Nature vs. Nurture.

[Muaguana]

Watching Youtube videos of legendary musicians, I always come across at least five or so comments that read something like the following:

"That's it, I give up. He/she is too good."

"God's gift to music."

"He/she is on a level most of us can only dream of."

"D00D hes da best evar!!!!1"

And so on. I get the feeling that many people genuinely believe that certain individuals are great instrumentalists because they have some natural gift, a predetermined affinity for music that gives them a "head start," if you will, over others. Some artists are held up as gods among men, given an almost supernatural distinction by those who admire their work (see Wooten, Coltrane, Tatum, Peart, Hendrix, etc.)

This baffles me, for a number of reason. First (and this is more of an aside) I don't think we can really measure greatness when it comes to art - a field which, by definition as a method of subjective self-expression, cannot be measured by objective means. The second - and this is what I'd like to discuss here - is that I tend to believe a person's proficiency in something is a matter of practice. I never really bought the whole "born with a natural talent" thing. Sure, some people have a predisposition for better pitch recognition, and some people have naturally more flexible joints, but those alone don't make a great musician a great musician. Or do they?

Let's hear your thoughts on this issue. Which do you believe is more pertinent to developing musical ability: Nature or nurture?

[Matt Dean]

I gotta go with nature. But, it's not really just one or the other... it's actually both.

Neuro-scientists tell us that gifted musicians (and by gifted I mean anyone for whom music comes easily) have a cognitive processing style that results in a natural inclination towards music. However, one still has to learn the skills and practice them to fulfill the potential and become good.

Now I don't believe that this means people who don't have this particular cognitive processing style can't become a competent musician... it's just harder.

Apparently an easy test for this is to reflect if you can easily imagine music in your mind... is yes then you probably have the cognitive processing style for music.

[stratovani]

Well, speaking for myself, I come from a very musically inclined family. The music gene, for lack of a better word, runs very strongly in a number of members of my extended family. But I think genes alone won't cut it. You need the passion to be able to move forward in your musical journey, along with the ability to work hard at it. I think Edison's old saying "Genius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration" is appropriate here.

[mcm]

nature is the only way.

[bucephylus]

IME, its both, and the debate one way or the other only shows how each can factor in.

The primary musical aptitudes (a dirty word) identified and measured by the Johnson O'Connor testing are Pitch, Tonal Memory, and Rhythmic Memory. Those are the factors they decided are pre-wired. Of course you can work hard to compensate by "darn lot of experience," but you need to realize that in a competitive situation, you may be up against people who have the goods wired in AND have worked at it.

Aptitude testing has gotten such an ugly reputation, but when done in an objective and scientifically based way can help individuals understand their natural capabilities. IME, Johnson O'Connor is fairly valid, whereas other forms of testing, SAT etc, are highly biased.

Anyhow, as a parent of 4, all now young adults, I can also say there were things about them I saw at birth that are still true, as well as things they have picked up along the way.

Whether or not any of that is relevant to your personal musical situation depends on what you are doing. Playing for fun or pure personal expression? then not at all. Hoping to be first chair principal bass in the New York Philharmonic? then you're probably going to want more than just a lot of hard work.

Hope that helps.

[funkybass4ever]

Originally Posted by stratovani

Well, speaking for myself, I come from a very musically inclined family. The music gene, for lack of a better word, runs very strongly in a number of members of my extended family. But I think genes alone won't cut it. You need the passion to be able to move forward in your musical journey, along with the ability to work hard at it. I think Edison's old saying "Genius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration" is appropriate here.

Yes and you've got to want it enough - those who don't often quit and live up to a lessened expectation.

[St Drogo]

Nature helps by providing you with eight fingers, two opposable thumbs and brains. In other words, the hardware. What it also may or may not do, is give you a genetic disposition towards a certain activity. Some people like physical activity and strategic gaming. These might become soccer players. Some like to express themselves and are more prone to think in visuals. These might become painters or photographers.

IMO, all nature does is give you a certain way of perceiving the world, a certain way of thinking your brain is more efficient at, which determines what we like to do. I think that is what talent is. Because if a certain activity resonates with you, you go and do it every chance you get (Masturbation doesn't count ). This will lead to you being better at that certain activity.

No one is born a virtuoso. Most people have to work at it veryveryveryveryveryveryvery hard, but if your brain just works the right way, it doesn't seem like work. It doesn't seem like practice. But it still is. People like, say, Wooten, didn't get that good over night. But his brain probably just operates in a certain way that makes playing music in general and playing bass in particular speak to him in some way.

Then there are the very few that seem like they don't need any practice at all. The 4 year old virtuoso drummers or 6 year-old "gifted" painters or what have you. I would say this is a form of a different brain. You know how there's a documented number of different types of intelligence? Like, some people just cannot think unless they move around. Seriously, that exists. These people, if they are lucky, become dancers. Tragically, most of the times the paradigm we are in right now just doesn't value or even recognize their way of thinking as a form of intelligence and they are labled a problem child, or a ADHD case and put on ritalin.

These cases are simply the extremes of how all our minds work differently. There are a few more types of intelligence like this, though I can't think of them right now.

To sum up: If you're good at something, you're good because you've done it a lot and perhaps because you pick it up quicker

You've done it a lot, because it resonates with your way of thinking, and you may be very quick to pick it up because it resonates with your way of thinking.

IMO.

[stratovani]

Originally Posted by funkybass4ever

Yes and you've got to want it enough - those who don't often quit and live up to a lessened expectation.

So true!

[Matt Dean]

Originally Posted by stratovani

Well, speaking for myself, I come from a very musically inclined family. The music gene, for lack of a better word, runs very strongly in a number of members of my extended family. But I think genes alone won't cut it. You need the passion to be able to move forward in your musical journey, along with the ability to work hard at it. I think Edison's old saying "Genius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration" is appropriate here.

My family has the "music gene" too. My grandmother on one side, grand father on the other (both professional musicians), both my parents, my sibling and both my kids are all very good musicians. My wife on the other hand is not, nor her parents or her parents parents. I've asked her if she can think music in her head and she cannot.

[Muaguana]

I probably should have left open the option for "both," huh? Either way, there's been a lot of great, thought-provoking responses coming in.

Originally Posted by bucephylus

IME, its both, and the debate one way or the other only shows how each can factor in.

The primary musical aptitudes (a dirty word) identified and measured by the Johnson O'Connor testing are Pitch, Tonal Memory, and Rhythmic Memory. Those are the factors they decided are pre-wired. Of course you can work hard to compensate by "darn lot of experience," but you need to realize that in a competitive situation, you may be up against people who have the goods wired in AND have worked at it.

That's really interesting. I remember hearing O'Connor mentioned briefly in my Psych 101 class, but they didn't go into his work in detail - I'll have to read up on it more. It makes perfect sense, since I know there are mathematically minded people, so it's easy to imagine someone having their minds similarly biased toward analyzing pitch or the perception of rhythm.

Originally Posted by St Drogo

Because if a certain activity resonates with you, you go and do it every chance you get (Masturbation doesn't count )

Lies.

Originally Posted by St Drogo

People like, say, Wooten, didn't get that good over night. But his brain probably just operates in a certain way that makes playing music in general and playing bass in particular speak to him in some way.

I think the fact his cadre of musically-active brothers taught him to play bass at age 3 and jammed out with him all the time might also have something to do with it. That also brings up another important - and equally difficult to answer - question: is there any way to quantify or differentiate the environmental influences on someone's musical abilities from the genetic/hereditary influences?

[kesslari]

Originally Posted by Muaguana

I think the fact his cadre of musically-active brothers taught him to play bass at age 3 and jammed out with him all the time might also have something to do with it. That also brings up another important - and equally difficult to answer - question: is there any way to quantify or differentiate the environmental influences on someone's musical abilities from the genetic/hereditary influences?

Now without raising them in an isolation tank...

The Wooten family has some serious genetic talent, coupled with a great environment. That's the home run right there.

I used to teach a lot, and have been active in various fields. Occasionally you run into someone (in any field) who simply has huge natural talent. I remember a phenomenal martial artist and former semipro boxer talking about teaching a 16 year old kid to box - first lesson, and within an hour this kid was sparring successfully with pros. It was, apparently, mindblowing. The head of their national boxing federation was at that gym that day, saw this, and was blown away, and took the kid under his wing. Literally within a few months he was winning national amateur competitions. A few months after that he quit boxing because he wanted to go to Medical school...

Anyway, some folks have tremendous natural talent.
To really succeed it also takes hard work (in music - practice discipline).

A person with good talent and hard work will generally surpass one with tremendous talent but not much work.

But when you get that rare person who has both tremendous natural talent and phenomenal practice discipline - that person becomes a giant.

[Yakob]

Originally Posted by stratovani

"Genius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration"

And 5% butterscotch ripple.

[Stumbo]

Originally Posted by Muaguana

The second - and this is what I'd like to discuss here - is that I tend to believe a person's proficiency in something is a matter of practice.

No matter how much I practice, I'll never play basketball with the same skills as Kobe Bryant. Maybe Bear Bryant.

It seems to me that there is also another factor at work. Take a look at John Wooden (RIP), who was regarded as a great player in his day. He's small and today, would probably not even be regarded as a recruit for the teams he coached.

So, it can be nurture, nature and society combined. John Wooden played basketball in a time before it became a freak show.

[St Drogo]

Originally Posted by Muaguana

I think the fact his cadre of musically-active brothers taught him to play bass at age 3 and jammed out with him all the time might also have something to do with it. That also brings up another important - and equally difficult to answer - question: is there any way to quantify or differentiate the environmental influences on someone's musical abilities from the genetic/hereditary influences?

Yeah of course, someone with that background is going to be a better player than someone who has never seen a bass before the age of 40, even if he has the right type of brain. But as you say, it is hard, if not impossible to differentiate between these things as the only thing you've got to go by in the end is what he is now. There is only one of each person, you know?

That is, unless you have no problems with Mengele-style human experiments...

[chump stain]

My elementary school music teacher said I had a real talent when I could hit a pitch he played on the piano with my voice everytime. I don't know what that talent is, but I've always been drawn to music from as early on as I can remember. Anybody know what my teacher was talking about?

Being 7 foot tall doesn't make you an NBA star, you still have to practice.

[dave64o]

I wish I could remember who said it and and what the context was so I'll just paraphrase it:

Fan: I'd give ANYTHING to be able to play like that!

Star: I did.


I always thought that summed it up quite nicely. A lot of work and sacrifice is needed to reach your potential, even if you're one of the lucky ones born with the natural gifts to give you an advantage over others.

[stratovani]

Originally Posted by Yakob

And 5% butterscotch ripple.

BUTTERSCOTCH RIPPLE? MY FAVORITE!!

[hrodbert696]

I'm completely in the nurture camp. I think there is very little in a person's life, personality, and abilities that doesn't come from environmental influences or the serendipity of how they react to an opportunity. There's a great deal of what we think is "inborn" talent because the person isn't aware of consciously cultivating it, but which I suspect has to do with influences that were internalized unconsciously at an early age - mothers singing to their babies and so forth. Playing with building blocks builds spatial perception and sequencing, playing with play-dough builds fine motor control, etc.

There may be research that proves me wrong on this, but I think a lot of musical families are musical because the children grow up hearing their parents make music all the time and they naturally imitate that. I'd have to see studies that show musicians' children put up for adoption with non-musical families nevertheless turn out to have a great proclivity for music to persuade me otherwise. But I can't imagine that happens often enough to make a systematic study possible.

The variables in those experiences are probably far too complex and the results of responses to them far too varied to make it possible to really isolate any one variable and ever prove the nature/nurture thing though.

[megadan]

The "nature vs nurture" idea is a fallacy. Traits and behaviors are not caused by one or the other, but through the interaction of the two. Nothing can be explained by one or the other, it's a complex system.

[tZer]

People tend to evaluate other people's ability in comparison to their own when making these conclusions.

There will always be someone better that/worse than you. Your perception of the 'better' will include this "I wonder if they're just naturally predisposed" - Those who are not as skilled as you will wonder the same about you.

The answer is multifaceted and subjective and in short, is yes.

There have been studies that show when a child's brain is forming, if music education is introduced - playing and reading - that child's brain develops differently than a child's who did not have playing and reading as a part of their development. This manifests itself in many areas of differentiation - not just in music, but in how the brain uses itself - it's hemispheres - logic/emotion. The early-childhood musician brains tend to use both halves together for things that the non-musician brains use one or the other.

Now people who come to music later - after the window for the natural brain development phase that benefits from language and music education is closed - they still can learn to play music at an amazing level, but their brains will more than likely process the information differently than the early-childhood musicians. There may be no appreciable quality difference - but there will be a measurable difference in how their synapses fire.

Are some people simply better able to do some things than others? Yeah - that's life. Is there any way to know through genetic testing or other biological markers? It seems there may be. Will there always be someone who seems to simply get it more naturally than you? Always. Without fail. Is it because they're naturally predisposed? Maybe.