Our Life

I'm curious to see what everyone defines musical talent in their own perspective.

For me it's a well rounded guitarist/vocalist who can adapt to different styles of music.

Et vous?

A mastery of music theory to the point of being able to both write and play a wide spectrum of genres, follow difficult rhythm and key changes, and play to difficult time signatures.
Basically, someone who knows really complicated theory.
That's just technical skill, though.

Someone who knows how to constuct a full song without using one riff over and over, and performing a technical solo(or at least, well thought out).

Someone that knows a ton of musical theory, knows how to write more then 2-3 Riff's per song, and who can do so without sacrificing song structure. Generally this person/band makes good use of music theory, and combines it with innovation to make talent.

For instance, I consider Death musically talented because they write amazing songs, as well as Riff's and make extensive use of music theory. However, a band like Necrophagist, no doubt has complete/near-complete mastery of their instruments, but they lack the ability to write a decent song, and focus too much on putting their musicianship to use rather then writing well thought out music.

Originality combined with genuine good sound. The ability to keep me entertained is important. I'm not a musician, I know nothing about guitar, but even I can still recognize good sound vs. mediocre. I wouldn't be able to describe in detail the technical elements of good music, but I know it when I hear it…we'll put it that way!

I say someone has musical talent when they're able to convey their emotions through music to the listener.

For me, there's nothing more to it. I don't care about their knowledge of theory, their technical ability, whatever. If their music moves me, then that's musical talent.

I would say a band that can come out with a song and it never gets old that show me that they have good song writing skill.Either that or Slash would be in the band then that would make them great

The definition of musical talent is the ability to play from the heart. Though originality, a clear musical direction and confidence in your ideas helps. And sweep picking.

being better than someone who can't play, write, and/or sing. Talent isn't something only attainable by geniuses. After that definition, levels of talent are very debateable.

It's not about how good a musician is at their instrument, with their voice, or with their songwriting. It's about how easily they can appeal to someone's emotions or thoughts.

Take Jeff Magnum, for example. Horrible, horrible singer, and his guitar playing was elementary at best. But his band's second album, Aeroplane over the Sea, is regarded as one of the greatest indie albums of all time. Why? Because he is an amazing songwriter and took the time to make a record that goes straight to your heart.

Similarly, a great guitarist can overshadow crappy vocals and songwriting. Let's face it: Hendrix wasn't any Bob Dylan with his lyrics, but nobody cares.

For me musical talent is not judged by the individuals over all skill alone, because you could be crazy at lets say Bass but not work well with the rest of your band,
you sound like crap cause you don't fit even though you could be pulling some Ben Wooten shit. But you would not sound good as a unit, so for me playing in sync with your band members is key, because solos are good when tasteful, but a whole song as a load of nonsense you would be showing off is lame, and unnecessary. you have to be good as a solid unit and you are talented.

Metallica, end of story.

For talent….

A drummer must have a strong sence of beat, and be fast for hitting the drums. They can have a wide range of drums and symbols but they must be able to hit everyone of them at any given time.

Vocals, they have to sing any note for long periods of time.

Guitar, they have to know every pitch on every frett. They should be a little fast. Tapping is not in the criteria. They must also be able to hit any note at any given time, like for vocals.

Someone who can write a piece of music that draws out an emotion. Music is more than the sum of the notes.

someone who can take a simple chord and turn it into a masterpiece. also the songs have to have emotions. the band also has to be able to stick together thru thick and thin.

strong sense of music theory in whichever instrument they play(vocals too). should be able to write good song structure that is complicated but they don't have to. the music should all come together and form a song that has the emotion the band was going for as well as something that doesn't become boring.

like Zalman said Death is a good example of this.

and to all those who think that music has nothing to do with notes and structure but with emotion:those things give the music the emotion, for example:a blast beat on drums gives a much different feeling than the traditional 4/4 rock beat.

How well the band/artist can construct their music.

Best definition so far.

A winner is me :P

I'd say the greatest achievement in the musical world (talent wise) is the ability to compose music. Its easy to play music then write it, but to put it on paper knowing how it will sound shows true mastery of music.

Listen to Between the Buried and Me's new album "Colours." That CD is a great example of extremely talented/well rounded musicians. Its hard to explain why you just really need to hear it.

"I say someone has musical talent when they're able to convey their emotions through music to the listener."

Ultimately, this is what it comes down to, this is what music is all about. Theory and technical skills are just tools that can help you get there.

playing more than one instrument

*bumped*

Execution is all that matters.

to be eceptionally unique and kick ass

My exact thoughts, almost word for word.

This view is frankly stupid because i could execute some mindnumbingly boring, uninspiring 2 chord pop-punk song with a 4 note vocal melody perfectly, but that wouldn't make me musically talented

I know thats just semantics, but also on the other hand, I could execute my licks like rusty cooley, but my music wouldn't be serving any purpose. My song wouldn't invoke any emotion, or or tell a story, or create a synesthetic, three dimensional feel, it just basically wouldn't be art, just execution. Its like watching the hundred meter dash vs. a brilliant theater performance to make a visual analogy.

That's not what I meant. I don't really care how many instruments the people play, what level of musicmanship they're at, their level of music theory, etc. If they know how to create good songs and lots of them, then I'm happy. How a song turns out matters the most.

Yeah man, I was editing that post while you were typing that. Kind of jumped the gun on my reply with the first part it was just being nitpicky on your word choice