I saw this article posted at the Mandolin Cafe forum, and thought the folks here might enjoy it.
Are musicians born or made? What is the line between skill and talent in any domain, and can we acquire either later in life? That’s exactly what neuroscientist Gary Marcus explores in Guitar Zero: The New Musician and the Science of Learning—a fascinating journey into the limits of human reinvention.
In an effort to reconcile his lifelong passion for music with his self-admitted chronic musical ineptitude, Marcus set out to debunk one of science’s longest-running theories about learning—that there are “critical periods” in which complex skills can be learned, and that they slam shut after adolescence.
Interesting. I wonder when in our entitlement culture talent became a dirty, non-PC word. I have a feeling that it’s people who don’t have it who are most eager to explain it away reductionistically.
Also, as a trained folklorist, I find the use of the term “myth” to mean “something not true” makes me crazy. Or at least crazier than usual.
I’m not exactly an entitlement oriented guy either.
But that’s not how I read it.
I thought that the gist of it was that it’s never too late to earn a skill.
(That could be wishfull thinking on my part.)
I hadn’t givin the word ‘myth’ much thought, I’d say you are correct on that one.
While I like the general outlook, i.e. “it is never too late”, I do believe that there is such a thing as talent, or rather: aptitude. Some people learn faster than others in general; some brains respond better to visual stimuli, others to aural etc. Determination and commitment make up for a lot, though, and without perseverance the “talent” itself is as good as useless.
Btw, I took up the piano around 42, the accordion at 47 and the whistle at 48. So there. I had recorder lessons as a child and knew how to read music, but most of my current musical achievements are down to a very grown-up practice habit. I’m still a few hours short of the mythical [ducks] 10,000, though.
MTGuru, what word should one use instead of myth in this kind of context? Fallacy?
What Anyanka says. I think every great do-er of [insert activity here] has a mix of talent and discipline/hard work. Music comes to me more easily than some people. Math… doesn’t. I like art, but I know people who will come up with random stuff out of their head that is ten times more creative and wonderful than anything I could come up with after hours of thought; there is simply something in them that is inclined toward art. Conversely, they’ve probably never looked at a poem and had music for it start almost composing itself inside their head, or turned on the radio and started singing an improvised harmony along with the music.
But yeah, I think anyone can learn anything with hard work. I could absolutely improve my art/skating/dancing skills by practicing hours every day. I could probably get passably good at it. But I will likely never become as great at it as people who are naturally inclined to such things (and who also work hard, because natural talent only takes you so far and then you plateau. Something I’m well aware of because my self-discipline sucks. )
(I notice in the article that the examples he uses aren’t even people who were never involved with/inclined toward music. Patti Smith may not’ve become a professional singer until her 20s, but I bet she’d been singing all her life, possibly even in church choirs, school shows, etc. He says Pat Martino “relearned” how to play, which suggests he’d been doing it previous to his aneurysm. Dr. John switched from another instrument, which means he was already involved with music. None of them picked up music cold-turkey one day in their adulthood. They may’ve already had a heavy musical inclination/background.)
Music might come more easily to some than others, but the myth is that some people are musical without work.
In reality, anyone who becomes good at any musical instrument spends countless hours working at it. There’s a great movie called “It Might Get Loud.” It’s a documentary on rock guitar, featuring the gods of three generations: Jimmy Page, The Edge, and Jack White.
One thing they all have in common is that when they were young, music is all they did. It’s the same thing with Michael Jordan and basketball, or anyone who is great at any skill. People who are really great don’t practice less than other people and substitute talent. They practice more than everyone else.
My theory is that talent is simply borderline OCD. In order to become a good musician you have to be able to obsess on little details and drill them until you get them perfect. But it’s not even that you have to be able to. There is a compulsion driving you to do it. Just a few more minutes – I know I’ll get it. Just a few more minutes. Dang, I didn’t get it yesterday, but I know I’ll get it today. In the meantime, your friend, also in first year band, gave up yesterday and is outside playing ball.
Good longitudinal studies have been done where scientists ask music teachers to identify kids with talent and those without, and then track them over time. They find no correlation between talent as identified by music teachers and musical success.
Quite true, too. I have realised recently that for me, art (my main occupation) is not so much a vocation or a job or a calling, but a compulsion. It’s not about perfectionism though (my work is far from precise), but about… immersion. Getting lost in the activity. When I don’t make art, I get crabby/frantic. Music has become a good stand-in for art, and I practise/play until something hurts! It’s not quite like OCD, but it is obsession, and it is compulsion.
People who are really great don’t practice less than other people and substitute talent. They practice more than everyone else.
… reminds me of a quote from Steve Davis (snooker player & several times winner of most related titles) - “People say I’m lucky. I find the more I practice, the luckier I get!”
I’m not sure if it totally relates, but this topic brought this video to mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne6tB2KiZuk
For those that are unfamiliar with Bobby McFerrin, he had a hit in the late 80’s with the song “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” which i have heard he is now completely sick of & will not perform anymore. Anyway, the video has always stuck in my mind & I think brings up some really interesting points about the inherent musicality that many actually have but for some reason, in practice gets lost - even for musicians. I sometimes feel like the idea of learning & practicing is working towards a goal of bringing out some kind of subconscious ability, without having the physicality of the instrument or thoughts of the music get in the way.
According to David Shenk, in his book The Genius in All of Us, Michael Jordan wasn’t good enough to make the basketball team in his second year of highschool. This annoyed him so much that he started working on his skills, and working hard. (Some might say, obsessively.) By the third year of university, he was ready for the NBA.
Ted Williams, arguably the greatest baseball hitter ever, started working on one thing from the age of 6 or 7: to be the greatest baseball hitter ever. He worked hard. (Some might say, obsessively.) No one since has hit above 0.400 over a whole season.
Also recommended is Malcom Gladwell’s book, Outliers.
Seems to me, as Anyanka has already pointed out, there’s no mystery where talent comes from. The mystery is where the obsession comes from.
I think the key for me was finding an instrument it was fun to be bad at. I had played classical and jazz piano for 10 years prior to picking up my dad’s old Gen D he got in dublin when he was my age. Whereas piano was a constant feeling of not being good enough, whistle was enjoyable because just goofing around on the thing was great fun. I didn’t care how good I was, and as a consequence I played it a lot. “A lot” devolved into “constantly,” and before I knew it, I was pretty good. So in my eyes, “talent” is the ability to have fun and really get to know an instrument, and see where it takes you. “Professional” musicians aren’t necessarily the best portrait of “talent” simply because there’s a certain personality that leads one to play an instrument professionally. Is there somewhere a guitarist as good as Jimmy Page that doesn’t play music except for his own enjoyment? I’m almost certain.
Because Page plays guitar for a living, he does it all the time. A person who did not do it for a living would have some other job, which would mean he would not have the same opportunity to devote himself to guitar for hours every day.
Gigs are very motivational. Nothing will get you to work something out than the fact that you’re going to be doing it in public in a few days.
Watch “It Might Get Loud.” It’s a documentary about The Edge, Jack White, and Jimmy Page. The three of them have something in common. They each play guitar all the time, and have since they were kids. I’ve met a lot of violinists who play just for fun over the years, but not one has been as good as someone who studied violin in college. The number of hours of practice doesn’t begin to compare.
I’m prepared to keep an open mind about most of all this, with one notable exception: the “critical periods” bit. It seems to me that the rest of us can just never catch up with those who put a lot of time into learning an instrument when they were between the ages of four and eight. Get over it, everybody. Show me some adults, or one adult, who took up the violin as a first instrument over the age of 30 and was fit to play violin concertos with major orchestras within four or five years, or indeed ever, and perhaps I’ll open my mind about this too.
Menuhin performed Tchaikovsky’s violin concerto in Paris before he was eight, if I interpret the timeline on menuhin.org correctly. No disrespect to Dr John the late-developing keyboard wizard and his Grammies or the vocal prowess of Patti Smith cited in the article, but there is really no comparison.
