Interesting reading the posts from Roger, Scott, Noel and others about a long debated topic is it talent or is it practice. This debate doesn't just rage in the music world it's also in the other arts. Do you have to have immense talent to be a great dancer or a great artist? Or maybe to be in the Olympics? I'm also a visual artist and spent most of the last couple months preparing for a solo art show, proud to say I sold 10 paintings and received really great feedback and positive comments on my paintings. I also did some poetry to accompany some of them. There was the time in art history of Leonardo Di Vinci and other great painters before the camera, that art was taught and apprentices worked with artists to perfect their technical skills. In the time of Di Vinci and Michelangelo art was an occupation and their works met a demand for realistic paintings. They learned to become great through themselves being an apprentice. Van Gogh in his day was sort of looked down on as maybe even slightly crazy and a troublemaker. He only sold (1) painting in his life. Van Gogh was not accepted into the academy as they thought he had no talent, but he painted daily and developed his own unique style. None of these artists were really that famous in their day only post modem when the rich and museums decided to promote them. After the camera was invented, a modern movement happened in Europe and then America when famous artists labeled themselves as "having gifts bestowed by God". No one had to teach them art, they were the chosen ones. Monet, Picasso, Kalinsky, Rothko, etc. They did impressionistic and abstract art. Art became about the feelings to be expressed. This continued into our last century and even today. When I went to art school, I had teachers who couldn't explain perspective. They didn't need to, as art was inspired magic if you had it and about feelings. If you wanted an exact replication take a photo. I am glad to see today there is a remergence of the "New Old Masters" teachings. Back to my point, what I've seen in art students and others learning art you need (2) things a teeny bit of talent and interest and the discipline to learn and practice. You will be amazed at how good you can become. Whether you are ever famous or not is a whole another thing and that is based on opportunity and luck, neither of which may cross ones path in this life. One can become better than someone who has a lot of talent but is lazy and does not put in the time and effort to develop that talent. IMO I believe that many students who couldn't achieve for Roger is because many people and especially young people believe that it is God given and should be easy if they have it, and they aren't willing to put in the elbow grease otherwise to get there. Talent will get you no where without the hard work. I also believe many teachers seeing students not try or fail, dismiss them quickly because they know they won't put in the effort (who could blame them), however someone with some talent will get encouraged and praised by the teacher and that is inspiring in itself and positively encourages the student to continue.
Also, as Roger explained it is possible to have some talent and self teach as it appears that he's done and because he practiced and kept at it to become a good songwriter. I remember one famous songwriter saying "People say great songs come from inspiration, thank God inspiration strikes every day at 9:00". Bottom line is that none of this is important if it's not bringing any happiness or joy in your life. If you're unhappy that you are never going to be famous or cut a top hit (largely controlled by the music industry) then you're only frustrating your life and being miserable. Remember life is short and great artists die like everyone else and they ain't taking nothing with them, chosen by God or not. You gotta have the love of it.

Last edited by Belladonna; 08/08/19 06:18 AM.