What It Takes To Be Great

Dennis Saydak · Post by **Dennis Saydak** » 4 Mar 2011 7:40 am

I came across this intersting article in the barber shop yesterday. http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=7876.0.132.0

It can be applied to learning the PSG and should be a must read for all beginners IMHO. It stresses the importance of learning proper technique and reinforces just how valuable the various courses and teaching resources that are available to us can be.

I'm going to do less noodling on my guitar and get serious about learning properly. Fortunately I have some excellent material by Jeff Newman and Mickey Adams, who are very professional in their teachings.

Matthew Prouty · Post by **Matthew Prouty** » 4 Mar 2011 8:56 am

Dennis,

Thanks for sharing. That was a great article.

m.

Billy McCombs · Post by **Billy McCombs** » 4 Mar 2011 10:22 am

Great article, wish I had started Steel as a kid instead of a 45 year old. LOL $:\$

Edward Meisse · Post by **Edward Meisse** » 4 Mar 2011 12:12 pm

Billy McCombs wrote:Great article, wish I had started Steel as a kid instead of a 45 year old. LOL $:\$

You've got alot of company.

Jeff Metz Jr. · Post by **Jeff Metz Jr.** » 14 Mar 2011 11:12 pm

You know I really really appreciate that article. I have been a guitar player for almost 10 years now. I Started the steel 1 year ago next month, and Have probably played it maybe 10 hours total( albeit was a maverick) but still no discipline. It didn't come as easy as my guitar has. But thats just it, the guitar didn't come easy either. I have just forgotten the work I had put into the instrument.
So I've bought an awesome thomas 3+5 and since then I cant get off the steel. Im motivated and inspired just by the quality of the instrument. I didn't want to admit that I wasn't getting into it so much due to it being a maverick, but hell I WASN'T and The NEW GUITAR is PROOF. But either way sorry to get off topic. The point is, I don't expect instant gratification just because my instrument has more levers and A greater tone. I am willing to now work more for doing the instrument and myself justice. AH hell. I think I may have put down too many tonight. So I hope ya'll dont mind my rambling. I hope I built up some interest in this post to offer some entertainment. Lucky I caught myself while I did. Thanks for all the help to every single on of you steelers, Even tho's who have yet to join....I know your reading.
-Jeff metz Jr.
Age:22 York, Pa

Antolina · Post by **Antolina** » 15 Mar 2011 12:16 am

Billy McCombs wrote:Great article, wish I had started Steel as a kid instead of a 45 year old. LOL $:\$

Yeah, Me too!

David Weaver · Post by **David Weaver** » 15 Mar 2011 12:27 pm

Talent is Overrated is a good book. Worth a read.

Bill Miller · Post by **Bill Miller** » 16 Mar 2011 4:11 am

I don't believe that talent is overrated. Practice and study can go a long ways in making up for a lack of it but I believe some people are just gifted. Someone like myself can play for twenty years, practice everyday and only ever make a mediocre player. Then along comes some kid who has been playing less than a year and he ( or she ) can outplay me on every level. They can't possibly have had time to practice more in a year than I have in twenty so the difference has to be talent. There are probably some exceptions but I'd bet that for the most part the players that have reached the level of 'greatness' were just born with more talent than most of us.

Roual Ranes · Post by **Roual Ranes** » 16 Mar 2011 5:18 am

I have to agree with Bill Miller on this one.
I had a friend show me a lick many many years ago and I can do it now just like I could then.......at half speed. I can arrange a simple song and put everything I can think of in it and have one note to three of what others can come up with.

David Weaver · Post by **David Weaver** » 16 Mar 2011 5:34 am

Still....I suggest reading the book. It's pretty specific on how to practice and improve. Could be that the "talented" just do a better job of practicing.

Jerry Overstreet · Post by **Jerry Overstreet** » 16 Mar 2011 5:40 am

This reminds me of Reece Anderson's philosophy on practice.

His "Perfect Practice Makes Perfect" theory is right on the money. It's about knowing what things to practice, the mental attitude, your comfort at the guitar and many more things.

I don't know if he still has a paper on this, but maybe he can stop in and tell us.

Bill Miller · Post by **Bill Miller** » 16 Mar 2011 8:46 am

I've always found this a fascinating subject. The debate over the role of talent shows up in all sorts of fields besides music of course. Can anyone who loves golf enough, and studies and practices at it hard enough attain the level of Tiger Woods? Will your average boxer, if he keeps working at it hard enough ever be as good as Muhhamed Ali was? Despite any arguments to the contrary I'm still convinced that the true 'Greats' in any field were born with abilities that separate them from the rest of us.
I may have a passable music talent but no matter what I do I will never have the manual dexterity and quickness of Tommy White, for example.
None of this is intended to discount the value of practice, which obviously helps level the playing field some. But practice can only take you so far if you got passed over on talent.

David Weaver · Post by **David Weaver** » 16 Mar 2011 9:16 am

There's another book to read titled "Outliers". It speaks of the skills of the Beatles, Bill Gates, and other "Greats" in their field. It's all about practice and exposure. In these cases, 10,000 hours is the benchmark.

Both are worth a read.

Dennis Saydak · Post by **Dennis Saydak** » 16 Mar 2011 9:49 am

My post wasn't intended to suggest that anyone can be as great a musician as the Big E, Mr. Moon, Paul Franklin or anyone else in their remarkable category. It was simply to illustrate that proper practise can elevate any player to be the best they can be. Practising without purpose or proper technique will not achieve the same results, at least not as quickly.

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 16 Mar 2011 10:58 am

None of the Beatles ever sounded as though they spent anything close to 10,000 hours on their respective instruments!

Significant, influential - absolutely; but even in terms of the relatively tiny world of pedal steel none of them came close to developing the level of skill of Tommy White or Buddy Emmons. Maybe what Tommy or Buddy has achieved will never reach a fraction of the audience that the Beatles did, but there's no comparison.

I like the idea that there's a drive present in that tiny proportion of high achievers that few of us possess, but citing a pop-group whose strengths lay anywhere but in their command of their instruments rather devalues the argument.

David Weaver · Post by **David Weaver** » 16 Mar 2011 11:37 am

A little off topic but like them or not, the Beatles changed contemporary music forever. They played two or three years under contract in the red light district of Hamburg. This is where the long hours of music came in. Bernstein study and interpreted some of their early work such as Norwegian Wood.

Tommy White, Buddy Emmons and Paul Franklin are outstanding musicians, no doubt. But Paul McCartney isn't?! You can't bee serious.

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 16 Mar 2011 12:10 pm

Actually, the Beatles substantiate the argument in favor of the existence and power of innate talent, precisely because they enjoyed such tremendous success in being found valuable contributors to the world's music without being especially masterly in the technical aspects of their art.

No doubt there were quite a few groups of young musicians at the time the Beatles rose to prominence whose skills on their instruments well exceeded theirs, but something in what the Beatles were doing captured the imagination of listeners to an extraordinary degree. What precisely is the difference, who can say? Yes, their manager seems to have made very good moves, but even the best marketing couldn't have turned an intrinsically unworthy product into what the Beatles became, IMHO.
(Curmudgeon rant: This was back in the days when marketers had not yet completely warped the collective human psyche, and the public, and even the music industry, still could perceive and value actual artistic merit.)

There's that element in art that defies quantification. Many would argue it's the only element that ultimately matters. He who plays the most perfectly is not necessarily the best player. The best draftsman is not necessarily the best artist.

Glenn Uhler · Post by **Glenn Uhler** » 16 Mar 2011 3:18 pm

Back to Dennis' original topic:
Everyone probably has to admit that if practice doesn't make one perfect, it almost certainly makes one "better". In this sense, "better" equals "greater". The purpose of any social gathering (like this one, actually) should be to make the members of the gathering "better" [by the interchange of ideas and beliefs]. We all need to work together constructively to make each other "better".

Not everyone here practices this, but most do. I used to be a very active member of a guitar-builders forum. There, nearly everyone had the goal of building better looking and sounding guitars. The players were definitely a minority, but the players spoke with their dollars. They bought the best sounding and looking instruments they could afford. We should have the same idea here; buy the best sounding instruments and amps you can afford, and if you are still learning (and who isn't?), buy the best training materials available.

Jack Carpenter · Post by **Jack Carpenter** » 17 Mar 2011 7:18 am

I say amen to Glenn and Dennis, it does no good to put forth negativity to all of us out here that are trying to learn this instrument, what is "greatness" to one person or "good enough" to another is in the ear or eye of the beholder, I applaud anyone that can be a good "coach" either on the field or in the field. There is already too much negativity in this ol world.

Joe Rogers · Post by **Joe Rogers** » 17 Mar 2011 4:23 pm

Roger, the 10,000 hours may not apply to the time the Beatles spent practicing on their instruments, but I would be willing to bet it DID apply to their songwriting craft. I read that BOTH Lennon and McCartney set out to be legends in the songwriting field....something they most definitely accomplished.

I also read where Charlie Parker claimed to have practiced 11-15 hours on a daily basis for 3-4 years. I would assume one would get mighty familiar with his instrument spending that kind of time on it...

Joe Rogers

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 17 Mar 2011 4:36 pm

Sorry - I don't see them in the same light as musicians of the calibre of Charlie Parker.

I guess it all comes down to one's definition of 'Great'. That word is applied pretty freely these days but I'd prefer to reserve it for the very best ever. It gets a bit hard to quantify if we're going to include artists who have enjoyed enormous success and popularity.

Don't misunderstand - I liked a lot of what they did but didn't find much of it was very deep.

10,000 hours playing in bars? I managed that but, like George Harrison, most of that time was spent hacking away at ham-fisted Chuck Berry-like guitar solos. Songs? Some very good ones, true, but far more of them were indifferent in my view.[/i]

Joe Rogers · Post by **Joe Rogers** » 17 Mar 2011 4:44 pm

Musical instrument virtuosity and songwriting virtuosity are two different things. Funny, but Chet Atkins saw their genius.

http://www.amazon.com/Picks-Beatles-Che ... B000002WF0

Joe Rogers

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 18 Mar 2011 4:06 am

Glenn Uhler wrote:Back to Dennis' original topic:
Everyone probably has to admit that if practice doesn't make one perfect, it almost certainly makes one "better".

That in itself is very subjective. I know musicians who practice their butts off. Yet they refuse to get some real help, so they are practicing poor technique and bad habits. They struggle very hard, yet they are not getting "better".

Perfect practice makes perfect. Perhaps talent and greatness lies in the realm of knowing the difference?

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 18 Mar 2011 4:15 am

Did Chet 'see their genius' or did he see an opportunity tp exploit their popularity by doing an album of their songs?

James M.:

I agree with you. I'm entirely self-taught and still spend endless hours between gigs working at my playing. I've always resisted the urge to get really well qualified help with the fundamentals of my steel playing, and I continue to pay the price and make little or no real progress.

Barry Blackwood · Post by **Barry Blackwood** » 18 Mar 2011 8:15 am

I'm with you, Roger, Chet was just trying to sell records. There's no denying the Beatles influence on world culture, and they had many, many great songs. They had many very juvenile songs as well, (which were just as popular.) Comparing the Beatles to steel guitarists is apples …… well, you know.