Talent. Is it Really 60% Nature, 40% Nurture, Or What?

[Deleted member 5962]

I have always wondered what the answer really was to this question. As I’ve said a million times, I grew up in a family of very talented musicians and singers, and was surrounded by music my whole life. You were expected to be a musician and a singer in my family, and a good one. I’m the black sheep in that I don’t (any more) sing, and play rock and roll.

 

[Wyzard]

I have always wondered what the answer really was to this question. As I’ve said a million times, I grew up in a family of very talented musicians and singers, and was surrounded by music my whole life. You were expected to be a musician and a singer in my family, and a good one. I’m the black sheep in that I don’t (any more) sing, and play rock and roll.

OK, shameless name drop alert.

About a million years ago, Dominic Miller and I were at school together (along with Karl Wallinger, who was a bit older than us). Dom said pretty much the same thing as you - that, while his sisters were both classically-trained singers of quality, he was the wannabe-rock-star black sheep of the family. Seems to me like music really was in that family.



As for me, I didn't meet an actual blood relative of my own until I was in my fifties (long-ish, strange-ish story ). Turned out that, when I met my half-brother for the first time, we were both ex-bassist/guitarists who were into exactly the same musicians.........

 

[Bogner]

I have always wondered what the answer really was to this question. As I’ve said a million times, I grew up in a family of very talented musicians and singers, and was surrounded by music my whole life. You were expected to be a musician and a singer in my family, and a good one. I’m the black sheep in that I don’t (any more) sing, and play rock and roll.

Maybe they are the black sheep for not playing rock and roll...

 

[Mike Duncan]

Watching Wolfie play "Hot For Teacher", it's in the genes.


That said, my Mom's older of her two younger brothers plays guitar like Ry Cooder meets Jeff Beck. He is a MONSTER player. That has not flowed to me via any familial relation.

 

[Huggy Love]

We are all products of our environment.

 

[László]

The formula is more nuanced than that and hard to put into % terms. I do a lot of research on general intelligence (G-factor) and in the case of intelligence, it is largely inherited (nature) ie. you normally cannot "study" for an IQ test and do better (again many nuances but outside the scope). I believe to be good at anything in life, G-factor has a pivotal role. Depending on the activity, it can have a smaller or bigger impact. Athletic ability is also largely inherent and the more full-body the activity the more genetics play a role ie. when comparing basketball vs darts, basketball is much more dependent on genetics compared to darts as the motions are more specialized in darts and thus can be more narrowly focused by any "normal" individual. Certainly, there is going to be the Lebron James equivalent in the darts world, however it will not, as clearly, be defined by pure genetics. That being said, I believe guitar playing is somewhere between darts and basketball, although there is certainly a high degree of body mechanics involved and musical talent required, most people can get to 80~90% of the way through diligent practice. The top 10% is reserved for the genetic phenoms.

Fascinating! I'd love to know more about your work.

Here's the big unanswered question, however: I think the 80-90% thing can be applied to the mechanics of moving the hands, learning the notes, etc. -- the things involved in playing an instrument.

Based only on my own experience (and I realize that one cannot generalize which is why I'm asking, and not claiming to be a fount of knowledge), playing an instrument and composing music are different talents, even though both deal with music. Moreover, I'm not sure composing music can even be done to a professional degree without a larger dose of the nature stuff than is necessary in learning an instrument.

I'm certain that learning those mechanics (or indeed music theory) doesn't make a person able to create a decent melody. Even Rimsky-Korsakov, who wrote a seminal work on orchestration said in the introduction to the book (I'm paraphrasing), "I can teach you to orchestrate. No one can teach you to compose."

I will grant that the more I create, the more easily the ideas come, but it's something entirely different from being good at playing non-original music on guitar or piano, which I also do professionally.

There's something different at work there having little to do with instrumental skills.

Something happens inside my head when I compose. I'm not even conscious of it; seems like it just happens.

 

[László]

We are all products of our environment.

In part.

But there's another mechanism at work that some folks have, or don't have. Not that I am able to explain why.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

Almost all of the people I know who have lead accomplished careers have either A) Achieved success early or B) Had a support system in place (ie: rich parents/trust funds/previous career that paid well etc.) that allowed them to invest wholly into their artistic field. And there has been more of the later.

I haven’t really met too many people who toiled for years and years in obscurity and finally became a success.

Which kinda makes me think nurture may be as or more important than natural talent.

 

[László]

Almost all of the people I know who have lead accomplished careers have either A) Achieved success early or B) Had a support system in place (ie: rich parents/trust funds/previous career that paid well etc.) that allowed them to invest wholly into their artistic field. And there has been more of the later.

I haven’t really met too many people who toiled for years and years in obscurity and finally became a success.

Which kinda makes me think nurture may be as or more important than natural talent.

That certainly applies to the ability to stick with it and achieve financial success.

But it's a different thing from being able to do certain things in the first place.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

That certainly applies to the ability to stick with it and achieve financial success.

But it's a different thing from being able to do certain things in the first place.

Oh, for sure! But we also know that just being the most talented person isn’t a guarantee for success.

There are so many other factors involved, and oftentimes they’re more important.

This isn’t said with sour grapes or anything, it’s just the way things are sometimes.

 

[László]

Oh, for sure! But we also know that just being the most talented person isn’t a guarantee for success.

There are so many other factors involved, and oftentimes they’re more important.

This isn’t said with sour grapes or anything, it’s just the way things are sometimes.

Right, but I was really asking about the stuff in this thread unrelated to success. I'm more interested in what aspects of being a human being creates the ability to do certain things well, irrespective of financial success.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

Right, but I was really asking about the stuff in this thread unrelated to success. I'm more interested in what aspects of being a human being creates the ability to do certain things well, irrespective of financial success.

Yeah! I’m not necessarily defining success purely on money or fame (because then I’d have to go stick my head in the toaster) but more of a proficiency at a creative task that is celebrated or acknowledged (even if it’s just playing for friends or putting on SoundCloud and garnering like, 4 likes and 3 downvotes. Lol)

It takes so much time to develop your voice. And I think it’s easier to do that when you’re not worried about where your next meal is coming from, for instance.

Now, I can compose some (admittedly BS) orchestral music or cues really. I used to do them for friend’s student films, indie game temps, or just musical exercises for fun. But I believe that it was only partly talent, and more likely because I was allowed to nurture it, and was nurtured.

My mommy scraped together the rest of the cash to allow me to buy an Akai 12 track in the 80’s, and I may had done some semi nefarious things to afford an Emax and some janky modules that I could stack in her basement. I was able to front-load my life altering between gigging and being a hermit trapped in a “studio”.

I don’t think I would’ve had the time, drive, and desire to learn how to do that without the nurture part.

 

[Moondog Wily]

About a million years ago, Dominic Miller and I were at school together (along with Karl Wallinger, who was a bit older than us).

LOVE Karl Wallinger's World Partty stuff and have been playing his "Priivate Revolution" song recently in my practice sets! First heard that song on WXRT radio in Chicago when it first came out!! Thanks for sharing!!!

 

[Wyzard]

There are so many other factors involved, and oftentimes they’re more important.

One thing I've learned over the course of my life, both in and around music, is this: never underestimate the power of sheer bloody-minded persistence and determination.

It may not work for everyone..... but by golly, it has worked for some mostly-inept and only marginally talented frigwits.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

One thing I've learned over the course of my life, both in and around music, is this: never underestimate the power of sheer bloody-minded persistence and determination.

It may not work for everyone..... but by golly, it has worked for some mostly-inept and only marginally talented frigwits.

OMG! Yes!

 

[opnoob]

Fascinating! I'd love to know more about your work.

Here's the big unanswered question, however: I think the 80-90% thing can be applied to the mechanics of moving the hands, learning the notes, etc. -- the things involved in playing an instrument.

Based only on my own experience (and I realize that one cannot generalize which is why I'm asking, and not claiming to be a fount of knowledge), playing an instrument and composing music are different talents, even though both deal with music. Moreover, I'm not sure composing music can even be done to a professional degree without a larger dose of the nature stuff than is necessary in learning an instrument.

I'm certain that learning those mechanics (or indeed music theory) doesn't make a person able to create a decent melody. Even Rimsky-Korsakov, who wrote a seminal work on orchestration said in the introduction to the book (I'm paraphrasing), "I can teach you to orchestrate. No one can teach you to compose."

I will grant that the more I create, the more easily the ideas come, but it's something entirely different from being good at playing non-original music on guitar or piano, which I also do professionally.

There's something different at work there having little to do with instrumental skills.

Something happens inside my head when I compose. I'm not even conscious of it; seems like it just happens.

I think you are correct! So there is general intelligence, which plays in a role (large or small) in everything there is about you. Whether it's being able to calculate a needling-threading pass in soccer or the ability to memorize tax law. Generally speaking, IQ tests attempt to estimate a person broad cognitive ability which is, in its most basic form, the ability to recognize and solve a problem. Given that you choose which problem to solve or what skill to master, an high intelligence person will always have an advantage over a low intelligence person if all other factors are equal. The argument I get a lot is yeah well, you see a lot of dumb jocks or dumb athletes. Yes this is true, but they would be even better if they were smart.

In psychology, creativity is generally regarded to as you either have it or you don't. Much like G factor, it's rarely (if at all) something you can teach. Also teaching a naturally creative individual to hone their creativity will have much better results than if you were to try to teach a non-creative person how to compose as in your example. So in this respect, I believe although G factor will always play a role in both things, mechanically playing an instrument and the ability to compose music are indeed extremely different talents. Thats why those who can both master playing and composing are unicorns!

 

[rb1]

I think natural talent tends to beat out nurture. Some of the best musicians have had very little nurturing. In my case, I have quite an easy facility with writing (words, not music). I have a much harder time crafting musical ideas and I get stuck in ruts musically. I have a lousy singing voice and I'm more or less tone deaf. When I play guitar I basically have to concentrate and look at what I'm doing and I can't play by ear well. Pen to paper (or fingers on typing keys, as the case may be) and I can fly away with minimal effort. Playing and composing music, on the other hand, I have to work for it every step of the way.

There is some truth in the idea that hard work and a lot of time invested will help develop skills. But I've met many people over the years who take to musical instruments like natural extensions of their limbs. Some of them have long professional careers in music and some of them sell real estate now. I also believe that inherent talent does not translate into professional success. I've seen some talentless hacks get very lucky and I've seen some genuinely talented people never catch a break. That holds true in multiple areas of endeavor.

 

[László]

I think you are correct! So there is general intelligence, which plays in a role (large or small) in everything there is about you. Whether it's being able to calculate a needling-threading pass in soccer or the ability to memorize tax law. Generally speaking, IQ tests attempt to estimate a person broad cognitive ability which is, in its most basic form, the ability to recognize and solve a problem. Given that you choose which problem to solve or what skill to master, an high intelligence person will always have an advantage over a low intelligence person if all other factors are equal. The argument I get a lot is yeah well, you see a lot of dumb jocks or dumb athletes. Yes this is true, but they would be even better if they were smart.

In psychology, creativity is generally regarded to as you either have it or you don't. Much like G factor, it's rarely (if at all) something you can teach. Also teaching a naturally creative individual to hone their creativity will have much better results than if you were to try to teach a non-creative person how to compose as in your example. So in this respect, I believe although G factor will always play a role in both things, mechanically playing an instrument and the ability to compose music are indeed extremely different talents. Thats why those who can both master playing and composing are unicorns!

Even though I haven't studied this stuff on anywhere near your level, what you're saying resonates with my experience. Seems right.

 

[11top]

Test #1

Can you tap your foot to 4/4?

 

[Permanent Waves]

It's a little bit like the "hard work versus good luck" debate, you need to have both in equal measure. Samuel Goldwyn was quoted as saying "The harder I work, the luckier I get." I see a lot of the same in music: I have known musicians with oodles of natural talent who never developed it or took it anywhere, and I have seen folks who absolutely love music but still cannot keep a beat or hold a tune after decades of work. You need the natural talent as well as the interest and the drive to develop it. It's 50-50 in my opinion. I always had a natural inclination to music but I'll be the first to admit I lacked the drive and the discipline to push it to the next level, which is why I never wanted to be a professional musician, just a serious amateur.