Talent vs Practice vs ???

[Mandobart]

A recent article on the ongoing "talent vs practice" thread. Originally printed in Scientific American. If I'm reading this correctly, it appears to assert that the "10,000 hours" theory, first published in 1993, is not as big a deciding factor on mastery as are other factors, including inspiration/motivation (without which no one is going to spend 10,000 hours doing anything.)

The most challenging/heretical statement to me is "In fact, there is no such thing as innate talent. That’s a myth that is constantly perpetuated, despite the fact that most psychologists recognize that all skills require practice and support for their development– even though there are certainly genetic influences."

[Toni Schula]

Yo Yo Ma in the opening picture! I already love this article before starting to read it. Thanks for posting.

[Perry Babasin]

I know folks that are certifiably tone-deaf, with no sense of rhythm. That's got to hinder things a little!! Certainly in the artistic/creative department!

[LongBlackVeil]

I know folks that are certifiably tone-deaf, with no sense of rhythm. That's got to hinder things a little!! Certainly in the artistic/creative department!

but i believe they could be taught to improve their ear.

honestly i agree with this sentence

In fact, there is no such thing as innate talent. That’s a myth that is constantly perpetuated, despite the fact that most psychologists recognize that all skills require practice and support for their development– even though there are certainly genetic influences."

no one is born with music ability. it comes from intently listening and playing music! the same can be said in any field. we are born an empty slate IMO we fill in the blanks with our life experiences and the people we come in contact with

[Amanda Gregg]

I don't think we're going to solve this one today, folks!

I'm really not sure what to make of this study, anyway. I think it says that most things are about 10% practice, but musical mastery is 20% practice, which means it takes more practice than most things in life. Good enough for me. Back to work.

[Chris W.]

All I know is that the more I play, the more talented I feel.

[Toni Schula]

Just read the article, still love it.
It is true, 10,000 hours is not that important, it is not a guarantee, I am aiming for 20,000 hours now

To be more earnest, I tend to agree, that motivation improves cognitive efficiency. I seldom see much progress when fellow musicians just practise the songs but have no motivation in becoming better musicians in the sense of improving technique, music theory, etc. A one trick pony stays a one trick pony even if he practises the trick for 10,000 hours...

Edit:
By the way, the same is true for me, of course. But sometimes I just need to play along, not thinking of FFcP, scales, arpeggios, ....

[catmandu2]

The current paradigmatic dichotomy is cognitive vs affective

"Talent" is a loaded word--in our culture. I would like to know how many meanings it has in various other cultures throughout history, and when the word came into use

Replace the word "talent" with "sensitivity" and see if this makes more sense. (we acquire sensitivities through multiple environmental and genetic effects)

[jaycat]

. . . no one is born with music ability. it comes from intently listening and playing music! . . .

Oh really? You mean I can develop perfect pitch by listening to records and playing music?

[Amanda Gregg]

Oh really? You mean I can develop perfect pitch by listening to records and playing music?

Actually, some research suggests that perfect pitch is all about memory and exposure. Yes, perfect pitch can be learned. See, for example, the research on the relationship between speaking a tonal language and having perfect pitch (Reference)

But I'm no expert. I'll go and hide now...

[Ellen T]

But how do we explain people who can play an instrument by ear, who were not raised in an environment of music? Or people who are exposed to music all their lives, but still have a tin ear and couldn't play an instrument if a gun was held to their heads? I have one parent in each category. I also knew a man (a teacher in the high school I attended) who had never played an instrument but wanted to learn piano. A friend of mine, who was one of the top student pianists, offered to teach him the basics. No matter what she played, simple or complex, he would sit down and play the same thing, note for note, right after her. Is there such a thing as musical identic memory?

I think a person can practice very diligently and become an excellent technician, but there are people who with less practice are excellent artists on the same instrument.

[barney 59]

It is nice to think that we all start out equal and that it's what we do or who educates us or our environment or how hard we work that makes the difference but I don't believe that. We aren't equal , some people are smarter, some people are physically more athletic, some are big, some are small and some people it seems to me happen to be very talented right out of the box. Some people stumble in early and discover what their talent may be and others never do and waste it utterly. I am dealing with someone right now in my work that I have come to realize is just plain stupid and there is nothing to do about it, she was born that way! A quote from Warren Hellman " Isn't it amazing how more than half the population is below average intelligence"!

[jaycat]

Actually, some research suggests that perfect pitch is all about memory and exposure. . . .

Well, there is "some research" out there to support just about any conceivable point of view. I did find the article interesting, but am not buying the idea that no one is any more talented than anybody else.

[Amanda Gregg]

Well, there is "some research" out there to support just about any conceivable point of view. I did find the article interesting, but am not buying the idea that no one is any more talented than anybody else.

Fair enough.

I wonder: have there been any twin studies on perfect pitch?

[tree]

I think the information presented in this book offers a good take on the OP.

[LongBlackVeil]

Oh really? You mean I can develop perfect pitch by listening to records and playing music?

yes, actually. that doesnt seem far fetched to me at all really

[ombudsman]

The word talent as it is typically used has always struck me as a way to devalue work and concentration in other people, for those who on some level feel jealousy or resentment about the achievements of others.

But how do we explain people who can play an instrument by ear, who were not raised in an environment of music? Or people who are exposed to music all their lives, but still have a tin ear and couldn't play an instrument if a gun was held to their heads?

I would explain that this way: human beings have amazing innate abilities due to the power of what is known as the adaptive unconscious mind. These abilities can be leveraged toward music, language, or any number of things. Most people in modern cultures develop in ways that cause them to impair these abilities through excessive, constant subjective thoughts, by the age of early adolescence (which is part of the reason that younger children can learn so well).

Some people are in better control of or make better use of their minds, either due to natural inclination, their environment, or by making the right kind of effort to take control. You can recognize them by their skills.

Sometimes it's only in one area of their lives that they are able to turn off the chatter and focus on something they love, which can make it hard for others to understand the source of their abilities. Conversely, some people are not inclined or interested to be able to apply that kind of focus to a certain subject (like music or math) even if they may have a well organized and disciplined mind and life generally.

As for practice, clearly it matters, but it's also clearly about quality rather than quantity. There are lots of articles about "deliberate practice", which is essentially focusing on what you aren't good at and doing it in a way that avoids rote memorization or redundancy and is designed to keep you in a frame of mind where you learn most efficiently for as much of your practice time as possible. Also there is research that shows that musicians can visualize playing even when they don't have their instrument, and effectively reinforce the neural pathways that are involved in becoming a better musician, so that's something to consider if you are away from home or have a long commute, etc.

In my opinion it is reassuring to know that over time as we practice we really are quantifiably building up neural pathways in our brains that allow us more bandwidth to do complex tasks without using much conscious thought. This has been demonstrated using MRIs. So it's not just some nebulous abstract thing going on when we practice, even if it feels like it sometimes.

[des]

but i believe they could be taught to improve their ear.

honestly i agree with this sentence

In fact, there is no such thing as innate talent. That’s a myth that is constantly perpetuated, despite the fact that most psychologists recognize that all skills require practice and support for their development– even though there are certainly genetic influences."

no one is born with music ability. it comes from intently listening and playing music! the same can be said in any field. we are born an empty slate IMO we fill in the blanks with our life experiences and the people we come in contact with

Mozart ? Handel ? Beethoven ? Schubert ?

Some people are clearly born with it. To infer that only those born with it can grow and develop musically is by no means a corollary of that fact - of course of intently listening and playing is important. But why should talent and practice be seen as an opposites ? Only, I think, for rhetorical purposes - it makes for a thread that pulls you in.

[LongBlackVeil]

Mozart ? Handel ? Beethoven ? Schubert ?

Some people are clearly born with it. To infer that only those born with it can grow and develop musically is by no means a corollary of that fact - of course of intently listening and playing is important. But why should talent and practice be seen as an opposites ? Only, I think, for rhetorical purposes - it makes for a thread that pulls you in.

how can you say there were born with it? did they just walk up to a piano and start playing on the first try?

no they were taught from a young age (the best time to be taught anything) and they were taught well.

the above post puts it well about practice though, You can practice 10,000 hours, but what if your not practicing the right thing? The right teacher can make MUCH more of a difference than the right genetics imo

[Bertram Henze]

...inspiration/motivation (without which no one is going to spend 10,000 hours doing anything.)

Just another word for talent, I guess. And it can't be neither genetic nor educational, or else I'd be singing Wagner arias at the opera today

[Bertram Henze]

...they were taught from a young age (the best time to be taught anything) and they were taught well.

Exactly the kind of teaching that made it clear to me what I not wanted to do with my life...

[jaycat]

Oh really? You mean I can develop perfect pitch by listening to records and playing music?

yes, actually. that doesnt seem far fetched to me at all really

Well, I've been listening to records for 55 years, and playing music for 45 years. So I guess I'm not doing it right.

[des]

how can you say there were born with it? did they just walk up to a piano and start playing on the first try?

no they were taught from a young age (the best time to be taught anything) and they were taught well.

the above post puts it well about practice though, You can practice 10,000 hours, but what if your not practicing the right thing? The right teacher can make MUCH more of a difference than the right genetics imo

Handel taught himself in spite of his parents' opposition. I would suggest that Mozart achieved what he achieved in spite of what his parents forced on him. Read the biographies.

[LongBlackVeil]

Well, I've been listening to records for 55 years, and playing music for 45 years. So I guess I'm not doing it right.

i guess i did mispeak a bit. its not just listening and playing music. But learning about music, lessons etc.

Pitch can be taught, its called ear training, and i know it works because it works for me

[allenhopkins]

1. Certain qualities are probably innate, such as intelligence, muscular coordination, body size/shape, ability to assimilate and retain information (related to "intelligence"). These may establish the outside parameters of how much a person can develop in a particular area; interest and practice won't make a person exceed the limits genetically imposed.

2. Within those limits, much of what we see as "talent" is interest in a particular area, leading to a person's emphasizing activities that contribute to development in that area. However, the range of genetically-acquired predilections is broad and complicated, so interest and "practice" can expand a person's "talent" to the boundaries of his/her innate abilities, but not past those boundaries.

3. The brain does some pretty amazing things to develop itself, sometimes to compensate for damage or underdevelopment in certain areas. We see cases of persons with severe cognitive or intellectual challenges, who demonstrate prodigious musical skills. Of course, since they receive "rewards" for demonstrating these skills, they spend much of their time in these rewarding activities.

I have played stringed instruments, now, for well over 50 years, and fairly seriously. But, I cannot -- and could not, even with more practice than I currently schedule -- play any of these instruments with the skill level of some of the musicians to whom I listen. There are established personal parameters of coordination, dexterity, and musical data assimilation and comprehension, within which I must operate. Within those parameters, I can increase my abilities through study and practice.

People (not all of 'em!) tell me I'm "talented." I know that I'm not as accomplished as thousands of musicians whose work I've heard. I also know that I could work harder, be more organized, disciplined, and creative, and increase my skill level significantly. But I honestly believe that there are innate limits -- and probably innate proclivities -- that direct, and to some extent foreclose -- each person's development in the various areas of his/her life.

The trick, I suppose, is to understand one's aptitudes and limitations, and maximize positive output and experience within that framework.

Maybe this makes sense…dunno...