Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Realistic Goals as adults/late starter

Wow, let me briefly say that I just read through the entire conversation with lots of interest. Great contributions, especially thanks to Monika K. and Sophial! IMO we should never dismiss a topic just because it's regularly recurring; there are always new aspects to discuss.



I think we all agree (?) that individual differences in proficiency are more pronounced in some tasks than in others among people who can be considered "well-trained". So these are called the "complex" tasks here. However, I'm just wondering (actually, I doubt) if it's possible to find another definition for "complex task" than the pragmatic one: "tasks where individual differences show up even with good training". If the latter is the only definition, than the quote above is a bit circular and we are back at simply describing what we observe.

P.S. ProdigalPianist, good point, I agree. For tasks in which proficiency, especially from a given level on, is not easily quantifiable (this includes piano playing of course), people who are not very familiar with this task may tend to underestimate the actual differences in proficiency levels between people.

Monica
I was not referring to that particular study, but as I am sure you now there are many studies that address the genetics of athletic physiology. I will preface this by saying that this is not my field of expertise but I have read a fair amount of the literature on it. I can recommend a recent review by Ostrander EA et al.("Genetics of Athletic Performance") that summarizes the current genetic data.

There is fairly solid data that suggests the existence of predisposing genes towards musical ability as well, and I am not referring just to absolute pitch recognition. A lot of it comes from Scandinavian studies of multigenerational families (The Scandinavians have good tissue banking and family records, especially in Finland and Iceland). Now obviously one can find a lot to criticize. For instance, the definition of musical aptitude and our ability to test it, somewhat akin to PV's question above re: task complexity. The latest Finnish study (Pulli K, from last year) uses the Karma Music Test and a pitch and time discrimination test to determine "musicality" (and not just family history ie the existence of musicians)and finds a genetic link using state of the art genomic analyses with a good sample size and solid parameters.
The discussion of higher cognition such as musical ability is fraught with pitfalls, angst-provoking hypotheses and misinterpretation, let alone when it is coupled with genetics. There is a tremendous antipathy towards genetics among lay people and even some scientists, which is by no means limited to music.
On a more interesting note, there was a recent report in Science daily about some findings that correlate music perception and creativity to intrinsic attachment behavior and social bonding (perhaps not surprisingly). This is part of a larger project looking at music and genetics. Link about the study below. The study itself is on a public access site.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090526093925.htm

You're not kidding. Teaching in the Bible Belt, I often encounter considerable resistance when I try to teach evolutionary psychology principles.

Thanks for the website about the link between music and social bonds. It will come in handy as I'm prepping NEXT week's topic in my class, which is the evolutionary basis of music.

Hi Monica,
Yes, please feel free to quote what I wrote for your class if you'd like-- I'd be honored!

pianovirus,
I think task complexity can be defined in ways other than as just tasks on which individual differences are seen. Tasks that require a variety of different types of skills or combining different skills to achieve a result, for example, might be considered as more complex than those that involve fewer or less diverse skill sets. Piano I think can be classified as quite complex, requiring many different skills that are both physical and cognitive, and involve speed of processing, coordination, ability to have extremely good control of gross and fine motor activities, visual-motor and kinesthetic abilities, listening skills, and skills involved in musical interpretation, higher level conceptualization, and emotional communication , just to name a few.

Also, like Jason, I'd like to put in a word for the cocktail lounge pianists of the world-- It's harder than it looks and there are some real pros out there!


Sophia

Don't envy you. Evolutionary principles in such an ignorant part of the world must be a hard sell indeed.

I'm surprised on one else has commented re your reference to 'cocktail pianists'. I thought you made a good point, and I for one, have realized that we agree on much more than I thought previously. This is cool...

Now Jason, I admire your posts in general, but that's unnecessarily insulting. I expect better of an intelligent chap like you.

If you don't like how Bible Belters don't take kindly to EvoPsych, you'd be dismayed by the typical doctrinaire liberals' reaction.

Or amused.

Thanks, Sophia. But then how about running as fast as possible for 100 meters, or proving mathematical theorems? Neither of these are (I think) complex tasks in the sense you described piano playing (i.e. involving many different types of skills), but there is clearly a difference in proficiency even among highly trained people.

I disagree with both points. There aren’t enough professional musical jobs to go round even for really good players. And ‘sufficient focused practice’ is just one ingredient necessary to become an ‘expert pianist’. As for talent playing a negligible role – have you never met people who have no sense of rhythm, or who are so tone deaf they can’t tell which note of a pair is higher and which lower? I have. These people would be unlikely to be able to play acceptably at even an amateur level, however carefully and frequently they practised. They would however be good at other things and should concentrate on those instead. Farming or cartwheeling or cooking maybe.

This seems to suggest you see musical performance as physical ability/control. Most of the skill of a violinist is not speed/smoothness but their artistic interpretation of the notes they are playing – the tone they manage to elicit from their instrument, the phrasing and colouration. Likewise, maybe a piano player could practise enough to play a lot of notes accurately and quickly, but would they be able to produce a truly musical effect?
When I was seven the local music academy (which, this being England, was paid for by the government) sent round an examiner to our school who put the class through various little musical tests. At that point I think I am right in saying that none of us played an instrument and I had certainly never had a music lesson in my life. I can remember to this day, some 48 years later, what some of the tests consisted of. ‘I will play a little tune and you must clap it out afterwards.’ ‘How many notes am I playing together at the one time?’ ‘sing this phrase after I’ve played it on the piano’. I was puzzled because it all seemed so simple I thought there must be a catch. However some kids were unable to do any of the tasks asked of them. I got a scholarship based on these tests, to get free piano lessons up to Grade 8. This experience leads me to believe that there is such a thing as innate talent. Innate lack of talent, too - which I have in many areas!
Am I now a great musician? Far from it. But I did enjoy those lessons, and subsequent music studies.
My cousin, Roy, had far more innate talent than I had. He was able to listen to a piece that I played just once or twice and copy it almost note-perfect purely by ear. I’m not talking about high-level pieces – just about grade 4 or 5. He couldn’t even read music until he was an adult. But he had a marvellous ear and a tremendous musical memory (and I am sure still does). He is another reason that I cannot doubt that innate talent exists.

Toman
i am sorry but I could not ignore your use of the term EvoPsych. I will share my opinion thus.
Evolution is a real science, which means it is a body of facts and proven hypotheses as well as some speculative interpretation based on the current state of the science. The science itself should not be colored by politics or religion. The history of humanity is replete with disatrous turns due to this incompatible mix. What you and I are entitled to is our view of the meaning of all this, our faith, how we put all these facts together and how we interpret their relation to our view of the world. Attacking the science itself, diminishing it, ignoring it, not teaching its proven findings or belittling the scientists are not likely to change scientific conclusions. The events in Galileo's life remain an excellent example (The Church acknowledged his scientific findings, eventually, and presented an apology a few hundred years later!). Of course, the opposite is also true: upholding simple scientific facts as arguments against faith is equally ignorant.
A better approach is to stick to interpretation. Many hard core scientists believe in God's existence for example and many theologians have written extensively about the compatibility of faith and science, without having to resort to belittling evolutionary science. (including Catholics, Presbyterians, Jewish and others .. Don't know where Anglicans stand on this).
This is just to say that the term EvoPsych which tries to further belittle evolution by coupling it with what is perceived to be another "unscience", ie psychiatry, is insulting, utterly uninformed and does not illuminate the subject. It rather dumps it squarely in the bin of vacuous political debate.

I have mixed feelings about this notion of innate talent. When I doubt that there is such a thing, I only have to look at my two children, who couldn't be more different musically, to wonder. There are only a couple of years apart in age. Both play a string instrument. Both practice about the same amount and with the same diligence. Both have good teachers. And yet, one is just miles ahead, in all aspects of music, than the other.

What I don't know, and what I suspect nobody knows, is whether this innate talent is a developmental thing, which will eventually equalize, or weether one child will always be miles ahead. The reason I suspect that nobody knows is that, in practice, a child who appears to show early aptitute will get encouragement, and will find practice more rewarding. A child who does not will most likely drop music and move onto something else.

Whether any two adults, having absolutely no prior exposure to music training, will show different levels of aptitude is also difficult to determine. It's difficult because, in reality, very few adults (at least in the UK) have absolutely no musical training as children. Most UK schools teach some music, even if it's only desultory recorder playing and a bit of singing.

So the difference in perceived talent for music in adults _could_ (I'm not saying `must') be the result of different childhood experiences, perhaps not even well remembered.

I'm not suggesting that there isn't such a thing as innate music talent in adults, but I don't think it's easy to quantify.

As others have remarked, I can't help thinking that the overwhelming factor that will determine what is achievable by an adult learner is the amount of time available to practice, which depends on how one juggles one's other commitmments.

I simply can't understand this reluctance to accept what should be as plain as the nose on your face, or in this case, your children's faces. Is there some sort of fear of genetic predetermination at work here, some overly nice liberal tendency to want not to hurt anyone's feelings?

If you can't see that human beings are each born with a unique, genetically based set of talents and traits, then look to the animal world, which is just another way of looking at ourselves. I've 3 dogs at the moment, all the same breed, all with essentially the same training and background, and yet they couldn't be more different.

H., you and I agree most of the time, too, yet in this case, if there was any insult there I think it was toward ignorance and ignorant people rather than toward the U.S. generally. There are always beacons of knowledge as well as bastions of backwardness in most any community, but it's inescapable the prevalence of either one does not have equal geographic distribution.

I heard on the news just yesterday that 25% of high school students in a certain state that I won't name did not know who the first American president was. For years I've heard the canard about the number of kids who thought that Chernobyl is Cher's full name, and I'm coming to suspect that it has more than anectodal basis.

Steven

pianovirus,

In my earlier post I wrote, "My contention is that the more multifaceted the abilities required, and the more complex and demanding the task (like playing piano at a professional level), the more individual differences are likely to emerge and persist despite training. " Tasks can be more challenging by being more complex and/or by demanding a higher level of performance even if the task perhaps does not require as many different abilities. So if we set the bar high enough for performance, that may also help individual differences to emerge even on a fairly unidimensional task (although even "simple" tasks are more complex than they might appear). Your example of running 100 meters is a good one. Probably most able- bodied people can run 100 meters. Running 100 meters in the time that Usain Bolt does is a whole other level of difficulty and performance-- and individual differences may indeed show up when the criterion of performance is to match that or get as close to it as possible.


Sophia

Steven,

I certainly hope that you are correct and that Jason meant it that way, but I really wasn't sure at the time. And I must agree that those are sobering statistics. I saw it too. As to Chernobyl, you gotta be kidding. I'm guessing you aren't.

I'd say it's well nigh impossible to underestimate the ignorance in our culture. It's really quite depressing.

Andromaque,

EvoPsych is not a derogatory term, refers to evolutionary psychOLOGY, not psychIATRY, and is a real - albeit social - science. Furthermore, I assure you that I am a fan, not a detractor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

Surely highly scientific comments.

I wonder if there's any science behind snarkiness.

Steven

Thanks Steven, better riposte than I had in mind. I wonder if the next time lando gives an off the cuff, conversational generalization along the lines of "it's impossible to underestimate the ignorance in our culture,"-he'll stop short and think "Oh no, not scientific enough. I'd better not."