# Creativity in beginner music.



## Jaws

People ask me if you have to be a creative person to learn a musical instrument. I tend to think that this is really not important for beginner musicians. It takes a long time to learn the techniques that allow someone to be creative. On this basis I think that more or less anyone can learn to play more or less anything if they just do enough practice of the right kind. 

Some people try to make playing an instrument into something that only "special" people can do. I don't agree with having to be musical. Most aspects of musicality can be learned.


----------



## PetrB

There is no way to determine if any beginner is creative (or has talent) until they begin. For beginners, a good teacher, paying attention, and diligent and intelligent practice are the key.

After some length of time, as unpopular as the fact it is, some people do have what seems to be a readier and _more innate (intuitive)_ grasp of both acquiring technique and that substance called creative / talent.

I can not say often enough that technique is what makes expressive playing possible.

There is no way to find out without first beginning


----------



## Jaws

Some people do have a better connection to music than others but it doesn't really start to show until anyone has as got well past the beginner stage. For someone studying music who has a connection to music/ talent the beginner stage is probably going to last at least 15 years, so for the average amateur player who is not talented they are never going to get to the point where they either have the technique or the need to be in the least bit creative. This means that being creative or musical isn't really necessary what is more important is the ability to practice effectively.


----------



## PetrB

Jaws said:


> Some people do have a better connection to music than others but it doesn't really start to show until anyone has as got well past the beginner stage. For someone studying music who has a connection to music/ talent the beginner stage is probably going to last at least 15 years....


LOL. Don't announce that to any one at the beginning. Very few people have faith enough to invest the money and time for fifteen years before they think any pay-off will happen.
(I started at age six, and at the end of fifteen years was a professional; the only kind of 'beginner' I was after fifteen years was a beginning professional.)

I also think that just is not true. Some people, during their initial first year or two, evidence some innate ability, a strong innate musicality, and... ahem, "talent." -- Not that the playing ability is usually anything to make much of a fuss about at that stage, but nonetheless, some of these innate abilities do show up early, and are readily detected by teachers.

There is a very standard truth of putting in the time to get results. Without wishing to undermine that as a general tenet and motivator, some will put in the same amount of time and hard work and never show much creativity or talent. (That is as true in the field of music as it is in the pursuit of studying business.)


----------



## Ukko

You guys must be talking about music as a living. There is plenty of room out there for making music as recreation.

"They laughed when I sat down at the piano," the pulp magazine ad began...


----------



## dgee

Jaws said:


> Some people do have a better connection to music than others but it doesn't really start to show until anyone has as got well past the beginner stage. For someone studying music who has a connection to music/ talent the beginner stage is probably going to last at least 15 years, so for the average amateur player who is not talented they are never going to get to the point where they either have the technique or the need to be in the least bit creative. This means that being creative or musical isn't really necessary what is more important is the ability to practice effectively.


Second-guessing about definitions of creativity aside - you can definitely tell kids with musical ability early. They'll have better pulse, a sense of phrasing, and pick up technical skills quicker. They'll naturally understand that they're learning the notes to play music (rather than just to learn the notes).

I find your grim focus on technical skill on this and other threads a bit depressing, to be honest. Players with all sorts of levels of ability can and should enjoy using the technique they have to play musically - it's how you develop as a musician!


----------



## Jaws

dgee said:


> Second-guessing about definitions of creativity aside - you can definitely tell kids with musical ability early. They'll have better pulse, a sense of phrasing, and pick up technical skills quicker. They'll naturally understand that they're learning the notes to play music (rather than just to learn the notes).
> 
> I find your grim focus on technical skill on this and other threads a bit depressing, to be honest. Players with all sorts of levels of ability can and should enjoy using the technique they have to play musically - it's how you develop as a musician!


I am not trying to make it grim I am trying to point out that you don't have to be musically "special" to play an instrument for fun as an amateur. So many people seem to think that you need some sort of musical talent to learn an instrument well enough to play in the average amateur orchestra and it just isn't true. I completely agree that some people will have a talent but for a place in the amateur world this isn't necessary because most of the musical ideas that you can play with the limited techniques that a lot of amateurs have can be taught ( having to spend time earning a living reduces available practice time) , so they don't need to have the kind of talent that is needed to become a professional player. However a lot of people I meet don't realise that there is a difference and they seem to think that everyone who takes up an instrument needs the same sort of talent as a professional player when in fact anyone can play an instrument to a reasonable standard if they do the right kind of practice.


----------



## PetrB

Ukko said:


> You guys must be talking about music as a living. There is plenty of room out there for making music as recreation.


Nope!

I'm talking about 'being good at it,' whether amateur or professional... certainly each has very different sets of expectations, but neither rules out 'being good at it.'

Whether amateur or professional:
Even if all other factors are level and 'equal,' i.e. the players having equal intelligence, equal training (including autodidacts), and having equally put in the same diligent concentration and work, there will still be those within either group who are plainly more talented and musical than others from the same group.

This is worth repeating: this is true within the arts and in other disciplines, everything else equal, some are just going to be much better at it than others.

Innate understanding, talent, can be mentored and directed; it can not be imparted by teaching.

Talent can happen anywhere, and it seems it crops up in circumstances where many would not expect to find it, i.e. seemingly contrary to all the studies of 'what it takes to make baby smart.'


----------



## hreichgott

Who says only a few special people are creative?


----------



## Jaws

hreichgott said:


> Who says only a few special people are creative?


Quite a lot of people I meet who don't play anything say something like "oh but I am not musical" they seem to have got the idea that being musical is something that you need before you start, not something that you learn after you have started. I have no idea where most of it comes from but just recently met someone who had an ear test at school about 30 years ago and was told that they don't have a musical ear and was therefore not capable of taking up the violin which of course is rubbish, but this silly test has given the the impression that they will never play anything well. Of course I know that what is far more important than a musical ear is the amount and kind of practice you do. How you can tell from an ear test with someone who hasn't had any ear training whether they will be able to play anything I have no idea.


----------



## PetrB

Jaws said:


> Quite a lot of people I meet who don't play anything say something like "oh but I am not musical"


Just as many people say about all sorts of hobbies they think they would like to do, "I'd love to do that (make a nice decorative wreath of dried flowers, for example) but I'm not creative. There is only one worthwhile and true response. "You get the materials, maybe a book, maybe a class, and _just start_." Too, any beginner, especially adult beginners, should be reminded _they are a complete beginner,_ and be reassured they need not think or worry about anything else -- usually for quite a while 

But truly, I don't think too many about to be beginners are really pondering how much talent they have, or are in a quandary about their talent as rated on a scale... they're curious about making a bit of music for themselves, and simply a bit afraid of the unknown.

*If it is unknown, there is nothing to be afraid of (how can you be? You know nothing about that unknown The usual fear there is actually stepping outside of the room which is your familiar boundary.*

From the film _Harold and Maude_:

Maude: That was fun! Let's play something together.

Harold: I don't play anything.

Maude: Nothing? Dear me, everybody should be able to make some music. That's the cosmic dance.


----------



## Ukko

PetrB - "Nope!

I'm talking about 'being good at it,' whether amateur or professional... certainly each has very different sets of expectations, but neither rules out 'being good at it.' "

We are touching different parts of the elephant.


----------



## PetrB

Ukko said:


> PetrB - "Nope!
> 
> I'm talking about 'being good at it,' whether amateur or professional... certainly each has very different sets of expectations, but neither rules out 'being good at it.' "
> 
> We are touching different parts of the elephant.


Being good at is being good at, and relative though that may be -- whether it is the elephants' tail, leg, belly or trunk, it is still _the elephant._ If the elephant wants to get paid to dance in the circus, s/he will have to put more into it to get that gig


----------



## Jaws

Ukko said:


> PetrB - "Nope!
> 
> I'm talking about 'being good at it,' whether amateur or professional... certainly each has very different sets of expectations, but neither rules out 'being good at it.' "
> 
> We are touching different parts of the elephant.


Being good at it is possible for amateur standards. However what I find here in the UK are that many amateur musicians think that they are good at it when they aren't and can't expect to be because they don't do any practice. The same rules apply for both professional and amateurs, you only get out what you put in.


----------

