Mix Style - Purely a function of repetition?

[Slipperman]

...

[CaptainHook]

I think mix style may follow a simliar pattern as with the trend(s) in Art and Music in general.

i.e not a perfect repetition but one that moves slighty forward each time before making it's next resolution...

Ideas, concepts (etc.) are reused but new ones are also added, and some old ideas reworked.


I definately agree with what you're saying though.
There has to be identifiable aspects in a production (musical, art or otherwise)
to be able to catagorise it into a style.

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

i think that part of it is the "harmonic density" thing. some folks got that wall of sound thing happenin'. some got that sparse, open sound. i kinda like lookin' at a spectrum analyser of songs that are simular to stuff that i'm workin' on. it maks me think about how much energy is distributed and where across the frequency spectrum.

[ExistanceMusic]

Hmm, I really like that spectrum analyser idea. A mate just got one of the itti bitty hand held jobbies, might have to "borrow" it for a while

[studjo]

I'm definitely no expert in mix styles, but if you mention Clearmountain I'm all ears.
Actually I have problems to find a final mix style in his mixes (Brian Adams-Jonatha Brooke-Bruce Springsteen (live)-Jackson Browne)
Every record sounds different to me. But one thing they all have in common: Bob knows how to underline the musical message in his mixes IMNSHO.

Johippie

[RKrizman]

Originally posted by studjo
I'm definitely no expert in mix styles, but if you mention Clearmountain I'm all ears.
Actually I have problems to find a final mix style in his mixes (Brian Adams-Jonatha Brooke-Bruce Springsteen (live)-Jackson Browne)
Every record sounds different to me. But one thing they all have in common: Bob knows how to underline the musical message in his mixes IMNSHO.

Johippie

The only formulaic thing I've heard about Clearmountain is that he rolls the low end off of everything except the kick and bass (basically removing everything that doesn't sound like the song, to paraphrase an old saw)

-R

[studjo]

Originally posted by RKrizman
The only formulaic thing I've heard about Clearmountain is that he rolls the low end off of everything except the kick and bass (basically removing everything that doesn't sound like the song, to paraphrase an old saw)

-R

Well you know I do basically the same and I don't sound like Clearmountain. But then again I never worked with those kind of artists


Jo

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

i think it goes without saying, but U are usually in big trouble if U don't roll off the bottom end. i'm surprised at the amount of energy below thirty cycles that there is on a live mic feed. ya get twenty, thirty, forty tracks of stuff built up...

[Jules]

I gotta do more of that!

I always forget..

I do it on some sourses, but not all I feel I should!

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

Originally posted by Jules
I always forget..

I do it on some sourses, but not all I feel I should!

gawd, remember in the days before flying faders when U would go over the tape and wipe everything that wasn't gonna make it into the mix?

i'm totally in agreement that the best mixers let all the music through.

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally posted by slipperman
How does one determine/develop a 'Mix Style'?

Is it just a function of doing the same things over and over again?

God I hope not. I fight with the "cookie cutter" mix syndrome all the time. The most recent project had 2, maybe 4 max guitars in each song and the band was allergic to any kinds of effects besides 'verb. Delay that you can hear? Flangers? Don't even think about a ring mod. It was a challange to sneak in stuff so the mixes didn't sound cookie cutter when you listen to the whole album.

But it's true to a point that EVERYONE has their own sound and style. I've mixed on SSL's, Tridents, Ameks, Studiomasters and Wackies and somehow all those mixes sound like something I did. I'm not sure if I like that. Sometimes I can even listen to stuff that my clients have done in the past and I know which engineer did it in about 30 seconds.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by slipperman
How does one determine/develop a 'Mix Style'?

Is it just a function of doing the same things over and over again?

What makes us say "Clearmountain" or "Wallace" when we hear a mix on the radio or playing on a CD before we see the credits?

Does style exist anywhere OUTSIDE of routine subscription to form/methodology?

SM.

I think alot of us are affected one way or another on what we heard growing up.

I think its one of the neccesary qualities a mixer needs, I think the term is "musical memory"(this includes sounds,styles,energies,repetition,gear choices, etc).

When you are mixing or learning to, its just natural to "go to the memory" and start pulling out things(what so and so did on this record).

I think it relates to certain mix styles. If you grew up listening to top 40 radio in the 80's(and liked it), then its impossible not to have heard a Clearmountain mix or be influenced by it. Same goes now for guys like the Alge Bros,Wallace,JJP,Mike Shipley,Dexter Simmoms,Mick Guzauski,B. Obrien,Steve Hodge,Spike Stent and others.

Does the style exist outside of methodology?

Yeah it does. I 've always stated that mixing is as much technical as it is a talent. Talent is something that you are born with, not something you study. You are either born with it or you are not.

My favorite analogy is to baseball. Everybody plays baseball growing up(or they use to). Some guys go on an pursue it as a career. Some guys do well, but there are those that are just special(Babe Ruth,Gehrig, Willie Mays,M. Mantle, Joe Dimaggio and others). That's why there is a Hall of Fame for guys that superceded the sport. Immortals is the term. In mixing I've come to realize the same thing, there are guys that are good,there are guys that are excellent. But there are some guys that just supercede it all and impose their talent and will on their mixes. Their own stamp, style,personal "mojo". The big guns.

Bob Clearmountain is definitely on top since he established and revolutionized the profession. The whole NS10 phenomena,SSL's as legitimate consoles(remember early on people treated the SSL's like they do PT now and it was worse since SSL was supposed to replace the Neve consoles), getting points for mixing, and whole bunch of other things he is responsible for.

[Renie]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
I think alot of us are affected one way or another on what we heard growing up.

I think its one of the neccesary qualities a mixer needs, I think the term is "musical memory"(this includes sounds,styles,energies,repetition,gear choices, etc).

When you are mixing or learning to, its just natural to "go to the memory" and start pulling out things(what so and so did on this record).

I think it relates to certain mix styles. If you grew up listening to top 40 radio in the 80's(and liked it), then its impossible not to have heard a Clearmountain mix or be influenced by it. Same goes now for guys like the Alge Bros,Wallace,JJP,Mike Shipley,Dexter Simmoms,Mick Guzauski,B. Obrien,Steve Hodge,Spike Stent and others.

Does the style exist outside of methodology?

Yeah it does. I 've always stated that mixing is as much technical as it is a talent. Talent is something that you are born with, not something you study. You are either born with it or you are not.

My favorite analogy is to baseball. Everybody plays baseball growing up(or they use to). Some guys go on an pursue it as a career. Some guys do well, but there are those that are just special(Babe Ruth,Gehrig, Willie Mays,M. Mantle, Joe Dimaggio and others). That's why there is a Hall of Fame for guys that superceded the sport. Immortals is the term. In mixing I've come to realize the same thing, there are guys that are good,there are guys that are excellent. But there are some guys that just supercede it all and impose their talent and will on their mixes. Their own stamp, style,personal "mojo". The big guns.

Bob Clearmountain is definitely on top since he established and revolutionized the profession. The whole NS10 phenomena,SSL's as legitimate consoles(remember early on people treated the SSL's like they do PT now and it was worse since SSL was supposed to replace the Neve consoles), getting points for mixing, and whole bunch of other things he is responsible for.

Thrill

My current perspective has me thinking that nurture has a bigger influence than nature, ie. hard work and an environment in which someone can flourish factors higher over innate talent.

Of course there has got to be genetic leanings -talent to start. The best footballers over here such as David Beckham are people who have been saturated in a culture of dedication and support for their goal since they were knee high, before probably.

I think people have been fed the line that talent and greatness is more innate than it really is, often the most talented successsful people are workaholics and 'play down' the years of hard graft that gets them 'on top'.
It's not as glamorous an idea is it?
and Western culture is currently fixated on this idea of 'effortless greatness', all the talent shows and 'faking it' programmes keep promoting the idea that it is simply a matter of finding the hidden blessed ones.. ..
People in this 'fast track' world love the idea of celebrity deities, and particularly the reassuring confirmation that 'real effort' actually is a waste of time, you got it or you ain't... (I know you're not saying that ) you just got me thinking.

A lot of art is about that very idea, like performance itself, making the delivery appear effortless and disguising the enormous effort behind the moment of grace.

Also, I wonder what kind of childhood makes brilliant AE's, sensitive children who develop listening skills to master (or survive) their context...????????

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by Renie
Thrill

My current perspective has me thinking that nurture has a bigger influence than nature, ie. hard work and an environment in which someone can flourish factors higher over innate talent.

Of course there has got to be genetic leanings -talent to start. The best footballers over here such as David Beckham are people who have been saturated in a culture of dedication and support for their goal since they were knee high, before probably.

I think people have been fed the line that talent and greatness is more innate than it really is, often the most talented successsful people are workaholics and 'play down' the years of hard graft that gets them 'on top'.
It's not as glamorous an idea is it?
and Western culture is currently fixated on this idea of 'effortless greatness', all the talent shows and 'faking it' programmes keep promoting the idea that it is simply a matter of finding the hidden blessed ones.. ..
People in this 'fast track' world love the idea of celebrity deities, and particularly the reassuring confirmation that 'real effort' actually is a waste of time, you got it or you ain't... (I know you're not saying that ) you just got me thinking.

A lot of art is about that very idea, like performance itself, making the delivery appear effortless and disguising the enormous effort behind the moment of grace.

Also, I wonder what kind of childhood makes brilliant AE's, sensitive children who develop listening skills to master (or survive) their context...????????

Hi Renie,


I hear what you are saying, but there does come a point where there is a line of seperation...even in art.

There will only be one Bach,Mozart,Beethoven,Louis Armstrong,Miles Davis etc.

I do agree though the talent does show itself in the field of battle. You will never know your mettle until your thrust into the moment and hopefully the "nature and the nurture" show up.

[Renie]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
Hi Renie,


I hear what you are saying, but there does come a point where there is a line of seperation...even in art.

There will only be one Bach,Mozart,Beethoven,Louis Armstrong,Miles Davis etc.

I do agree though the talent does show itself in the field of battle. You will never know your mettle until your thrust into the moment and hopefully the "nature and the nurture" show up.

Thanks Slipperman.

Thrill

No doubt that the ones who rise to the top and last a long while are specially and uniquely gifted...there is an element of mystery about that kind of talent.



I won't ask 'where are the women?'

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
Bob Clearmountain is definitely on top since he established and revolutionized the profession. The whole NS10 phenomena,SSL's as legitimate consoles(remember early on people treated the SSL's like they do PT now and it was worse since SSL was supposed to replace the Neve consoles), getting points for mixing, and whole bunch of other things he is responsible for.

so HE"S the guy that i have to blame. i HATE ns10's. and i've never been fussy for the SSl either.

[alphajerk]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
There will only be one Bach,Mozart,Beethoven,Louis Armstrong,Miles Davis etc.

thats odd... because you just named 5, and there are a LOT of etc's to go along with that list. JIMI, how could anyone leave him off? sure they all have their little niche sound and people took a lot from what they gave... but you could literally say there will "be only ONE ______" about ANYONE. there will only be one thrillfactor. its because we are all unique.

i dont think anyone is "born" with talent, disposition maybe. i think talent is a product of your life experiences. look at tiger woods. i dont think he was "born" with talent... i think he was born to a father who is living out his dreams through his child. he probably had that kid a golf club as soon as he popped out of the womb. micheal jordan wasnt born with talent. he EARNED his talent. LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of hard ass work. remember, he used to SUCK.

you dont get to the "top" by being born with talent, you get to the top only through hard repetitive work and a headstrong disposition... and a little luck. even these brittany spears/christina aguilera girls started out WAY young on the mickey mouse club.


me personally, ill never make it to the top of shit... im the jack of many trades, master of none. i wont ever be a bob clearmountain or andy wallace because frankly doing the same thing day in and day out bores the living shit out of me. i would shoot myself in the head if i had to be CLA and run cookie cutter mixes all day long every single day. i CANT completely limit myself to just aural stimulation, i need visual stimulation at times too. like doing video, or photography, or design... or building with my hands. metal, stone, wood. but the strangest thing is that all my interests have a very common string in how my brain functions when doing each one of them.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by alphajerk
thats odd... because you just named 5, and there are a LOT of etc's to go along with that list. JIMI, how could anyone leave him off? sure they all have their little niche sound and people took a lot from what they gave... but you could literally say there will "be only ONE ______" about ANYONE. there will only be one thrillfactor. its because we are all unique.

i dont think anyone is "born" with talent, disposition maybe. i think talent is a product of your life experiences. look at tiger woods. i dont think he was "born" with talent... i think he was born to a father who is living out his dreams through his child. he probably had that kid a golf club as soon as he popped out of the womb. micheal jordan wasnt born with talent. he EARNED his talent. LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of hard ass work. remember, he used to SUCK.

you dont get to the "top" by being born with talent, you get to the top only through hard repetitive work and a headstrong disposition... and a little luck. even these brittany spears/christina aguilera girls started out WAY young on the mickey mouse club.


me personally, ill never make it to the top of shit... im the jack of many trades, master of none. i wont ever be a bob clearmountain or andy wallace because frankly doing the same thing day in and day out bores the living shit out of me. i would shoot myself in the head if i had to be CLA and run cookie cutter mixes all day long every single day. i CANT completely limit myself to just aural stimulation, i need visual stimulation at times too. like doing video, or photography, or design... or building with my hands. metal, stone, wood. but the strangest thing is that all my interests have a very common string in how my brain functions when doing each one of them.

Tiger Woods was not born with talent?

How many parents have their kids teeing off right now hoping that their next kid will be the next Tiger? And how many kids will even come close? Tiger's dad was a golfer himself(although he was discriminated against at some of the clubs), but even he himself said that he is not Tiger. Jack Nicklaus is considered the greatest(and he started out young also) and Tiger will someday eclipse him. Hey you can go out with your driver and tee off all day, but the chance you will become Tiger is one in a million. Repetition or not, you have to have both the discipline and the skill.

What seperates Tiger though is his will to win. It is stronger than anyone elses. You couple that with his natural born gifts,discipline and you got the best out there right now.

I think everyone's destiny is different. Some guys want to be CLA and that is what they are striving for. Some guys are just happy making great recordings they are proud of. Some people fall in the middle.

I think in the end that's what counts the most. That you find where you fit and hopefully you find satisfaction and contentment in it. I think its the people(AE's) that spend the rest of their lives comparing themselves to others that have the problems. Those people will never be happy because they will never accept themselves. They will never have enough gear like the next guy, they will never be happy because all the music sucks(including their own).

What a sad,sad life.

[alphajerk]

i dont think he was BORN with talent. i think he EARNED his talent. i think to even imply that he was BORN with talent in a way takes away from all the hard work he has gone through to amass such great talent. but there is something about parents who drive their kids like that. almost an obsessive compulsion on the part of the parents. most kids eventually rebel... i know thats why i started doing music to say fuuck to my parents


but to answer the topic.

i most certainly have my own style. and it comes from my third ear and not from repetition. its the third ear that dictates the gear i like, the sounds i get, they way i put it all together. its the ultimate sound i am going for, and that has changed quite drastically over the years.

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

Originally posted by alphajerk
i dont think he was BORN with talent. i think he EARNED his talent. i think to even imply that he was BORN with talent in a way takes away from all the hard work he has gone through to amass such great talent.

hey alphajerk, i've been following your thoughts on hard work and all that stuff and i agree somewhat. but......
mozart wrote his first opera when he was twelve years old. i'm not sayin' that he didn't have to work to do it. but won't U even consider that talent is a combination of hard work AND god given ability?
i totally hear U on the third ear thing, too. i don't care what anyone else thinks sounds good or is a choice piece of gear. it's gotta do somethin' fer me, inside, where my feelings are.

[Jules]

Speaking of talent, Alpha, please send Fletcher a copy of that track Scared (on CD) you did. I was raving about it to him the other night when he was here in London.. Its right up his ally!

Perhaps we should be talking about 'soul' or aptitude!

Carry on!

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

Originally posted by Jules
Perhaps we should be talking about 'soul' or aptitude!

Carry on!

oh yeah, the whole right brain/left brain thingy.
if we are talking about just mixing (as opposed to tracking) there must be a pretty balanced combination of both soul and intellect. it's obvious that the mixers that everyone has been talkin' about have a vast wealth of experience mixing and can apply all of the technique that they have gleaned to "find" the mix. but whether i am working on my own mix or collegue's tracks that i am mixing, ther are always problems that i have never encountered and intuition comes into play.
others have already commented on the propensity for all good mixers to let the music, the emotion, the stürm und drang thru.

[alphajerk]

Originally posted by Jules
Speaking of talent, Alpha, please send Fletcher a copy of that track Scared (on CD) you did. I was raving about it to him the other night when he was here in London.. Its right up his ally!

Perhaps we should be talking about 'soul' or aptitude!

Carry on!

he heard it on that FATCO CD, volII. i was thinking about you the other day and how i was supposed to send you that EP with 3 more songs. email me with your addy and i will get that out to you. i fully spaced on it.


as for young people doing things at early ages... they are called prodigy's. yet still under the heavy influence of a parent:

"""A remarkable prodigy, Mozart was taught to play the harpsichord, violin, and organ by his father, Leopold, and began composing before he was five. When Mozart was six, he and his older sister, Marianne, were presented by their father in concerts at the court of the Empress Maria Theresa in Vienna and in the principal aristocratic households of central Europe, Paris, and London. """

you cant underestimate the OCD of parental figures upon their children.

[chrisaiken]

"i dont think anyone is "born" with talent, disposition maybe. i think talent is a product of your life experiences."

Sorry I completely disagree...I am very good friends with a drummer who was definitely born with talent.After playing for 1 year (when he was 16) he was already taking gigs from quite experienced players.Now I usually hung out with him 3 or 4 days a week as we were good friends at this time and I can tell you he didn't practise a whole lot.Nor did his mother push him,she hated the idea of him being a drummer.When he was 18 he picked up a set of double kick pedals and in about 2 weeks was playing very difficult stuff on them.....and still really solid.Also around this time he went to one of the best jazz drummers in town who was an amazing drummer (juno award winner -canadian grammy) to take lessons,after 3 lessons the teacher told him "I can't really show you much,go to New York and play."
I know this kind of talent is one in a million.....but it is just that,Talent..... not hard work at all.
Cheers
Chris

BTW :He was really good at about every sport I ever saw him try as well,I think a combination of great balance and amazing muscle control.

[Curve Dominant]

Mix Style - Purely a function of repetition?

Naahhh...mix style is a function of VISION: The vision the mixer has of the overall effect the mix will have on the audience.

Mix style is the realization of possibilities: What does the song want to be? Can you mix it so it's more than just a boring old "song," and more like a little aural movie? A work of musical art, or musical theater? Something compelling that takes the listener to another place?

I think great mixers do this: They envision the song as more than a recorded ensemble of musicians, and take it to the realm of fantasy. They create an alternate reality for the listener, and envelope the listener in the world of the story the song is telling.

A good and noble song has a life of its own, beyond melody and harmony and rhythm, beyond the musicians' interpretations of their individual parts. These elements are essential, but they are not the sum of the song. The players only see their parts, and play their parts (hopefully well). But there's a bigger picture, and that's where the mixer comes in.

The mixer should understand the story behind the song, and let that understanding guide his/her development of the atmosphere, background, and narrative of the mix, so that story is the "star" of the mix.

The mix should be like a "screenplay" of the story behind the song. The lead vocal track is the narraration, the main dialog. The backing vocals are the supporting characters. The orchestration provides scenery and mood, the rhythm section establishes the tempo; and vice-versa often.

A great mixer stamps the mix with a "QUALITY," not a "sound." A great mixer gives the song the life that the song wants, and casts that mix as a slice of life, a living work of art that exists in the realm of time and is timeless in its spirit and its reality.

In order to do this, the mixer must understand, appreciate and empathize with the trials and tribulations that the songs he/she produces are communicating. Drawing on life experiences, conversing with the songwriter, riding the subway and soaking up the vibes of the times...these are ways the mixer can submerge him/herself in the dramatic action that inspires truth in a mix.

Truth...how "true" is the mix? Ask yourself...and answer hard, painfully hard: How True Is This Mix?

Gear won't give you truth, but it might help. Formulas might help guide you. Having quality co-workers will most definitely help. But when the artist has something serious to say, something REALLY true, we have to fall back on something really true to communicate that to their audience:

Intention.

[CaptainHook]

Curve ~ you talking Commercial or Independant here?
I think sometimes you have to be realistic and accept that sometimes
the intention of a song is money.

Idealism is great and i'm usually the first there, but it must be
balanced with practicality. Sometimes all they want you for, is to be the cookie-cutter.

To incorporate your approach everytime would be great! However, money and
time eventually have the last word.

Man i'm getting (more) bitter.. too much time reading the RecPit!

-- Sorry if i went off-topic there. Maybe this post should have been
in the "Mix Fashion and SELLING OUT" thread?

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
My favorite analogy is to baseball. Everybody plays baseball growing up(or they use to). Some guys go on an pursue it as a career. Some guys do well, but there are those that are just special(Babe Ruth,Gehrig, Willie Mays,M. Mantle, Joe Dimaggio and others). That's why there is a Hall of Fame for guys that superceded the sport. Immortals is the term. In mixing I've come to realize the same thing, there are guys that are good,there are guys that are excellent. But there are some guys that just supercede it all and impose their talent and will on their mixes. Their own stamp, style,personal "mojo". The big guns.

But is it right for a mixer to impose their own stamp on a project? The Alge brothers are a prime example. The last few albums I've heard from them REEK of cookie cutter, SSL compressor, smashed mixes. Yes, it's a sound. Is it right? I dunno, maybe but not for everything or every song on an album. I listen to some of that stuff and try to think of how much cooler it could've been if even the vocals were panned differently or effects were used creatively. Andy Wallace doesn't do the same thing on every album, neither does Clearmountin but they still have a sound. Brendon O' Brian is another good one, his mixes don't sound cookie cutter. He's got a style without having a style if that makes sense.

I'd love to hear more innovation in mixing. Take the Magical Mystery tour as an example. What would happen if someone mixed an album like that today? Drums on one side all phased up with the other instruments over there too and just the vocals in the right channel? I think just about any label would reject it. I wish I had the balls to pull that off. The only thing that stops me is my clients saying "What the **** were you thinking"? But, why is it that the most amazing, mind blowing stuff mix wise was done 30+ years ago and it STILL hasn't been topped?

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by Jay Kahrs
But is it right for a mixer to impose their own stamp on a project? The Alge brothers are a prime example. The last few albums I've heard from them REEK of cookie cutter, SSL compressor, smashed mixes. Yes, it's a sound. Is it right? I dunno, maybe but not for everything or every song on an album. I listen to some of that stuff and try to think of how much cooler it could've been if even the vocals were panned differently or effects were used creatively. Andy Wallace doesn't do the same thing on every album, neither does Clearmountin but they still have a sound. Brendon O' Brian is another good one, his mixes don't sound cookie cutter. He's got a style without having a style if that makes sense.

I'd love to hear more innovation in mixing. Take the Magical Mystery tour as an example. What would happen if someone mixed an album like that today? Drums on one side all phased up with the other instruments over there too and just the vocals in the right channel? I think just about any label would reject it. I wish I had the balls to pull that off. The only thing that stops me is my clients saying "What the **** were you thinking"? But, why is it that the most amazing, mind blowing stuff mix wise was done 30+ years ago and it STILL hasn't been topped?

But is it right for a mixer to impose their own stamp on a project?

Its a fine line you walk when mixing a project you did not start. At a certain point you have to give your input, but that's why you get the gig, for your objectivity as well as your creativity.

Sometimes you wear the hat of the producer,A&R, or artist. This comes with the job, to be able to balance all opinions as well as your own. Not everyone is cut out to be a mixer. To be able to start a project is one thing, but to be able to close it with a bang takes cojones!!!

I think its impossible to compare eras. There are so many factors involved. You change one thing and the record is not a classic anymore. There are tons of recordings that I've heard that have been remixed for DVD releases and they just lose their power and impact. I think we live in a society where mistakes are just not accepted anymore. Hey I read a post on another forumn where people were complaining about C. Aguileras headphone leakage on "beautiful"?

Who cares? Do you like the song? Does it move you emotionally? That's what matters.

[alphajerk]

Originally posted by chrisaiken
"i dont think anyone is "born" with talent, disposition maybe. i think talent is a product of your life experiences."

Sorry I completely disagree...I am very good friends with a drummer who was definitely born with talent.After playing for 1 year (when he was 16) he was already taking gigs from quite experienced players....

He was really good at about every sport I ever saw him try as well,I think a combination of great balance and amazing muscle control.

take a look at your first and last ideas there. product of life experiences. if he had not been good at sports or what he did through life, would he of been able to pick up drums as quickly?

i too could play about any sport growing up without much thought, buts its a mindset packed from my life growing up... and playing a lot of sports also comes from the same focus of the mind that drumming comes from.

[Bob Olhsson]

One thing I've often noticed is that most people who are perceived as having exceptional talent tend to also have an exceptional amount of experience for a person looking their age. I think it's always a combination of the ability to bring experience to a craft combined with a natural understanding or feel for it. The proportions of these two elements vary a great deal between different individuals.