capfan33 wrote:OhayoKD wrote:Yeah, this is just a tortured variant of "god of the gaps." You can't explain something so it must be...innate talent? No, if you can't explain something, you can't explain something.
Well, one. I'm not sure how you're figuring out how well-received you would be in these time machine scenarios, but assuming you're right, I imagine it might have to do with people not lo oking at a copycar the same way as the person who did it originally, which is why you need to learn how to tranpose, combine, and create your own context. Which, again, is a skill.
Kind of a variant, but I'm not asserting beyond a shadow of a doubt the way that religious people do lol, I'm open to changing the definition or what it's called or allowing that there may be other factors involved, what I'm saying is that talent (or something along those lines) is a part of this otherwise unexplainable gap.
"God of the Gaps" doesn't justify any level of assertion, let alone "beyond a shadow of a doubt". That there is an "unexplainable gap" right now is just you ignoring plausible explanations without explaining
why they aren't satisfactory.
The problem here is your conclusion does not naturally follow from your reasoning/evidence.
Are there not tens of thousands of amateur musicians throughout history who have done everything in their power to master an instrument, play and record music, that no one gives a rat's ass about because the music, while technically competent, doesn't actually speak to people? Hell, I have an example in my own family of this, practiced assiduously and was very technically competent, he just didn't have that creative spark that separates great musicians from competent ones.
Okay, but why do we need "innate talent" to explain any of this? And why are you pretending "mastering an instrument" and "playing and recording music" is all there is to musical development? All you have actually argued is that some people are more successful than others. Why can't this be put to external context?
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=104637520#p104637520You might note that the linked post actually presents an argument with reasoning and evidence that support what is being argued. As opposed to ducking with "well i don't know how this happened, so innate talent must be why".
Honestly, the "innate talent" you imply here is a pretty big tell:
And this ofc assumes that Jimi does all the work for me that he did in terms of reconceptualizing the guitar as an instrument, which I have beyond 0 shot of doing independently.
Suprise surprise, this is completely learnable:
Oh, but it is. "Copying" is one of the best ways to expand one's bag. Analysis and replication expands an artist's arsenal. Then, you transpose. "You" come in with the context you create around what you've stolen, and, hopefully, you're stealing multiple things from multiple people before constructing a context where they become greater than the sum of their individual parts.
"Reconceptualize" is a variant of "Recontextualize", a skill that is developed via practice and repetition. Something new is created when you "transpose" and "combine". You want to reconceptualize an instrument? Track what is typically being done with an instrument in various situations, and then take those situations and use the instrument differently.
You may not have the fingers to play exactly like Jimmy, but you, as countless others have, can get close, and then once you've gotten close you can transpose the mechanics to create your own thing. And hey...maybe that "own thing" isn't Jimmy-level, but pair it with another dozen things(lyrics derived from 19th century polyglot idiom "libretto of the liberian republic"? scat(if you really wanna boost, mix same-stress with different-stress sounds)? a plot-line allegorizing the illiad?) in a cohesive way and, yeah, you don't need "innate talent" to make something better. Even "pandering" is a skill. Playing into the hands of an audience with your own persona does not even require extremely high "developed" storytelling. Just ask Swift:
But I think the way we like pop musicians is in some ways a more exaggerated or extreme version of the way we like all musicians, or almost all of them.
All pop stars enlist us in their stories.
I mean, it’s only sensible to do so, because they need our interest to earn money off us.
But it plays on basic human curiosity. Very few people completely lack all curiosity about the musicians that make the music they love. (Just as very few great musicians are so personally obscure or undocumented that we know absolutely nothing about them, other than their music.)
In a way, being involved with the musicians’ stories is a big part of how their music comes to seem more meaningful to us.
https://www.quora.com/What-does-Alex-Johnston-think-of-Taylor-SwiftTaylor Swift does not come close to having the largest vocal range. Even with practice, she is not a wordsmith on par with a run-of-the-mill novelist. She can't belt like Beyonce, let alone the best of the best opera singers, and far as the skills involved in building a persona go, she is far from a run-of-the-committed actor in sinking into a role. What she does have is the willingness
to combine, and we have covered, knowing how to combine things is not "innate", it is developed. Her actually developing that was probably helped by getting opportunities early(and snowballing), but that is external, not "innate"
It is "hard", but it being doable is not dependent on the basis of "innate" biology(barring severe disabilities, and even then, people have achieved high regard with crazy handi-caps).
Honestly, if your family friend is worried about "creative spark", they should just learn creative writing(and i mean properly, not scribbling thoughts down when the right emotions hit). This "innate" lack of "creative spark" may start to mysteriously disappear
Actually how about we give a prompt to be worked on as they progress:
[u]A world of sentinent(instument of choice)!!!! Where class is determined by how they're played!!![/u]
Like honestly, this isn't even a bit. Anyone who seriously plays with this prompt should see their "creative spark" and "reconceptualize" skills go up significantly. All "innate" would do here is make the path faster, but it's not like someone with "average" affinity would need a decade of focus to figure this out. If you spend a year researching instruments, and honing your response to the prompt(and doing this with different instruments), the magical "you're born with it or not" **** people assume they "weren't born with" should inexplciably appear.
But to bring this back to basketball specifically
[/quote]
Fine, but first, let's make something clear. Unlike the analogy that was scrutinized in the post I linked above, this doesn't actually hold if you're trying to map this onto art, because art is a sandbox where there is a dramatically bigger range of "final versions" to something that scores at the top, whether we take my commonly applied standard or yours. Using the traditional definition of good in basketball, the version of success is basically, "help team put ball in hoop more than other team". Nothing barring very obscure criterion implies you must only do Jimmy Hendrix ****. Because of the "put ball in hoop", we already have a hard-filter for height taking out most people.
That said, again, you just claim "things cannot be explained" without poking holes in the explanations. Why can't we put Jokic's vision/anticipation to his experiences growing up?
You just keep repeating the same claims without every actually explaining why "innate talent" is the missing link. Mind you, no one here has even questioned it as a factor, but you want it to be something that makes **** impossible or possible as opposed to something that makes **** easier, and there's just nothing to support that when we're talking about sandboxes instead of hoops.
