Practice or Innate talent?

College Majors Music Major
1

<p>Edad suggested I post this topic over here, which I have been most interested in over on the Parent's forum. Basically, some researchers have posited that most people can excel (in music, or anything else) with practice, and that there is very little in the way of innate ability or talent. </p>

<p>Here's a link to the thread, with the original article:</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=250280%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=250280&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Curious to know what other musicians, or parents or musicians think. Do you believe in natural musicality? Can anyone excel or succeed in performance without innate ability, just by sheer will and practice?</p>

2

<p>My son's band director came in after the summer and gave a long lengthy speech and I really liked one of the things he said:</p>

<p>"I have a new definition for talent. Talent means that if someone works hard and is dedicated to what they do, then there is nothing to hold them back from achieving."</p>

3

<p>The article doesn't say that there is "little in the way of innate ability." What it says is that "geniuses" don't get there without a lot of hard work. Mozart had extraordinary innate ability, but also applied that ability constantly since age 3. Compare him with Salieri--who's to say he didn't work just as hard as his nemesis, if not harder?</p>

<p>My father is literally tone deaf -- can't hear the difference between two notes. He can practice until he's blue in the face (and in fact tried to at past times in his life), but he will never be a musician.</p>

<p>Both my children have innate ability. One could sing back a tune with perfect pitch on the first hearing since age 3. The other sang and sang and sang the music she loved since about the same age, but had to learn how to recognize when her pitch was off and make adjustments. They have differing levels of ability, but they both started out with some advantage in this field, and have worked to get better and become accomplished musicians.</p>

4

<p>It depends a lot on your definition of "excel or succeed." </p>

<p>As TwinDad points out, there are people who are so musically challenged (to be PC about it) that no amount of effort can make up for it. If we exclude that set of people, I would be willing to concede that just about anyone else can be trained to have at least competent technique on voice or some instrument. For many, that alone might constitute success.</p>

<p>Technique is not the whole story, however. At its most basic level, music is about communication among people. Sure, it helps to have excellent technique in order to be able to communicate effectively, but there are also a fair number of musicians out there who have something to say and manage to succeed in spite of their technical abilities rather than because of them. Take Bob Dylan for example. He is not a great guitar or harmonica player by most objective standards and has a vocal technique that could charitably be described as "dreadful," but I think we would all agree that he has met with some success. Many would go so far as to say that he has excelled.</p>

<p>I beg to differ with the conclusion that "there is very little in the way of innate ability or talent." While Mozart is the obvious counter example, I have known several people who just seem to have a knack for picking up instruments the way others have a knack for picking up languages. These folks can start a new instrument and achieve in a few weeks what would take most people a few years. There are also people who seem to know at an instinctive level how to be part of a musical ensemble and there are those who, although fine individual players or singers, never seem to be able to master that skill.</p>

<p>In the long run, music may well involve more perspiration than inspiration, but sweat equity alone rarely produces a memorable performance.</p>

5

<p>As I read the original original article its conclusions seem pretty unsurprising: that world-class achievement is multi-dimensional; it takes innate abilities (but not necessarily high IQ), and a supportive environment, and a good mentor, and lots of work. </p>

<p>As you get to the very top of any field, I think you can take for granted that most high-achievers will have had the support, mentorship, and hard work factors. So what separates a Tiger Woods from an merely superb pro; or a Yo-Yo Ma from the winner of a top-tier cello competition? It's hard to see any factor other that innate ability . . . . in other words, genius.</p>

6

<p>This article - or something very similar - was posted on the music forum before (by me) but I can't find it now. </p>

<p>I believe all three of my kids were born with a high level of musical ability, and all are extremely accomplished. The middle one developed a passion above and beyond the other two. I could analyze it forever, and still not be sure why. He showed early promise - creating series of musical notes he would sing over and over before he could even talk. He gots lots of attention for it, and continues now, at age 21, to get lots of attention for it. It might be "I like what I'm good at." </p>

<p>My D, who has an excellent ear, nimble fingers, a fair amount of talent - has always been shadowed by a "star" - each of her teachers has always had another student at least a little bit better, who got the solos, the leads, the prizes. Plus, she follows her brother. Where S2 has always been surrounded by people who are effusive and encouraging, even when he plays poorly, D seems to get teachers (especially at school) who don't reward her at all because they don't want to give her a big head. (Sometimes I wonder if this is the difference between string programs and band programs.)</p>

<p>My D currently sits last chair, first violins at school (in the top orchestra, though.) In the county youth orchestra, she is assistant concertmaster, and recently won the concerto competition. The other kids think it's ridiculous that she sits where she does at school, and I'm sure it's the teacher's way of keeping her humble. Yet, I wonder where she could have gone with the right encouragement. It's been fun watching the reactions of teachers as she's made the rounds of college visits and sample lessons. And it's been fun seeing my D's response to those encouraging sessions.</p>

<p>Looking at the discussion from a different angle - I do believe a certain amount of "tone deafness" comes from a lack of early exposure. Children can be taught to sing on key, for example, up to about age 10 or 12. But it has to matter to them and to those working with them. So many prodigies, such as Mozart, may have benefited from good genes, or maybe just from early exposure in a musical family. You see on here often parents who are not musical, but have musical children. I wonder how many of them exposed their kids to good music (or lots of music) at home, and/or had good teachers in early childhood.</p>

7

<p>I absolutely believe that there are people with innate talent at music. I know a woman who is a self-taught piano player, and she's like Fats Waller on the keys. She was in my piano class, and she struggled to learn how to read music, but if she heard a piece, she could recreate it. There are some people who just have a natural understanding of music.</p>

<p>However, I also believe that practice can make someone who does not have innate ability to achieve a high level of success. My husband has a lovely sounding voice, but he has poor pitch, but he's improved a lot since I've known him, and now I can recognize the song he's singing or humming. When D was little, I was worried that she was going to follow in his tone deaf ways, but she always worked diligently, and now she's the section leader for her nationally ranked a capella group, and has been to all-state twice (and she'll be back again this year). </p>

<p>The best is when someone who has the innate ability also works very hard at improving their natural skills. My younger one has outstanding relative pitch - it's very nearly perfect, and she consistently puts a lot of time and practice into both her singing and her instruments.</p>

8

<p>I think exposure and encouragement are extremely important. While I think my son was born with a good deal of natural talent, as well as perfect pitch, we have nurtured it carefully, with performanes, lessons and instruments, since he was small. I often wonder what becomes of kids who are genetically or otherwise predisposed to musical excellence, who do not have proper teaching or mentoring. </p>

<p>Similarly, there are plenty of kids who have little to no natural musicality, who get loads of exposure and encouragement, and do hours and hours of practice. Is the exposure and encouragement enough, to make up for the lack of innate talent?</p>

9

<p>I once heard someone discribe talent in any area as basically being defined by the amount of time it took to master certain skills necessary for the craft. Those people who can learn the skills in a relatively short amount of time are considered talented. Those of us who take longer, do not. Ultimately, this expert felt that given enough time, most people can master most skills. However, we don't have unlimited time and usually choose to pursue those things that we can master in what we consider to be a reasonable time frame. Could I learn to play the cello as well as my son? Maybe, if I could do it 12 hours a day and live to be 150, but obviously that won't happen. Because he was able to master those skills quickly he has been able to reach a high level at a young age - young enough that he can pursue it professionally. I do have skills that were easy for me to master that are much more difficult for him. So he pursues one profession and I another.</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
I often wonder what becomes of kids who are genetically or otherwise predisposed to musical excellence, who do not have proper teaching or mentoring.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My parents were not nurturing of the natural talents of me or my older sister. She was a gifted artist, and I had natural musical talent. My parents wouldn't give me permission to take an instrument (older sister tried the flute and hated it, so my mom figured I would quit, too), but, I was motivated to pursue music, so I always took choral music classes and made regional and all-state chorus, was picked to be in our touring madrigal choir my first time in college (got to go to England and Scotland), and auditioned for every musical I could think of. However, I was also very insecure about my ability, because I didn't have anyone by my side to build me up and help me improve. </p>

<p>My older sister was accepted to Parsons, but she dropped out of high school when she turned 18, and she rarely does anything artistic anymore.</p>

11

<p>Success in the performing arts is about talent and practice, yes. BUT it is also about persistence. All of the talent in the world will not help a performer if that person does not have the drive to be persistent. Performers have to be prepared for rejection. Even the best performers had times when they did NOT get the gig they auditioned for. I can attest to this personally...I did NOT have the drive, but was told I had the talent. I switched my major from music to something else. I KNEW I just didn't have the personality to be as persistent as I would need to be to succeed in the performing arts field. Sorry...but that drive is important.</p>

12

<p>Thumper, very interesting. Sometimes we forget that only a small part of being a performer is related to skill. There are a whole bunch of required traits: the ability to handle the stress of auditions and suboptimum performances in front of an audience, the ability to get along with others, including performing together and networking for opportunities and jobs, the persistence factor you mentioned, the patience to participate when only a few boring notes are required for your instrument. Maybe even the ability to handle being a starving artist looking for a break.</p>

<p>I guess this is a bit off the topic of innate skills versus developed skills, but I sometimes think the non-technical skills are more important in the long run.</p>

13

<p>My 2 cents: neither myself, my wife, nor any any member of our extended families have any musical ability whatsoever; our S must have the milkman's genes. We started him in third grade on the viola to help his small motor skills. Once he picked the instrument up, he never really put it down. He fell in love with it. Within a week, we were told by his teacher he was born with perfect pitch. He practised without our having to prod, progressed quickly, and from early on was consistently playing first chair. He knew from middle school his life would be music. Now a viola performance/music ed major 2 semesters away from grad school, there have been countless hours (and dollars) of practice, lessons and coachings in perfecting his ability. I've been told by professional musicians that early on he possesed a musicality and depth of interpretation that belied his young age.</p>

<p>Inate ability or technical development? The chicken or egg scenario. I can't figure it out... I couldn't carry a tune if it had handles. </p>

<p>What drives someone who has found their Muse? I can't imagine him ever not playing, or doing anything else.</p>

14

<p>I think you can go a LONG way with practice.</p>

<p>But I simply do not believe that the Itzhak Perlmans or Wynton Marsalises of the world come about by just practicing a lot...</p>

15

<p>My mom plays the clarinet (quite well, I might add, though she is modest), so I grew up listening to her practice and teach lessons and encouraging her students to practice. Also, when I was young, she went back to college to finish up her AA degree, so I would see her working on homework and studying. She encouraged me to start an instrument, she has supported me ever since I started playing the saxophone. I think growing up with my mom always practicing and studying has definitely influenced my musical ability and work ethic. But, on the other hand, some of my friends who have incredible musical talent did not grow up in a family of musicians. Though none of us, musical family or otherwise, would be anywhere if it weren't for practice. So who knows, nature or nuture?</p>

16

<p>Also to add to the list of personality traits likely needed by most musicians is the ability to spend long periods of time alone. My youngest son is quite talented musically, but being highly social, he hated being shut up in a room to practice cut off from other folks. I think that often the people who are drawn to music are those who enjoy being alone. However, once they get older they have to find way to overcome THAT so that they can work together with others to make music - a difficult task for many.</p>

17

<p>I believe all successful performers have a fair amount of innate talent. I'm pretty sure that I, as a reasonably intelligent adult, could practice many hours a day for years and never rise above mediocre playing ability. I just don't have it.</p>

<p>But successful performers build on their gift. Focus, persistence, burning desire to excel, nerves of steel while facing audition panels, a true LOVE of the music.....these are the things that may lead to success.<br>
Our son inherited some music gene from his dad, no doubt about it. Studied privately since age 9 but mostly glided by on his innate ability.<br>
When he hit college and encountered other kids and professors that shared his dream.....he lit up. He's possessed now, practicing all hours, looking for additional challenges. Finding performances to attend in NYC and Philly with anyone who will go with him. Going alone if not. He calls to let us know how well his latest jury went and he's modest but trying to contain his excitement. </p>

<p>He is consumed with music and loving it. It's amazing to see.</p>

18

<p>Interesting you say that, Shennie. My musical son is very, very social, and doesn't practice nearly as much as some kids (and as much as he should) because he prefers all the collaborative or ensemble work much more than practicing all by himself. </p>

<p>If anything could potentially prevent him from meeting all of his own goals, it would be his socialness. He knows this too, and will likely have to work to find a good balance where both sides of him are met well.</p>

19

<p>My son is also very social and loves to spend time with friends. However, he loves music so much that he doesn't mind spending time alone practicing. It is interesting that, when home, he will practice in the living room where I am, so that he can talk with me when he takes all those short breaks that trumpet players have to take.</p>

<p>I also agree that success in music comes from a variety of factors. My son had an interest in music from an early age, but never studied it in any way until 5th grade band. (I did play classical music at home from time to time, and his dad occasionally played the guitar. That was about it.) And although he was a top player in his high school band, he wasn't the best in the youth orchestra, and he didn't take honors at state competitions. It wasn't until he was a junior in high school that he really got serious about the trumpet and started practicing regularly. Now, as a college student, music is truly his passion, and he is always playing or listening to it. He was definitely encouraged when I sent him an excerpt from that article that talked about how important practice is to success, because he doesn't see himself as extraordinarily talented, but he does want a career in music more than anything.</p>

20

<p>One of our daughter's favorite aspects of music IS the social part - rehearsing together, planning a program, etc. Through managing her chamber group, she has had to learn business and communication skills which we believe are as essential to success as her playing. We've attended a number of concerts/functions where there were receptions to meet the musicians. Unfortunately, many of them show a great lack of social skills. They have difficulty even responding to congratulations about a good performance, much less attempting to reach out to the community who supports them. </p>

<p>It appears that some of the schools are starting to recognize that only playing the music may not be enough to keep musicians employed - that they need to develop other skills. Eastman has had its Leadership Institute for a few years and now Juilliard is starting the Juilliard-Carnegie Fellowship. To quote the president of Juilliard "Both of us agreed that we wanted to change the paradigm of the orchestral musician, so to speak," Polisi said. "When fellows go through this program, they will be affected by the idea of orchestral musicians having a responsibility in the community."</p>