PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic A question of talent and creativity?

Hi everybody,

I thought this might be an interesting subject if anyone cares to discuss.

Getting down to talent, I'm just an average individual who doesn't mind admitting I don’t really have a great natural ear for music. I play a little guitar and songwrite but as regards naming intervals I would be wrong 90% of the time.

Now I have met many people in my time at guitar classes etc and to be honest I can't really say that I have met anyone who had a natural gift for music.

I know they say that playing an instrument proficiently is maybe 80% practice and more practice, and I know that I could be a lot better only I am too lazy to put in the practice.

Now I believe creativity can be a different thing to talent, for example I know someone who has a great natural ear, play him any interval and he can tell you what it is. He always had this gift even as a kid, but he has one fault, doesn't like playing with other musicians as he doesn't like the competition. As regards the creativity thing I probably have more of that than he does, songwriting etc.

So what do you think, do you have an innate musical ability or learned the hard way by practice?

Paddy

"It is a sobering thought to realize that by the time he was my age, Mozart had been dead for 15 years." - Tom Lehrer

Mr Whack,

I think that there are at least two questions/issues here.

Musical ability is related to aptitude for mathematics, architecture, and--ready?--athletic ability. It makes sense if you think about it. Each area requires the ability to process information in three or four dimensions in realtime.

Proficiency at an instrument is something else. One may be fleet of foot and sure of hand but, as with the route to Carnegie Hall, there is only one way to learn to hit that major league fast ball--practice, practice, practice. So, for my part, I can say that I have a hardwired predilection for composition and harmony, but I have to work like hell to get what I hear out of my guitar and software.

Creativity is still another thing. Most of us have a desire to create, whether it is trouble, offspring, or noise. It is the rare few--and many of us are in that number--who can and will make the effort to assemble something abstract (which all art is; even a "realistic" painting is not the thing itself) out of nothing. This is part of the reason I have come to believe that the act of creation is far more important than whether I like what I have done. Something greater than myself made me do it, therefore there is worth.

Band-In-A-Box makes it possible and these forums bring us together, which is why we don't seem out of the ordinary to ourselves. But we really are.

Mozart, Babe Ruth, Stephen Hawking, and Frank Lloyd Wright are the exceptions which prove the rule.

R.

I am convinced that musical "talent" or "innate ability" at it is a function of studying, thinking and understanding and is always a function of some level of deep desire. Some folks do it at an early age, some don't, some never do, but all can accomplish the task if they ever make the decision to start working at it and keep at it. It does not take along time, typically less than one year, often less than one month to develop the ability to hear those intervals, or Relative Pitch recognition a we call it.

Practice is a slightly different situation, I use that word to describe the aspects of mastering the manipulation of your instrument, be it mechanical or the human voice, working to get that all important muscle memory, things like that.


--Mac

To me this is a very complex question. First of all we have what I call the "naturals". These are people like Sarah Chan, John Galway, Rafael Mendez, Andre Previn, etc. who can just make music from their natural abilities. Then we have a great group of pro/experienced musicans who have acquired their abilities via a desire and love of music but with a lot of hard work and dedication together with some natural talent as well. Then there's a wide range from very good amateurs to beginners.

All of these have one thing in common--The desire to make music. So, if you want to make music, draw a picture, make a sculpture or whatever, does that mean you are creative? I would say yes and no. I've made a lot of different things from wood including carving. Even though I followed plans or ideas from others, I changed things a lot sometimes. However, I have done very few designs of my own. I used to be an amateur artists and I did do some original paintings and drawings. Those came about because I had a drive to do them or as my art teacher said, "Draw something that excites you." This "drive" carries over to music and includes composing, arranging, improvising, and even ad libbing. Playing by ear includes both pitch and memory---and for me a lot of experience. I'll never be able to hear something and then say, "Oh that's in Eb minor or D#." To me that is natural ability or talent as opposed to creativity. I'm finally just now starting to learn chords on the piano. I don't even know how far I'll get especially with chord progression (maybe a lack of talent here?).

The last thing to mention is emotion. The very talented can add a lot of feeling to a piece from classical to country to jazz. In some cases that's from talent and/or both talent and emotion. In some cases it may be all emotion because music can really move us sometimes. I've even heard of musicians who were so moved by the music and were sobbing so much that they couldn't even play.

To me, the main thing is the "drive/desire" to make music. Talent has a broad range and so does "creativity". FWIW

.

>>>...Musical ability is related to aptitude for mathematics...>>>>

Couldn't disagree more. Fifteen years ago a very small group of students did better on a test after listening to music. This exploded into a pop phenom called the "Mozart Effect," which roughly translated as "listening to Mozart makes you smarter." The people who did the original experiment pointed out several flaws in this conclusion:

The test was not a test of general intelligence. It was not a test of talent. It was not a test of math. It tested a very narrow set of skills having to do with spatial sense and preconception.

The test group was very small, and the observed effect lasted only a few minutes. The measured effect was small enough that people who understand statistics argue that the results are not meaningful.

To which I will add: Music is not math. You can give numerical equivalents to various notes and describe a piece of music by counting. This is not even arithmetic, and certainly not advanced math. There is nothing in music that corresponds to, say, long division - much less algebra or calculus.

I can point to studies that say this is true in much more depth than you considering it.

Music is 'Math-on-the-fly' AND a second language that is read (and acted on) in realtime.
Try reading a second language that contains embedded instructions that you MUST act on before continuing on to the next passage (I hope this is a good enough example)

Music builds the ability to multitask, to reserve parts of the brain for complex activities that may not be 'calculus' but try doing calculus while marching in time, anticipating pitch, fingerings, etc etc

Musical education DOES contribute to mental growth. My parents have spent years in front of Congress making this point to save the school music programs around the country.
It hits kind of on a personal level for me..

.

>>>...Do you have anything positive to contribute to the discussion? ...>>>

Oh sure.

Ryzard and others have pointed out that talent and creativity are complex process that develop in context. Desire and effort are inescapable requirements for success in any creative endeavor. I think we all have seen instances where hard work, persistence and attitude serve as complements to some intangible gift that we may call talent to create work of lasting value.

There is no short cut.


>>>...The statement, however, is not original to me...>>>
I am certain of that, and certain that I meant no personal offense.

.

RHARV>>>...I can point to studies that will teach you this is true in much more depth than you considering it...>>>

ff: Please do.

Well to me anyway a simple test of a persons natural ability is maybe if you are playing with a group of musicians maybe playing the one instrument with similar areas of experience and one person gets so far ahead in his ability to learn the song both melody and chords (leaves everyone else standing behind) then I have to acknowledge that person has a more natural gift for music than I will ever have.

Probably applies to most things in life like learning a new language or being good with your hands, like carpentry.

Paddy

There are many factors to consider in this "equation". I have been priveledged to have played with many fine musicians over the last 40 or so years who could execute a piece of music flawlessly after only a few attempts.

I also have worked with musicians who couldn't read a note, but could play rings around the guys with years of musical therory under their belt. Some have the technical ability, and have devoloped the chops and can execute them on a grand scale, but find themselves fumbling in a jam session.

I think we are all unique in our own abilities and level of skill. I studied music for several years in school, learned to sight read on the trumpet, and can still sight read to some degree on the treble clef of the piano. Can't even begin to read a guitar staff, or a bass clef staff, yet Bass guitar is my primary instrument these days, and most say I do quite well with it.

Learning and application come differently to us all, and in many varied forms. Can't tell you what makes up an Augmented 6th, but I can play a mean Bass all around the chord changes that surround it.

We are all different, some call me talented, I don't think I am when I compare myself with some of you in fact I get quite jealous at times of your various talents.

I just emailed the parents and they sent me some powerpoints full of statistics and a few links.
As I read through the links I see they often are quoting people in the music industry, so rather than get into a battle, I'll just say; do some research - you may be surprised at what statistics and studies really say.
No need to 'convert' anybody, but the evidence is there.
Having music as part of your curriculum does improve your grades and IQ in other areas, math included.

Not good to view it as a "gift".

If someone is playing better than you are, it is because they did *something* to get there.

Even the child prodigy.

"Doing something" may not be readily apparent to the outside observer, though. For example, it may have more to do with a different way of envisoning various musical entities, such as intervals, scales, etc. and the like, also memory associations, muscle memory associations and the little understood ways that the human thinking system manages to deal with these things. For some, it may take place more in the subconcious level, too.

AFAIC, everything can be described in a Math, including music, but we do not necessarily have to be thinking in terms of the Math in order to manipulate these things. Good case in point here would be the well known number of Autistics who can play music very well indeed. Or the people diagnosed as dyslexic who can perceive rather complex things as patterns, including numericals, yet may not be able to deal with the mechanical aspects of the math as most have to learn to do it in order to do it at all.

Arguing over how it is done is nonproductive, however, if the goal is to be a better musician.

Far better to do something -- *anything* -- with that time that will translate to an improvement in whatever it is that you need to do in order to get one step closer per day, per week, etc. to the goal of Strong Performance.

This works by doing something every day and repeating that. The little steps soon add up to giant steps.


--Mac

Hi Mac. You and I are batting 500. Some people are "gifted" and to them it's a gift. Both of my kids were in a "gifted and mentally talented" program at school (not music). Yes, we should move on and spend our time on more productive things. Still, we can all learn from these discussions though.

Stan

here's one of many in depth scientific studies -
http://www.menc.org/documents/advocacy/harrispoll/universityofkansasstudy.pdf

This was Univ. of Kansas, and similar studies at UofM and UCLA had similar results

UCLA was larger by comparison -
"UCLA tracked 25,000 students over ten years with U.S. Department of Education data
Music-making students outperformed non-musical peers
Results same for all socioeconomic groups"

MUSIC STUDENTS Score Higher on SATs-
Average 57 points higher in verbal
Average 41 points higher in math

One recent argument regarding this concept is that the kids who take music are the advanced students to begin with (think about that for a second), so the fact that they are music student who score higher doesn't attest to much, but the Kansas study (although it has weak points in some areas) DOES show that the better the music program is, the better the students performed, even those 'already gifted' students.. which is why I used it.

(sorry - couldn't help myself once I started reading this stuff again)

.

Hi RHARV!

Thanks for posting that. I am thoroughly and irrevocably allied to the belief that music must be a part of any person's education. Without it, no education is complete. The studies you posted support the importance of music as part of a complete curriculum. I have seen some of this work before, and these researchers get my vote any day.

My objection was ONLY to the pseudoscientific baloney that has sprung up around the so-called "Mozart effect." Listening to "Elvira Madigan" for ten minutes makes you smarter? I don't think so, and neither do the people who published the original study.

Hats off to your parents for their activism in this regard. I would like to know more about what they are up to.

-ff

Personally, I just happen to have a gift for poetry (which I use to write lyrics) and a voice that many consider to be first class (for country / ballads - which is what I write and sing). I am also a serious enthusiast for music, have a deep interest in the theory and am actively involved on this forum. Yes, I can play guitar (and bass) but I would not call myself a guitarist and I would never dream of recording my guitar efforts. However / so, I would not dare to call myself a musician in the context of Mac and many others here.

Was Elvis really a musician? Or just a busker with a great voice and charisma?? What about Bob Dylan???

You must have missed this thread -
http://www.pgmusic.com/ubbthreads/showfl...part=1&vc=1

They were in DC a couple months ago, meeting with a 'congessional committee' from the new administration on music education. They are very active and always supporting any music program. They just called a few minutes ago to tell me they decided to rent a big tent on Friday and have an open jam for anybody that wants to come by. Anything from a piano lesson to a meeting with congress... if it's about promoting music they are for it.
OK, enuff yappin' for now. I should be in the mastering room.. work to do.

Whoo Boy - lots of stuff in here.

There are many sociological theories and studies regarding this topic - many of which contain confounding results.

For example, with the studies showing that students of music score higher on standardized tests - what conclusions can actually be drawn. Lot's of supposition on why the correlation exists, but do not equate correlation with causation. What about the background reason(s) for why some students have access to music education? What about the parents and/or community nurturing, etc. etc. etc. Each of these could be the REAL causation based reason for the correlation, not that music in and of itself re-orders the synaptic behavior of the brain for memory and/or skill.

There's another theory that is a key concept of Malcom Gladwell's most recent book "Outliers" called the 10,000 hour rule.

The premise is that one has to spend at least 10,000 hours of active pursuit of any particular skill to truly excel at the skill. It is not a scientific book - but refers to many studies - some scientifically conducted, some just heuristic observation (for example, the Beatles 10,000+ hours in the cellar bars of Germany as a performing band before they really nailed it) to support this premise.

I do believe that the 'handedness' of a particular person can set them up for exercising their brain in different ways. In a world that seems set-up for right-handed folks, the sheer nature of having to 'make do' with right-handed equipment for left handed persons may cause their brains to flow information in a different way than those who do not have to do this. It is almost like having to function effectively in a foreign language environment causes one's brain to think differently than normal. This may help creative behavior. Who knows? Those of you that speak at least one foreign language fluently know what I am talking about. There was likely some point in your past when all of a sudden you realized you were THINKING in the 2nd or 3rd or 4th language.

I studied German for about 4 years in a traditional sense, with very little immersion in the language. I never fully grasped the rhythm of the language in that time. I could handle the rules of grammar - I'm an engineer after all! Then I was sent to Germany for work and had to function in the language. The first 3-4 days were torture and mind-numbing. Then sometime on the 4th or 5th day, something snapped into place and I found myself thinking ahead in the language during conversation. It was an exhilarating moment. I realized I could actually do something that I had for so long only observed others doing.

Most of my fellow Americans never really get this kind of an opportunity - with English being so ubiquitous in the USA, and throughout the world. Those from smaller countries are somewhat 'forced' into the situation of being required to speak English.

I don't think I would have pursued learning Tarzan Swedish(and by way of association Tarzan Norwegian and Tarzan Danish) and recently Spanish, had that one 'aha' moment with German not happened for me back in the day in 1993.

I think the same thing happens with the study of Music and the tipping point of those 'aha' moments when you get that chill up and down your back when all the stars align, the glassy lead from your buddies strat chimes right there with the ride cymbal, and the P-Bass growl is just right - the B3 is spitting underneath, etc. etc. etc. Or when you nail 'Moonlight Sonata' the first time, or when that hair-raising vibe happens in your drum circle.

Once those moments happen, the drive learn more turns on from drudgery to desire. Everyone reading this probably has that fire burning. You can probably point back to someone, sometime in your past, that pushed you over that edge - and you can probably recall when it happened.

I think all learning - when put to some kind of effective, demonstrative use - follows this pattern.

End of sermon.

-Scott