and now the bad news: Practice may not make perfect

[jazzboCR]

Like many another human activity, it comes down to genetics. Here's a short article explaining the whys and wherefors: http://www.economist.com/news/science-an...ke-perfect

[SteveO]

Interesting article Jazz...however it reminds me of the student who hardly opened a book and got honours while the other student had to cram and study for hours just to pass their exams ! Same holds true for athletes, some people need a lot more practise to hone their skill than others. I would say that practising the violin for 10,000 hours does not guarantee proficiency on the instrument...let's just say for argument's sake that Yehudi Menuhinestimated that he practised for 1,250 hours before he become comfortable and confident on the violin and Jascha Heifetz estimated that he woodshedded for over 15,000 hours !

Guaranteeing that if one practices for 10,000 hours they will become a great musician is a bit far fetched !

[Jerome]

What about the guy who had never played a musical instrument in his life, had a car accident, ended up in a coma for an extended period and then awoke to find himself with the ability to play complex classical pieces and go on to composing as well. His hands had never been through the practicing phase at all, yet he was able to achieve it. I think you can do whatever you want in life (if you have the physical/mental ability to do so) - you just have to find the key that unlocks a particular door in the brain. We don't know what we are capable of at all.

[jazzboCR]

Gents--practice is essential and varies by the artist...but genetics plays a part. Whatever part of DNA they find, both those violinists had boatloads of. And that coma-recovery person?--his never playing before mainly means he never unleashed the talent--it was in him/her all along. That "particular part of the brain" is where DNA unlocks the door--you've helped make my point. Look, fellas, I don't mean to go all determinist on you as far as 99.99...% of folks are concerned--this is just talking about that giant leap to the genius level. There, all psychological factors in whatever measure have to be there, but also there has to be another component. This article about this research just points to an identifiable component.

[Ruby]

Well here’s an interesting case – that of James Raymond, well regarded keyboardist and composer. He grew up not having a clue that his father was the one and only David Crosby (and incidentally not riding on the name once he DID find out). Guess he inherited a fair whack of daddy’s genes!

That being said, I suspect that quite aside from one’s genetic predisposition, there are many additional and uniquely individual factors/stimuli at play when it comes to creativity (and mathematical ability), all of which could very well be impossible to identify absolutely. One might have perfect pitch, as an example, and yet no imagination. I also believe there is the possibility of forging new neural pathways in the brain, if we can find the mechanisms to do so. Perhaps that happened involuntarily in the instance of the coma patient.

A sample of James Raymond's playing -

[video=youtube;DJyiCAVW7nk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJyiCAVW7nk[/video]

[jazzboCR]

Here's a pic of dad and son. Who's his mother?: https://www.google.com/search?q=picture+...B363%3B295
What I love about this Board: I deliberately introduce a controversial topic, knowing full well it would induce/provoke discussion and also knowing that discussion would be civil. And it has been. Thanks to all.

[Jerome]

Gents--practice is essential and varies by the artist...but genetics plays a part. Whatever part of DNA they find, both those violinists had boatloads of. And that coma-recovery person?--his never playing before mainly means he never unleashed the talent--it was in him/her all along. That "particular part of the brain" is where DNA unlocks the door--you've helped make my point. Look, fellas, I don't mean to go all determinist on you as far as 99.99...% of folks are concerned--this is just talking about that giant leap to the genius level. There, all psychological factors in whatever measure have to be there, but also there has to be another component. This article about this research just points to an identifiable component.

Only problem is no-one in his family ever played a musical instrument. This curious phenomenon had nothing to do with genetics whatsoever. It wasn't handed down through biological code.

[Jerome]

Well here’s an interesting case – that of James Raymond, well regarded keyboardist and composer. He grew up not having a clue that his father was the one and only David Crosby (and incidentally not riding on the name once he DID find out). Guess he inherited a fair whack of daddy’s genes!

That being said, I suspect that quite aside from one’s genetic predisposition, there are many additional and uniquely individual factors/stimuli at play when it comes to creativity (and mathematical ability), all of which could very well be impossible to identify absolutely. One might have perfect pitch, as an example, and yet no imagination. I also believe there is the possibility of forging new neural pathways in the brain, if we can find the mechanisms to do so. Perhaps that happened involuntarily in the instance of the coma patient.

A sample of James Raymond's playing -

[video=youtube;DJyiCAVW7nk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJyiCAVW7nk[/video]

I agree 100% - you can't put it all down to genetics. Mathematics is an interesting subject when it comes to music. Just like tones and semitones resemble whole numbers and fractions. A musical scale is exactly the same as a series of fractions.

[SteveO]

You bring up a good point J man ! If the budding musician is constantly surrounded in music and comes from a musical family it may embellish one's musical aptitude! The old down home method, here son, try this chord,,,etc

[jazzboCR]

Only problem is no-one in his family ever played a musical instrument. This curious phenomenon had nothing to do with genetics whatsoever. It wasn't handed down through biological code.

I don't understand all the vehement pushback in what was presentesd as a component, not the component. And it can't be said that genetics /DNA code had nothing to do with it unless he and his family/ancestors were genotyped and scientifically proved not to have it. About music being mathematics (well, arithmetic--yes, of course and Bach proved it) but math by itself is sterile-sounding and why I don't like much synthesizer stuff. BTW what exactly is synthesizer music synthesizing? Can you synthesize something that never existed in any analogue form? Or even hybridize? I believe another word or phrase is needed--"shaped artificial sound that's appreciable by humans".