# Are we born with it?



## ThatGingerMojo (Jul 30, 2014)

I found this great article in Scientific American that suggests we are born with musical talent, and that practice is what makes us better than those who just have the desire. Give it a read, it's pretty interesting.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ians-have-in-common-dna/?WT.mc_id=SA_Facebook


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Thanks...very interesting read!

There goes all hope for me!! 
My DNA is against me and I have well over 9,000 hours of outstanding practice.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I agree that skill level is attained through practice. But it is my belief that what makes or breaks the ability to successfully play an instrument is a good sense of rhythm. 
And that seems to be something you are born with. If you can't dance, chances are you can't play guitar either. 

:smile-new:


----------



## Option1 (May 26, 2012)

Interesting article, although it does appear to try overly hard to simplify a complex subject. I'd also suggest that the studies they mention don't make quite the concrete, definite claims that the article's headlines do. Sad to see Scientific American become so unscientific and instead attempting to emulate mainstream media by making sweeping statements like that.

Neil


----------



## ThatGingerMojo (Jul 30, 2014)

Option1 said:


> Interesting article, although it does appear to try overly hard to simplify a complex subject. I'd also suggest that the studies they mention don't make quite the concrete, definite claims that the article's headlines do. Sad to see Scientific American become so unscientific and instead attempting to emulate mainstream media by making sweeping statements like that.
> 
> Neil


You notice too, in the conclusion that they make just such a disclaimer. Hinting that the subject has too many variables to be actually scientific. Notice that it says Scientific American, dumbed down for the masses. I love being Canadian.


----------



## jeremy_green (Nov 10, 2010)

Science can try to say what it wants... but I have seen in over 30 years of playing and teaching that the best musicians simply play a heck of a lot more than the others. They put in a LOT more hours. I have seen the results of hard work in others as well as myself. Some of the most successful musicians I know are not necessarily the 'best' in terms of prodigious abilities. Some of them are in fact quite average players. It is their creativity that sets them apart when mixed with a strong work ethic and passion. Maybe there is some grain embedded in some special people that will push them (with the same level of practice hours) to a higher level than you... But the only way you can honestly KNOW this is to match them hour for hour with the same QUALITY of experiences. I suspect you would find your level of practice wanting.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

jeremy_green said:


> Science can try to say what it wants... but I have seen in over 30 years of playing and teaching that the best musicians simply play a heck of a lot more than the others. They put in a LOT more hours. I have seen the results of hard work in others as well as myself. Some of the most successful musicians I know are not necessarily the 'best' in terms of prodigious abilities. Some of them are in fact quite average players. It is their creativity that sets them apart when mixed with a strong work ethic and passion. Maybe there is some grain embedded in some special people that will push them (with the same level of practice hours) to a higher level than you... But the only way you can honestly KNOW this is to match them hour for hour with the same QUALITY of experiences. I suspect you would find your level of practice wanting.


The question I have is _why _they put in so many hours that others don't or won't?

It could be that there's a genetic component to those who don't have to be told to practice more and sit for hours on end practicing, listening to same parts over and over till they get it verses those who know they should be practicing more but find their attention and retention of what they are practicing to be more difficult to maintain.

I think of the stories of guys like Jeff Beck or Eddie Van Halen who sat for hours and hours pouring over their favourite guitar parts till they got them down. That takes a level of focus, dedication or even obsession that many of us mere mortals can't muster. I don't believe it's simply will power either. Perhaps the reward center in these types of musician's brains are more developed to positive feedback and quicker results to build on than some who only get frustrated attempting the same effort. External factors like if, how soon and who one ends up playing with will also play into a musician's development. 
This is not to say that simply putting the hard work in won't yield results, (Funny, I've heard very few of the greats complain about it being hard work) but I can't help but think some people are better wired for greatness in certain areas than others. Sounds like another version of the great "nature vs nurture" argument. I've always believed there is a variable mix of both that determines outcome.


----------



## jeremy_green (Nov 10, 2010)

Hamstrung said:


> The question I have is _why _they put in so many hours that others don't or won't?
> 
> It could be that there's a genetic component to those who don't have to be told to practice more and sit for hours on end practicing, listening to same parts over and over till they get it verses those who know they should be practicing more but find their attention and retention of what they are practicing to be more difficult to maintain.
> 
> ...


(As I type this response understand I am not attacking anyone here. My use of the word "you" is in a general sense here meaning most people reading this)

Fair enough - sure they have certain character traits that allow them to singularly focus on a task... But that is a lot different than some music specific gene. 

I have never had a day of "hard work" playing a guitar... It's always been sheer joy. It's that feeling of passion about something and the ability and willingness to do that one thing beyond a lot of others that is the difference between me and lesser players - and again between me and superior players.

I think many, in fact every person who has reached the top levels of their profession outside music has the same personality elements present. I don't think this element is as rare as it may seem.

The take away I have always had with this is that I am accountable for ultimately the player I become. If someone is better than me I see that as it was simply more important to them than me (as painful as this can be to admit). You can reach levels FAR beyond what you think you may be capable of - but most people give up before they learn this. The best players go beyond this - THEN it becomes addictive as hell! 

If you truly believe this is some magical gem then there is a small part of you that is looking for a bit of an excuse to fail. Saying "I just wasn't born with it" is a HELL of a lot easier to accept than "I wasn't willing to do the work". A lot of great players have failed marriages, never see loved ones, had to abandon children to a degree, they have missed births, weddings, funerals, got fired, lost friends, faced starvation, lived on the road away from everything and everyone most days of a year... Have you done that? I have done some, but certainly not all - but most of the very best HAVE. So to compare yourself to these people or make observations as to where there talent comes from is downright unfair. You aren't even in the same league unless you give what they have. You are NOT the best you can be and none of that has to do with genes - its about passion, commitment, focus, sacrifice far beyond genetics.

Sure there are freaks out there... but they are few in number and most of them you have never heard of and will never. The vast majority of the "great" famous players many of us dream about becoming got to where they are through hard work. Hard work CAN get you a successful career in music. That is the bottom line for me.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

jeremy_green said:


> Fair enough - sure they have certain character traits that allow them to singularly focus on a task... But that is a lot different than some music specific gene.


I'm not sure I agree with that statement. There are studies that show genetic components having influence on character traits. A specific music gene?... probably not, but the traits that make it much easier for a virtuoso player or even an "advanced" player to put the long hours in and feel pleasure in doing so (and thus are eager to repeat the process) are probably similar to those who excel at any given task requiring study and practice. So much goes into how well a person does even in tasks they enjoy. I don't see it as a simple equation of same time + same effort = same results.

I'm not saying these traits can't be overcome by force of will but the amount of _effort _required to get up that hill differs for everyone if not the amount of _work_. I recently posted a thread about a guy with some physical disabilities who's playing many of us on this forum would envy. 
http://www.guitarscanada.com/showthread.php?65404-A-lesson-in-perseverance-If-you-want-it-bad-enough

I posted it under the same notion that I believe you're proposing that it was simply a matter of applying the same effort as the virtuoso and "wanting it bad enough". Smorgdonkey's response to that thread made me reconsider my title premise 'cause wouldn't you know it, I've observed similar things myself! I'm my case it's also nothing physical but I should, by account of time and effort be much farther than I am as a player but for some reason the concepts take very long to sink in for me.

The amount of "work" this guy had to put in to learn i.e. learning scales, chords, modes... whatever is the same as everyone. The amount of effort to overcome his disability to do the same amount of work was, I would imagine, much greater than most of us have to contend with. Still there has to be something about this guy that fed the will to overcome the obstacles. And I still hold to the belief that there's something about all of us in that same regard and it's there in varying degrees whether the obstacle is a physical limitation or character traits that more typically produce frustration. Hell, even when I finally understand a sought after musical concept I still think "dammit, why didn't I get that sooner" rather than what I imagine is a more euphoric "eureka" moment for those for whom it came easier.

There are many who've surpassed my abilities in a fraction of the time it took me to get where I am with a lot less effort. Perhaps they understood key musical concepts the first or second time it was explained while it takes me hearing it over and over (and I still have to think about it!). It ain't hard if it's easy!  

Why is that? (and I think that's what the OP article was trying to address) My ass is in the chair just as long, my fingers are on the fretboard just as long. My eyes are glossing over at the sight of modes being explained... It just don't sink in at the same rate. Does it make me want to give up playing? Sometimes, but that's thankfully temporary! Will I ever attain the abilities of a professional musician? Who knows? If I live long enough maybe. Will I ever be a virtuoso? Not bloody likely 'cause it "just isn't in me" as smorgdonkey aptly put it!


----------



## jeremy_green (Nov 10, 2010)

Hamstrung said:


> I'm not sure I agree with that statement. There are studies that show genetic components having influence on character traits. A specific music gene?... probably not, but the traits that make it much easier for a virtuoso player or even an "advanced" player to put the long hours in and feel pleasure in doing so (and thus are eager to repeat the process) are probably similar to those who excel at any given task requiring study and practice. So much goes into how well a person does even in tasks they enjoy. I don't see it as a simple equation of same time + same effort = same results.
> 
> I'm not saying these traits can't be overcome by force of will but the amount of _effort _required to get up that hill differs for everyone if not the amount of _work_. I recently posted a thread about a guy with some physical disabilities who's playing many of us on this forum would envy.
> http://www.guitarscanada.com/showthread.php?65404-A-lesson-in-perseverance-If-you-want-it-bad-enough
> ...


The problem with this discussion (also the footnote to the many articles I have read over the years on the subject) is that these studies are never truly apples to apples. No two people EVER walk the same path and the way they learn can also be affected by past experiences. Perhaps student A had a series of boring teachers at a young age - teaching him that learning is just not that engaging, so his mind has wandered since the beginning. Student B has a series of engaging excellent teachers and has a love and focus on learning. These two people - given the same time - will learn at different rates.

I haven't even touched on parental influence and abusive/supportive backgrounds or creativity, physical fitness, diet, lifestyle... This thing really is a rabbit hole. I am no scientist but I do have extensive experience teaching the instrument and performing with some very high level folks. From this experience I truly don't believe there is any "music gene"... but there ARE circumstances and personality traits that make someone more reponsive to the process of learning.

Honestly I think the nurture part has a LOT more to do with final product than the nature part where humans are concerned. The circumstances surrounding how a person was raised and by whom bear a HUGE weight on the outcome.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Can't feel the rhythm - You may be beat deaf

Here's an article about people that can't keep a beat. It's more about dancing than playing music but as said in an earlier post, I feel their connected. Of course as Jeremy says, there are a lot of issues that also come into play when learning to play an instrument but having good rhythm is important and I feel we are born with that. If anyone feels that good rhythm can be learned, please tell me as I'm not sure it can.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

I feel like I am losing on all fronts here!

I have terrible rhythm skills (honestly), no "musical" DNA and well over 9000 hours of practice outstanding.

I guess the one good thing is that I have reasonably decent gear to play poorly on.

However, I still have fun playing and I enjoy listening to most genres of music (my own playing frequently excluded...LOL).

Cheers

Dave


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

When I taught I saw students who barely practiced, but were pretty good & others that practiced all the time and they weren't that good.
I also saw students who were naturally talented AND worked on it--they had the most skill--and if they had a good feel and good technique --they played quite well.

Some of them got better than me.

So I would say there is something to desire, practice, learning and natural talent in combination.

I know I had to really work at it.

Of course that's all anecdotal, so I don't know if it really proves anything.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

There was a time when I was quite interested in the research on the development of expertise, all that Anders Ericsson stuff. One of the people in the department/program Ericsson heads up ( http://www.psy.fsu.edu/cognitive/expertise.htm ) - Neil Charness, who used to be at Waterloo - spent a sabbatical year connected to our lab, and we had many conversations about expertise. Though Neil had particular interest in chess expertise, he had also studied coaching and prodigies, as well as musical "savants". It was inescapable that people like prodigies and savants all conformed to the general principle of expertise arising from thousands and thousands of hours of "practice".

Two things tended to perplex the curious, though. First, often it didn't _seem_ like they had thousands of hours of practice, leading to the naïve inference that their level of performance had occurred semi-magically (i.e., was the product of something "inborn"). Closer inspection, however, reveals that experts often spend inordinate amounts of time thinking about the subject matter, even when not overtly engaged in it. When I used to teach this stuff, young students would reject the notion that expertise comes from such practice, until I would broach the topic of videogame skill, and remind them of all the time they had probably spent, on the bus, on the toilet, sitting in the cafeteria, mulling over those moves they _should_ have made and what they would do different the next time. And they realized that, yes, one gains competence by being overtly engaged in a given task, but also as a function of "off-line" mental rehearsal and strategizing. Neil told me that savants, whether musical, or the "Rain Man" type mathematical ones, tend to spend every waking minute thinking about their area of special expertise.

The second puzzlement is how come, if *I* put in the same amount of time, *I* don't reach the same level of competence. What Neil observed from his study of coaches and prodigies is that great coaches who develop prodigies are adept at providing just the r_ight _experience at just the _right_ time. People in the teaching profession will often talk about "the teachable moment", and great coaches can readily identify it in their students. We know that experts in any area, whether music, auto mechanics, cooking, or radiology, have an exquisitely organized knowledge base about their area of expertise. They can generally get to any piece of knowledge from any other piece of knowledge. More importantly, their knowledge is so well organized that they can easily identify and ignore what is irrelevant. 

You know how gaming consoles were traditionally faster than PCs? Why was that? It was because gaming consoles were dedicated to the task of the game itself, and were not dividing processor cycles across a bunch of irrelevant tasks that a general purpose machine has to handle (e.g., Is there anything coming into those 8 ports right now, like that one, that one, and that one there?). Similarly, experts can ignore irrelevant information and get more done. They make faster decisions in their area of expertise, and can *look* like they are endowed with a different neural apparatus, but really it's the same brain as the rest of us, just rendered more efficient for some things by virtue of what the person knows and how it is organized. So when some hockey player manages to spot a rebound and flick it in the net in less time than it took us to even realize that there _was_ a rebound, we naturally think there is something inexplicably magical going on and underlying it. It sure looks that way!

Does expertise require that such teachable moments and interconnections within the knowledge base be the result of something deliberately presented to the learner? Not at all. Indeed, much of what we know in life came about through mere chance. It's always nice for chance to have a helping hand, but those areas I which any of us have some _reasonable_ expertise, came about via the knowledge we acquired and connections we made within that knowledge base _when those fortuitous situations arose_. Practice increase the likelihood they will occur. Good coaching increases the likelihood they will occur and more effective connections will be made. And, as happens in all areas of life, the more your know, the more you can derive from whatever new knowledge is presented.

So, the punch line is that more practice helps, but isn't enough to magically produce expertise on its own. If the sequence of experiences provided by that practice is chaotic, then less will be learned from it, and less benefit to the organization of the knowledge base will occur.

Do experts have some sort of magical inborn motivation? Nah. The more coherent something feels to you, the easier it is to maintain motivation. And the more success you experience in something, often the easier it is to maintain motivation. We like it when we succeed and when things make sense. And if our orientation and knowledge base is nicely organized, we _derive_ more from each success, and get more expert as a result. That expertise increases the likelihood of subsequent success, but also the interest in "stretching" and seeing how far that knowledge can be applied. And so on and so on.

Certainly being surrounded by others who have expertise in the area helps to both provide the resources, and encouragement, but also results in those formative experiences that can "enhance chance" in forming those useful interconnections of knowledge that expertise depends on.

Personally, I think the whole topic of why and how humans attribute characteristics to something "inborn" is a fascinating subject for study, in and of itself. We generally seem to make that attribution when:
- we didn't or couldn't see how it happened, and see no overt or measurable evidence of deliberate training
- it tends not to happen to everyone in the same way, OR appears to happen to just about everyone in exactly the same way
- it tends to be something that appears unamenable to deliberate change

"Maleness" and "femaleness" are like that, but so is musical competence/skill. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## jeremy_green (Nov 10, 2010)

Very well said and I completely agree.

People drastically underestimate the "thinking about it" part - the stuff away from your instrument. Plus as you said - success breeds motivation - it also breeds musical partners who can act as mentors. Take a young player like Joe Bonamassa, do you think he would be the same player today were it not for early help and instruction from guys like BB King and Danny Gatton? He was surrounded with guitar and its community.. Same with Derek Trucks.. My point is, the better you get, the better the musicians you play with, therefore the better instruction - it feeds on itself. I was playing in bars semi professionally at 16, everyone i played with were in their late teens or 20's, experienced players. Of course I got better than some other 16 year olds who were just playing in their bedroom. I had to work hard to get there but much harder to stay there. I was constantly challenged. Without that push I doubt I would have improved as fast were I left in my bedroom.

The right advice at the right time can change the whole success arc which drags the motivation up along with it. Makes it fun and not like work and therefore more natural.

When i started playing I was 12 and I started with 2 other guys in my school. The three of us decided we'd learn. I was NO BETTER in any way than either of them in the early stages. But I found i talked about it more, thought about it more and practiced more. Before long they both stopped and both look back with regret. I just liked it more and was happy to poke around for longer.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

jeremy_green said:


> I was NO BETTER in any way than either of them in the early stages. But I found i talked about it more, thought about it more and practiced more. Before long they both stopped and both look back with regret. I just liked it more and was happy to poke around for longer.


Why? 

Not trying to be contrarian. This a very interesting conversation but that's the nut I'm trying to crack.


----------



## jeremy_green (Nov 10, 2010)

Hamstrung said:


> Why?
> 
> Not trying to be contrarian. This a very interesting conversation but that's the nut I'm trying to crack.


It's a good question isn't it! Why indeed... Why do some people like chocolate or metal as opposed to country music... Why do we like anything really? 

If I had to speculate I would say that i grew up in a house where my grandfather had an apartment upstairs. He was a HUGE classical music fan who was also partly deaf. So we had classical music blasting through the house every day for most of my childhood. I also had an older brother who was really into music as well and introduced me to guitar based music at a very early age. To get all psychological I suspect maybe unconsciously I may have wanted to seem cool in my brothers/grandfathers eyes? I certainly wasn't thinking like that... Of the three of us they both played hockey pretty seriously... My parents were poor so I was not allowed to play hockey, so I had more down time and less toys in general... Who can know ultimately what it was. But I suspect it was mostly to do with these nurture type factors as opposed to some born in condition.


----------



## Kerry Brown (Mar 31, 2014)

greco said:


> However, I still have fun playing and I enjoy listening to most genres of music
> 0Dave


I have no idea if there is a musical gene or not. I used to worry about that stuff. I enjoyed playing in several bands in my teens into my twenties. It was always a struggle for me. I don't have a great sense of timing and had to practice a lot to get my timing down. What notes to play came easy. Learning theory came easy. Timing was difficult. One day at a band practice a guy asked if he could sit in. He was unbelievably good. He could listen to a couple of bars then join right in. Afterwards I asked him about some chords he was playing. He had no idea at all. He said one day a couple of years ago he picked up a guitar and just started playing. I got so discouraged at that I actually quit playing guitar for 25 years. Last spring I took it up again at the ripe old age of 59. I enjoy it more than I ever did. I play in a weekly blues jam, just sit in the back and play rhythm. I'm getting the most enjoyment I've gotten from music. We can never forget that we do this for the joy of it. Sure I'd like to play better. I practice a lot, more than I ever did, because I enjoy it when a bunch of players jam and all hit the pocket for one or two songs. I really don't care now that someone can play better than me. It's all about the fun.


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

I'm a firm believer in the 10,000 hour theory.

Yes, I have some students that seem to have more "natural" ability at the start, but I believe that that is more the result of other activities that have prepared them for music i.e. coming from families where music is important (and therefore _listened_ to and discussed), or participation in activities that build finger strength or dexterity. After that it's all about time, energy, and focus. 

I also find that those who, for whatever reason, seem to find it easier at first, are more likely to drop out when it gets harder.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Check out the work of psychologist Carol Dweck, on her notion of "implicit theories" of performance. The basic notion is that people's self-explanations of performance in any domain play a role in how they approach performance and their motivation, while engaging in that area of performance. That is, whatever you believe the basis of better/higher performance to be, your motivation will be different.

At one extreme end of the spectrum are those who adopt what she terms an "entity theory": presuming that better (or worse) performance stems from something about the person that they cannot change. Probably no great surprise that she began her exploration of this area studying pre-teen and adolescent girls' math performance in school, and the basis for the belief that they "were no good at math". At the other end of the spectrum is what she terms an incremental theory, where the individual conceives of higher performance as stemming from factors that can be improved upon, whether through more training or information, more effort, better conditions, more study/practice, etc. The accompanying assumption is that people are neither the one or the other, and may hold different sorts of views and implicit theories about different areas of performance. So, they may believe you can _learn_ to cook or woodwork, with practice and training, but you're either "born with" musical/math/athletic/verbal/leadership ability or you aren't.

Most of the time, when succeeding, you can't see much that is different about them. Where entity and incrementalists separate is when the going gets tough. When confronted with task difficulty, incrementalists tend to increase effort and persistence, where entity theorists tend to give up. Keep in mind that if your difficulties are simply confirming for you that "you don't got it", then you have two good reasons for giving up: 1) it makes logical sense not to expend effort that won't lead anywhere, and 2) you'd rather not have your face rubbed in the fact that you're failing at the task. Incrementalists tend to pay closer attention to the content and causes of their mistakes/failures than entity theorists do (because they believe those causes can be eliminated), so they actually benefit from difficulty, where entity theorists tend to experience distress and would rather just avoid the task.

I recall one rather striking study, carried out by a group of educational psychologists at the University of Michigan in the early 90's, that looked at parental beliefs amongst Asian (Chinese, Korean, Japanese) and North American parents. Asian parents were more likely to believe that higher performance came from hard work, studiousness, practice, etc., where North American parents were more likely to adopt an entity theory of children's school performance.

Where am I going with this? People clearly benefit from practice in acquiring any sort of motor or mental skill. One of the key questions is what maintains and supports that practice. Part of what maintains it is pressure from others, and part of it is experiencing little successes and improvements along the way. But Dweck's work suggests as well that what we draw from that practice (and it won't ALL be successes) stems partly from what we thing practice will eventually lead to, or perhaps what we think is relatively_ immune_ to practice.


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

ThatGingerMojo said:


> I found this great article in Scientific American that suggests we are born with musical talent, and that practice is what makes us better than those who just have the desire. Give it a read, it's pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ians-have-in-common-dna/?WT.mc_id=SA_Facebook


A great article. Thanks I sent it to my brother who is a concert pianist!


----------

