Page: 1 2
I know it's been long debated if musical talent really is a thing, or if it all comes down to practice. There's a new study by Fredrik Ullén, a Swedish professor in cognitive neuroscience, that was just released. There's an article here, but it's in Swedish: https://www.svd.se/svensk-forskning-gener-avgor-hur-langt-vi-kan-na
He and his team have spent a decade studying great musicians and also studying the musicality of identical twins. They found that the environment someone grows up in and how much they practice absolutely makes a difference, but that our genes also play a role in how far a musician can develop.
When it comes to sense of pitch, it is said that someone who plays a lot of music develops better hearing for small changes in pitch than someone who doesn't. But when they looked only at identical twins, who grew up in the same environment and share the same genes, were one of them spent a lot of time playing music and the other did not, they could not find a difference between them. The twins all had the same sense of pitch as their sibling. So a persons genes seemed to play a bigger role there.
Then, how someone practices also has a big impact. But someone who is impulsive by nature is not able to practice as focused as someone with a high cognitive ability. Also directly related to our genes.
There's of course a bunch of other stuff in the study as well, but I thought these two were kind of interesting. I realize all studies do not come to the same conclusion, but I thought it was kind of neat that they actually took the time to try to study this as properly as possible. Looks like I'll never achieve perfect pitch no matter how much I practice. 
This is something I have always spoke to. I have taught people who practice everyday and after years of trying to play the banjo they just can'd do it. When I picked up the banjo I only needed to find what notes to play. The actual playing the banjo part was naturally in me due to how I was wired. This is just the luck of the draw.
Joe
10,000 are hours actually playing in a learning enviroment (in the zone), not noodling around while watching jeopardy reruns...
quote:
Originally posted by maxmaxI know it's been long debated if musical talent really is a thing, or if it all comes down to practice. There's a new study by Fredrik Ullén, a Swedish professor in cognitive neuroscience, that was just released. There's an article here, but it's in Swedish: https://www.svd.se/svensk-forskning-gener-avgor-hur-langt-vi-kan-na
He and his team have spent a decade studying great musicians and also studying the musicality of identical twins. They found that the environment someone grows up in and how much they practice absolutely makes a difference, but that our genes also play a role in how far a musician can develop.
When it comes to sense of pitch, it is said that someone who plays a lot of music develops better hearing for small changes in pitch than someone who doesn't. But when they looked only at identical twins, who grew up in the same environment and share the same genes, were one of them spent a lot of time playing music and the other did not, they could not find a difference between them. The twins all had the same sense of pitch as their sibling. So a persons genes seemed to play a bigger role there.
Then, how someone practices also has a big impact. But someone who is impulsive by nature is not able to practice as focused as someone with a high cognitive ability. Also directly related to our genes.
There's of course a bunch of other stuff in the study as well, but I thought these two were kind of interesting. I realize all studies do not come to the same conclusion, but I thought it was kind of neat that they actually took the time to try to study this as properly as possible. Looks like I'll never achieve perfect pitch no matter how much I practice.
Did somebody say perfect pitch?
Meet Dylan.
quote:
Originally posted by geoBDid somebody say perfect pitch?Meet Dylan.
Jeez! My kids struggle to hear the difference between banjo and dobro. Think I need to work them a bit harder. 
Whenever "The Cotton Pickin Kids" come on, I always wonder out loud to my 10 and 3 year old girls:
"I wonder how often their Dad has to beat them to get them to play like that?"
10,000 hours is a lot of hours. If a person practiced 4 hours a day, it's going to take about 7 years to log in that many hours.
Not many people have the patience, discipline, resources and all of what is needed to get to that number.
I don't think it would be feasible to do some type of comparison of the outcome of people who have actually achieved a minimum of 10,000 hours.
At best it would be difficut, to obtain a sizeable number of individuals who have verifiable 10,000 of practice time.
If that were to be accomplished, there are so many variables to consider, I don't think it would be realistic to expect to obtain a reliable conclusion.
Personally, I am convinced there is an element of talent. Just based on observation and intuition.
I'm pretty sure that starting at an early age is an enormous benefit.
Still, I have to believe if any person picks up an instrument, 4 hours a day, for 7 years, they're going to get pretty damned good.
If you could do a comparison, I would predict some will inevitably be better, a small number will be awesome.
(By the way, that 7-11 pop-up is over the top annoying)
I read something interesting. A physician determined that acquiring the ability to identify pitch (i.e. perfect pitch) is a learned skill. That "shot down" all the stories I heard about people learning to play an instrument in a very short time. I talked to a few musicians who were described as having this skill. They told me that the people spreading the rumor were not around when they spent all that time in isolation trying to learn to play.
Having aptitude levels applies to everything. Playing music involves different skills and organization. There a lot of areas that have to be studied and practiced. So I spend one day practicing an assortment of things, and the next day just playing music and working on improvisation.
My dad had some musical talent. Other than short attempts at accordion (about age 6) and clarinet (age 12-13), I thought that I didn't have much in the way of talent. My oldest daughter could listen to a tune and play it on the piano (frustrating her teacher, who wanted her to play off sheet music). My 2 other daughters were both very good (sax, clarinet). The oldest and youngest went on to play in their college bands. Fast forward to retirement and I took up the banjo (after trying some other stringed instruments). To my surprise, I made slow, but steady progress. I know I'm much more of a visual than auditory learner. And that I have to work hard and concentrate during my practice time. I don't have much of an ear, but can pick out some simple tunes (like I'll Fly Away or Amazing Grace). Can't, however, listen to a break or lick and figure out what the notes are. If I really concentrate I can hear chord changes, but can't figure out (by ear) what the key or chords are. So, in my experience there seems to be some combination of genes and hard work, and I am short on the genes part and long on the practice part.
I think that the 10,000 hours business is connected to who would put in 10,000 hours and what they bring to it. Outstanding performers (in any endeavor) may well have put in over 10,000 hours before being recognized, but it's not clear that's what got them there.
One of the classes I teach is a seminar on music. A luxury for all involved, enrollment is limited to how many can sit around a conference table. Each year, I find that about 10% have perfect pitch.
Among the So Ca crowd I ran with in days of old, there was a somewhat commonly agreed upon consensuses on this topic that went something like this.
Kids are able to learn at a much faster rate than adults to to the following: Their mind is like an empty sponge, it absorbs everything, no questions asked. All they do is learn & play. No worries, nothing, just learn & play. If their play is music rather than games, they will excel in music.
As adults, life's everyday responsibilities & contingent baggage becomes an obstacle we must navigate (temporarily block out) to even begin learning music. From there it gets down to forming good study habits & regular practice sessions. Chief among those is never give up! "Can't" is a major road block. Do not, under any circumstance, allow that word to enter the brain! Once lodged in there, it becomes very difficult to remove. Keep at it, no matter how long it takes. Move on, come back to it, forge ahead, do not despair, never give up.
Gifted, born with it? No doubt those having been constantly exposed to music up close & personal from an early age certainly have a leg up on the rest of us making it more difficult to catch up. The Stoneman family being the best example I am able to come up with on the spur of the moment. That being said, be realistic in setting your goals & enjoy the ride.
Edited by - monstertone on 11/19/2020 10:07:17
You're more likely to spend 10,000 hours with a musical instrument if you enjoy music. You are more likely to enjoy music if you have a good ear and/or if you manage to make a musical instrument emit some pleasant sounds with little effort. You may be born with a good ear or a talent at playing a musical instrument.
Man, if you want cutting edge research, and a practice method that does not take 10k hours....you need look no further than BHO's own Josh Turknett.
His method worked for me. Because of carpal tunnel, I'm lucky to get 1 hour a day (split into 4, 15 minute sessions). Yet, in 5 years of Josh-style practice I've advanced to: fun to play, learn by ear, get most songs in 5 or less listens, etc. I've put in less than 1825 hrs (1hr/day x 5yrs x 365days/year). If I could play faster (carpal says no), and not get stage fright, I could be a professional (maybe only in my mind, hoho).
But as far as I am concerned, the 10k only applies to the "practice till you're sick of it" methodology taught by idiots for centuries.
Josh's Laws of Brainjo:
clawhammerbanjo.net/the-immuta...practice/
Josh's podcast interview on the new science and practice of learning music (and I'd add learning any right brain skill):
musical-u.com/learn/boosting-m...-brainjo/
quote:
Originally posted by Richard HauserI read something interesting. A physician determined that acquiring the ability to identify pitch (i.e. perfect pitch) is a learned skill. That "shot down" all the stories I heard about people learning to play an instrument in a very short time. I talked to a few musicians who were described as having this skill. They told me that the people spreading the rumor were not around when they spent all that time in isolation trying to learn to play.
Having aptitude levels applies to everything. Playing music involves different skills and organization. There a lot of areas that have to be studied and practiced. So I spend one day practicing an assortment of things, and the next day just playing music and working on improvisation.
Unless you are genetically tune deaf, anyone should, with practice, gain perfect pitch. I've noticed I'm better with the banjo than with the guitar, but I can often tune it right in by ear and when I check with an electronic tuner I'm right on the money. I've also been able to sing notes into a Snark tuner and hit them right on the money. At a doctor's visit several years ago he was doing some tests with a tuning fork and put it next to my ear and asked me what note it was, took me about 2 seconds to say it was a C. I had to hear it, then hum it.
Might take a look at what Malcom Gladwell says. The "10,000 hour" perspective is often misinterpreted.
https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/complexity-and-the-ten-thousand-hour-rule
Mr. DC5 -- how did you learn perfect pitch, and when did it happen?
I want to add to my comment above on perfect pitch. As best I know, perfect pitch is quite common among people whose mother tongue is "toned" and who receive musical training at an early age. (That accounts for the numbers in my music class.) On the other hand, "absolute" pitch is so common (i.e., everywhere, including the U.S.) that it is in practice universal. A key distinction is absolute versus perfect. Perfect involves the ability to associate established names. Absolute pitch includes the ability to sing something you know well on pitch (and with the tempo) with how you first learned it or recognize that something familiar has been transposed. The accuracy of these impressions is typically as good as immediate recall, i.e., repeating something you just heard.
Are the posters talking about Perfect Pitch?, Relative Pitch?, big difference!
quote:
Originally posted by Alex ZMight take a look at what Malcom Gladwell says. The "10,000 hour" perspective is often misinterpreted.
https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/complexity-and-the-ten-thousand-hour-rule
I haven't read the article you posted yet, but just wanted to mention that the study I wrote about never said anything about the 10,000 hour rule. I just wrote that in the thread title so people would get a sense of what the thread was about. Perhaps not a great choice, I didn't mean to misrepresent anything.
quote:
Originally posted by mmuussiiccaallAre the posters talking about Perfect Pitch?, Relative Pitch?, big difference!
In the literature I've read, "relative" pitch means knowing the melody, e.g., being able to sing along or recognize a tune. My father couldn't, but that's very rare. "Absolute" pitch means remembering canonical pieces with their canonical pitch. So that could be in classical music, e.g., a sonata in D is always played in D, and someone who knows it will hum or sing it in D without any help. People also do it with pop tunes that have a single, popular version and with ad jingles. (Well, that's not 100%, but it is a remarkable finding. I think Dan Levitin ["This Is Your Brain on Music")]is the one who pinpointed in his own early research. I've had incredulous students who reproduced the results in their own tests of fellow students.) Many common melodies are sung in all different keys, e.g., Happy Birthday, but people (unless they're among the few who don't have absolute pitch) have their own preferred key. And "perfect" pitch is hearing a note and naming it and singing it correctly if asked to do so by name.
People keep talking about pitch. It is more the way your fingers work with fine motor skills and the connection between the fingers and the brain
Joe
about 1 in 10,000 have absolute perfect pitch,,so its not common
Edited by - 1935tb-11 on 11/23/2020 05:22:15
Perfect pitch is when a banjo lands on an accordion when you throw it into the dumpster.
Originally posted by Leslie R
<snip> there is an element of talent. Just based on observation and intuition. <snip>
...and having personally put up with lack of talent and having done quite a few reps [more than 10,000 in some instances] I unequivocally add personal experience to MY list.
A few years ago I tried an online "You can teach yourself perfect pitch" program. I went at it relatively diligently; about 20 min. per day ... scores were 11-14 [out of 20] the first few days. After a couple of months my scores were 11-14. Took a few months off and tried again for a couple of weeks .... scores 11-14. Tried it for a month+ again the next winter... scores 11-14. ...and again the next summer.... scores were 11-14. I dunno just who "you" is/was, but I'm thinking it's not me.
Edit: And when people roll out the trite "If I can do it, anybody can" I do wonder about them..... ditto for being told that musical stuff is "easy." It might be basic, or fundamental, or relatively easy in relation to what's to follow .... but it ain't "easy!!" [Rant over .... for now.]
Edited by - Owen on 11/23/2020 10:09:12
I just keep hoping the saying, "persistence is a good substitute for talent", has some truth.
After 40 years, still don't know if that has any merit.
Page: 1 2
Newest Posts
'Travel banjo build ' 4 hrs
'Iida banjo' 4 hrs
'Free Sarah Wood CD's ' 7 hrs
'Sarah Wood CD's' 7 hrs
