose the groove, and it doesn't ever sound like he's just blowing.  THAT is growth, the man is in his 40's right?  He has grown over the years.


A more native talent would be Tony Williams.  The man was seriously one of the best musicians of the 20th century.  All of that stuff he played with miles was incredible.  In Miles' autobiography he mentions that Tony was his favorite drummer, and that Tony pushed the band, he drove the band.  He said that Tony would leave you behind if you couldn't hang.  Tony was 17 years old when he first started playing with Miles Davis.  THAT is talent.  THAT is nature blessing this young man.  THAT is beautiful!

Talent is not the only element to becoming a musician, and it certainly is not even a key ingredient to become a successful musician(whatever that means).  Talent is a key ingredient in becoming an artist.  If one approaches music to create art, talent is required.  If one is approaching music simply for fun, talent is NOT required, although it is a great help.  Drive, determination, discipline, attitude, and openess are what I beleive to be the KEY ingredients in gaining success as a musician.

I don't personally feel that 'talent' is as uncommon as some of you might believe.   I'd be willing to bet that the majority of players on this site have at least a very reasonable amount of natural talent above and beyond the average person (non-players).   Maybe that strikes some as obvious(?)  

For me, the answer rests in my belief that people -more often than not- express and maintain an interest in those things in life in which they excel.  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In talent we are considering:

1. A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment.  

2. Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

----The problem with this dictionary description of talent is that they've expressed 'innate ability' and 'artistic accomplishment' as one.   They are in fact two separate issues.  

The question is....exactly what or who do we compare ourselves to...where's the yardstick?   'Superior' to who?   Successful drummers?   Non-drummers?  Well...unfortunately there is no yardstick.   (Except for those WFD people!)

Comparing our 'talent' to other drummers can be a very subjective call -someone mentioned the 'nature/nurture' argument.  EXACTLY!   We all have different life experiences; cultural backgrounds; access to education; willingness to practice;  parental and peer support; time to practice; access to other musicians, etc, etc, etc.   These many differences quickly distort our comparison to others when measuring 'talent.'  

Without doubt, some people are born with more 'natural' talent than others.   It's much easier perhaps to identify this in young children singing (as opposed to drumming).  --Some can hit the notes with ease  -others just don't get it at all.  

Part of my belief again is that those who CAN hit the notes when singing tend to develop their skills further.  Those who CAN'T more often have little interest in 'finding' or developing their talent (or rather lack thereof).    It's not much fun dedicating ourselves, our time and our money at stuff in which we suck!    The human race is more practical than that.   This is also why I tend to believe the vast majority of you are likely talented.  

There's also the matter of 'positive conditioning'  (Pavlov's dog)  This also falls under the 'nurture' category.  -There's always confidence building verbal and material rewards from others for those things we tend to do very well.   If many of you players were told you 'didn't have it' by the first 10 people who heard you play and who's opinions meant something to you -you'd probably be posting over at the 'Motor Trends Cafe.'  

Once you've decided to stay with your game....whether it's basketball, biology or drumming   --Confidence and belief in yourself is a much more pertinent state of mind and a drastically more practical conscious exercise than worrying whether or not you have talent or not.  

To arrive at being a confident and successful player, you first need to accept (or believe) that you are indeed quite talented..... and then completely remove the whole concept from your psyche.    The self-assignment to being 'talented' doesn't mean jack squat once you've ingrained into your belief system the point that you are an able player and have great potential.   The underlying belief in your talent kicks doors wide open in so many ways....it allows confidence to happen.   The non-belief in your natural abilities is the beginning of the end.    

***Another interesting topic would be 'genius.'   Where 'talent' might only occur (IMO) in 5 to 10% of a given population regarding any specific activities (such as drumming)  -'Genius'  is more like 1 in 100,000.    Again, it's all so subjective and difficult to measure.    Oddly enough, I've never heard a mainstream comment regarding any drummer or singer being distinguished  as a genius.   Seems the stringed instrumentalists are stealing our fire!    

I agree that genius is an overused term. When I studied physics and philosophy in college it became clear that there really were no geniuses. Everyone was standing on the shoulders of everyone else, even Einstein. (Interesting note, popular opinion is that Newton invented calculus. What's not widely known is that Leibnitz also invented it at the same time.)

Same thing goes with drumming and with musicians, composers, etc. Some have the vision that others don't have, but none are creating out of a vaccum. They're influenced by those who came before them.

But used in the watered down definition that's popular today, I suppose you could put Zappa in a lighter "genius" category. I wouldn't put Miles there; in my opinion, he's great more because of the people he had around him. I'd be more inclined to place someone like Lee "Scratch" Perry in the genius category, a guy who established something where nothing was there before (a vaccum). Here's a guy who wasn't a part of any scene, didn't necessarily have amazing players around him ('cept Bob Marley, but that didn't last long). He was just an insane freak with his little studio who changed reggae forever.

Here's some words that come to mind; in no particular order.

• Set Goals
• Structured Practice
• Listen to all styles of music
• Have a student mindset; always wanting and willing to learn
• Dream Big
• Hang around people who are doing what you what to do
• Record yourself via audio/video ... then analyze your playing.
• Try to learn something new every day; new beat, fill, groove, style, etc.

As I've mentioned on the Discipline thread, you've got to have some vision and goals in order to get better. Without it, you have no idea where you are headed. If that's true, then how do you know if you are really getting better. Setting goals allows you to tangibly see your process and achievements.

I disagree.  Mozart stood on Bach's shoulders.  Some of the hardest things a piano player can attempt today are still Bach's clavichord studies.  I would have to say Beethoven, to me, was even more so of a genius.  I mean he was DEAF and listen to what he wrote.
To me Mozart was and is OVER RATED!!!!
But this is off topic.

Where on earth did you hear that?  Mozart was also 26 years Beethoven's senior...so in Mozart's "prime" Beethoven would still be just a child on the "gifted kid" circuit.  Actually Beethoven eschewed Mozart's pretty Bachism's (Ludwig referred to it is too "tinkly and trite" if I remember) and ushered in the Romantic movement.  But do you like the Picasso or the Lautrec?

Mozart 1756-1791
Beethoven 1770-1827

Forget about it.  Mozart was full on kickin'.

You know, there are some great drummers out there and they just keep getting better BUT-

I play alot of piano these days and I'm not very good, but I'm good enough to know how incredible all those great composers were.  Some of the music is so incredible it just makes me want to cry it is so beautiful... so when I hear great drummers, well...it's hard for me to get really excited from just drums alone anymore.

Mostly "bubblegum" classical pieces no particular order:

Clair De Lune- Debussy
Ravel
Gnoissiennes 1-4/Satie

Beethoven
Moonlight Sonata
Fur Elise
Hammerklavier

Chopin
Symphonie Fantastique (I think)
Raindrops
Plus all his Mazurkas and Polonaises that I havn't had the pleasure of hearing.

Liszt wrote some heavy pieces as well.

There are so many great piano solos...ask me again some time.

There are a few minuets by Bach that I can play in G minor and major but some of his organ pieces that I can't name are pretty heavy as well.

There are also some really heavy Rachmaninof pieces that blow me away, but it is not like I have been listening or practicing Rach stuff- you know?

hıı ı m wrıttıng from turkey ı thınk copy is very important ı mean copy to someone especially dave weckl neil pert and like this