Music is Not Rocket Science #10: Absolute Talent

A 1993 study (Ericsson) helped popularize the idea that any one of us can become a master tuba player just by hard practice if something so foolish occurs to us. In the study, the researchers claimed that all virtuoso musicians spent an average of about 10,000 hours practising the instrument by the age of 20. They concluded that the differences in skill were not due to innate talent but to the number of hours spent rehearsing. Malcolm Gladwell then gave further weight to this idea in his 2008 book Outliers, where he writes about the 10,000 hours rule as a major key to success in any field, from musicians to software engineers.

The wish is the father to the thought, and I'm sure we all wish we could reduce musical talent to hours, diligence and careful scale playing. However, it takes much more than that. As other scientific studies have shown, certain combinations of genes and genotypes give some children traits that urge them to lock themselves in the basement and, at the expense of their family's sanity, patience and finances, cultivate tinnitus while playing a loud drum kit, torment their still-too-small fingers with guitar arpeggios or grow calluses while playing the bass. Traits such as musical talent, enjoyment of music and motivation are largely given by a complex combination of DNA, the environment you grow up in and the degree of support you receive from those around you.

Not only do genetic traits contribute to whether people are likely to practice, but scientific data shows that the genetic influence on musical success was much greater for those who practised more. The general idea about innate talent is that it helps in the beginning (you have a genetically determined advantage for a particular activity), but that skills acquired through regular practice can eventually overcome any genetic predisposition. Yes, you have to practice, and no scientist disputes the importance of long hours spent with an instrument, but those who have a genetic advantage in innate abilities will simply always be a step ahead of less talented individuals.

I understand that sometimes it is hard to accept the cards we are dealt at birth. Especially in this day and age when participation medals are handed out and there is an endlessly optimistic guru lurking around every corner telling you that you can fulfil all your dreams. All you have to do is wish... In the case of musical talent, unfortunately, it is still true that you can improve very, very much in your abilities, but if you don't have that "something extra", you will not achieve flashes of genius or virtuoso mastery of an instrument.

Scientists, after much study and analysis of previous theories, now posit that almost all of our abilities and cognitive characteristics are at least partially influenced by their respective nucleotide chains (the organic molecules that make up nucleic acids, such as DNA and RNA). Complex activities, whether creative or technical, involve a huge communication web in the whole brain (as opposed to the overly simplistic and popular left brain/right brain thesis for analytical vs. creative types). These structures and general brain synapses are shaped by our genetic code during our development. Genes also code the proteins that control our bodies and brains, with lots of data linking specific genetic profiles to different cognitive abilities.

But let's now take a detour from the world of musical geniuses and virtuosos. How about Taylor Swift or Coldplay? Despite Swift's surprising eighth-place ranking in a poll regarding the world's best guitarists (ahem, we all know that these polls are more about the popularity of a given musician than their technical ability on a given instrument), it's hard for anyone to declare her a guitar genius – or a singer, songwriter or lyricist, which are, after all, her domains as opposed to her guitar playing. Nevertheless, her music has touched the hearts of millions of people around the world. Something similar can be said of Coldplay, Imagine Dragons, popular rappers or country stars. Their music obviously resonates with people, but we won't claim their creators are geniuses.

You don't have to accept the game of fate or genetic determination. For many, it will be an indigestible fact that they will try to deny, either through willpower and determination or esoteric belief in unearthly forces. I think it is healthy to acknowledge one's limitations in a particular field/activity while looking for one's strengths and working on them. You will save yourself many disappointments and dead ends.

And a little final note on the popular "10,000 hours of exercise theory". If you work forty hours a week in your job for five years (which is 10,000 hours), then you should be a master of your field. But as we know from experience, this equation is definitely not valid. It's about quality time, where you perform an activity intensely with the goal of best performance, have expert guidance and continually improve step by step. Being exceptional in music, science or business is a complex matter that requires a tremendous amount of time, commitment and patience.

Sources: 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-do-great-musicians-have…

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/live-in-concert/202102/what-it-…

https://theconversation.com/excelling-as-a-musician-takes-practice-and-…

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/twofold/201710/musical-talent-m…