MUSICAL ABILITY
TALENT VS TRAINING
Glenn Wilson PhD
King’s College, London
Institute of Psychiatry
TALENT VS TRAINING




Unfolding of inborn potential or hard graft?
(Mozart cited by each camp).
Musical genius runs in families (Bach, Strauss) but this
could be down to genes or environment.
Often emerges at very early age (but also some
impressive late starters – e.g. Gluck,Wagner, Bruckner).
Family support not essential – Gershwin & Bernstein
grew up in homes without pianos; Louis Armstrong
had no cornet before age 17.
TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT (AGES)








0-1 Reacts to sounds
2-3 Reproduces song phrases
3-4 Conceives general plan of melody
4-5 Can tap back simple rhythms
5-6 Understands louder/softer
6-7 Tonal music preferred to atonal
7-8 Appreciation of consonance/dissonance
9-10 Harmonic sense established
Source: Shuter-Dyson & Gabriel, 1981
MEASURING MUSIC ABILITY




Tests like Seashore Measures of Musical Talent
(1960) commercially available - take about 1hr.
Present pairs of tones for comparison on pitch,
loudness, timbre, etc; also test rhythm and
memory.
Reliability acceptable, but only moderate validity
(e.g. prediction of progress in music college).
Not good at assessing creative aspects (e.g.
appreciation, composition).
CORRELATES OF MA TESTS




Only slight correlations with general IQ (around .3).
Savant phenomenon illustrates considerable
independence of musical ability.
No striking sex or race differences (despite male
preponderance among famous composers and fabled
African rhythmic ability).
Blind people show no consistent superiority (despite
famous cases of exceptional talent).
Scores improve with coaching and musical training.
TWIN COMPARISONS




Best way of separating genes from
environment (& family vs non-family
influences).
Show some degree of heritability for music
ability(40-70%).
Training/family environment also shown to be
important (may override gene effects up to
moderate levels of ability).
Global ability may be more genetic than
Seashore-type aural skills.
INTRINSIC MOTIVATION





Top musicians often come from non-musical homes.
Report intense, joyful (“peak”) experiences from
earliest listening – usually not in lessons.
Casual and frequent exposure to musical forms from
an early age favours development (emphasis on
enjoyment and spontaneity).
Pushy parents who force kids into competitive
situations may interfere with playful exploration –
absence of threat, bribes and browbeating needed.
Formal training may be counterproductive if overly
rigid and inhibits creativity (e.g. Chopin’s thumb on
black notes).
EFFECTIVE PRACTICE




Professional musicians practice long hours (or
did as children) but those most talented may get
away with less.
Sheer amount of practice less important than
quality. Best when motivated by keenness (not
whip-cracking) and directed toward specific
goals.
Need to self-monitor performance to diagnose
weaknesses and thus focus future practice.
Consistency of timetable, with emphasis on
mornings & early afternoons best. Important
not to miss rest/sleep.
MONITORING PRACTICE (from Williamon & Valentine, 2000)
ROLE OF TEACHERS





Specialist teaching does enhance knowledge of formal
aspects of music.
Ages 5-9 critical (earliest time at which verbal instruction
possible).
Formal training promotes competence but creative genius
may follow separate path (may even benefit from absence
of rules).
Difficult to separate maturation & experience from
contribution of teacher (esp. in singing).
Cause & effect problem – talented people find way to
reputable teachers, further enhancing their reputation.
ABSOLUTE PITCH





Rare and mysterious ability – more common in great
musicians but not universal (a mixed blessing).
Most striking forms appear early in childhood but can be
acquired to a degree.
More common in those who started music training early
(<age 4).
Sometimes associated with colour-tone synaesthesia;
sometimes just tonal memory.
No evidence that particular keys are suited to particular
emotions (other than major vs minor).
MUSIC AND THE BRAIN



Music perception, composition & performance depend on
pattern processing – hence mainly right hemisphere (damage
to left hemisphere may leave melody and harmony largely
unimpaired).
Lateralization more clear in musically untrained people –
training adds analytic, linguistic (left hemisphere) processes,
so that whole brain is involved.
Highly developed musical skills are matched by anatomical
changes (e.g. violinists have more cortex devoted to lefthand finger co-ordination). Neural plasticity greatest <age
10.
MUSICAL/UNMUSICAL PERFORMANCE

Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) permits digital
coding of performances for analysis.

Musical (as against mechanical) performance adds
expression – emphasis on notes & phrases that build
tension and anticipation.

Involves signals that composer & performer know that a
note is “wrong” (e.g. a dissonant chord is pointed up,
built or repeated before resolution; unexpected sequences
are underscored).

Musical expression seldom formally taught – acquired
mostly by intuition and imitation.
PERSONALITY OF MUSICIANS




Musicians more introvert than other performers and
general population.
Introversion is associated with private/imaginative
thought, which promotes creative engagement with
the domain.
Also enables tolerance of long periods of solitary
activity (e.g. practising, composing).
Variations among types of musicians (e.g. pop & jazz
more extravert than classical, brass players more
extravert than strings).
CREATIVITY AND MADNESS




Many great poets, artists, writers and musicians suffer from
mental disorders, including Asperger’s/autism, bipolar mood
disorder, antisocial personality, addiction.
About half of great composers suffered significant
psychopathology.
Depression may provide painful feelings to express
(Tchaikovsky). Mania/obsessionality may contribute to
creative output (Mozart). Grandiosity may spill over in
works (Wagner, Beethoven).
Danger that genetic engineering and drug treatments might
deprive us of great art?
CREATIVE VS EXECUTIVE SKILLS




Distinction helps resolve inborn/training debate and
research contradictions.
Creative (compositional) talent appears more inborn.
Benefits from freedom from pre-conceptions,
internal motivation, defiance of rules.
Executive (performance) skills benefit more from
training, hard work, encouragement of
teachers/parents.
Neither benefits from coercion.