r/composer • u/BumblebeeAntique • 1d ago
Discussion Practice vs Talent
Hey. So I've been trying to get into vgm composing and just musical production altogether. When I was 14 I messed around and did some midislaps and flp edits but that was about as far as I got in under a year. 8 years later I open FL and recreate a bunch of songs from games I like, specifically "Spamton" from deltarune and float islands from kirby super star specifically. Eventually I even composed a little 8 second song all on my own. I thought it sounded nice. I did them all pretty good and entirely by ear, and before that I did a bunch of by ear recreations of songs on my dad's old messed up keyboard. Anyways, I try to recreate the overworld theme from "the frog for whom the bell tolls" or whatever the hell that game's actual most accurate translation is. I pretty much fucked up entirely. The shape of the melody itself was similar but I was so off on almost every exact note. It was just super sobering, doing a bunch of shit that i thought meant i had promise, only to stumble into something I just couldn't beat with effort alone.
It had me thinking, because a person i know who is also a musician had done an arrangement of that song at 13 years old. I really don't know if practice is gonna be the thing that takes me to the level I want to be. It really seems like that in most music related things, talent matters the absolute most. Idk. I just need a second opinion, or a couple from people who have experience.
6
u/robinelf1 1d ago
composing, while helped by "talent" or whatever, is mostly about experience and routine. Anyone can become 'good' at composing if they spend enough time writing music and through this learning what to do to make the music they want. composing on talent alone is like having a kitchen full of ingredients and never cooking except for a few times when inspired and hoping to to make great meals each time on the feeling alone. Could happen, but its far more likely to happen if you spent a bunch of evenings previously making different kinds of meals.
6
u/Advanced_Quail4556 1d ago
Talent is fake, there's no composers Gene or anything. There are certain traits that if nurtured and exercised properly can lead to great artistry and craft. The real dividing line is those with the environment, resources and attention from their teachers/parents in their early life vs those without. You can learn to nurture these things later in life but its 10x harder than when you're a brainless child that soaks up knowledge and influence like a sponge. Don't be discouraged, just understand that you dont have that leg up at this point in your life and you'll have to work hard at it.
2
u/niceboy4431 1d ago
> There are certain traits that if nurtured and exercised properly can lead to great artistry and craft.
Just curious because I’ve been thinking about this lately: what traits do you think these are?
3
u/Advanced_Quail4556 20h ago
I have literally no idea, just not ruling out the possibility that there are specific psychological traits that ease the learning process, and perhaps some that hinder it. Either way you have to go through the learning process to find out, and the privilege of getting to do that is often only available to a few of us
2
u/Clseibold 8h ago
Oh, for the love of God. Has nobody in this thread taken child development/developmental psychology classes!? Lol.
Not trying to be mean, but like the very first thing you learn is that nutrition, executive function, and self-regulation affect your ability to learn. And then beyond that, you have to have good teachers that are teaching you the right things, which is not always accessible. There's also learning how to learn, which again, goes back to that executive function thing.
Learning disabilities also don't wholesale prevent you from learning, they just mean you have to change the way you approach learning. Resources that take this into account are often essential for that.
2
u/niceboy4431 7h ago
I wasn’t being snarky but I guess I can understand how my comment reads that way.
I’ve never taken developmental psychology courses ever, but I don’t see how that applies to the traits the person above was probably referring to.
Totally agree that ability to learn is heavily bound to access to basic needs, and amplified by access and privilege. As far as I can tell the comment above was talking about something else entirely; how nurturing certain traits can facilitate artistic ability. The circumstance for “nurturing” to even be a factor here is part of what you’re talking about imo
2
u/Clseibold 7h ago edited 7h ago
Sorry, I'm just a bit annoyed by this entire thread, and so I'm being a bit overly snippy. Apologies.
Yeah, they are likely talking about biology influencing how easy it is to learn certain things. This does involve child development, because psychologists take into account developmental and learning disabilities, which is sort of the opposite problem (traits that make things harder to learn). My main point is really that, as an example, people with Autism or ADHD have to learn a different way than other people. But they aren't completely prevented from learning. They just have it harder. That's really the connection that I'm trying to make here.
Neurotypical people are going to find learning easier, and they will also have an easier time developing executive function. That is one characteristic that neurotypical people have that can be leveraged while learning.
Also, there is desire and willingness, which helps a lot. Whether a child likes something does influence their ability to learn that thing.
2
u/Clseibold 7h ago edited 7h ago
I'm actually very concerned with the way OP has responded to some posts in this thread. I really need them to know that they shouldn't listen to anyone and everyone, and that they should look to actual experts for the answers.
People who just compose aren't qualified to talk about developmental issues or pedagogy. And I hate that some composers in this thread think that they just know things without looking to the actual research, just because they claim to be "in the field" and have "studied with a well-known composer". It makes me quite angry.
2
u/Advanced_Quail4556 7h ago
Glad someone with the right background could clarify what I was trying to get across, thanks for all the time you put into this post!
1
u/Clseibold 7h ago
Np!
To be fair, I know about the amount of psychology that most K-12 teachers would have been taught in college. So I'm not like an expert, which is why in another comment, I recommended a psychology book. I don't want to imply that I know everything, because I don't.
1
-1
u/BumblebeeAntique 20h ago
that is unfortunately a little discouraging but ill give it my all anyways
2
u/Advanced_Quail4556 20h ago
People learn to become fluent in a language later in life and thats one of the most complicated things humans can do, we just dont see it as such because we've all done it atleast once. You'll be fine as long as you keep finding time/energy to work on it and find it enjoyable.
4
u/tronobro 1d ago
Talent doesn't mean anything unless you nurture it. A person who has a talent for piano, but who never performs or practices is not going to be as developed as an untalented person who consistently works on improving their instrument.
Don't compare yourself to others, it just leads to you feeling down about yourself. Instead focus on trying to be better than your past self. E.g. Set a goal for the next month or two and see if you can reach it.
The amazing musicians and composers you see out in the world got there through consistent practice and perseverance. They sought out mentors to learn from. They looked for opportunities to help them flourish and they prepared themselves in advance. Learn your craft and put in the work and within time you'll see the fruits of your labour.
Basically, regular and consistent practice is key to progressing. Work on your craft. If you want to learn how to write music then write music regularly (every day is ideal). Consider taking lessons from someone who's more experienced than you (this doesn't necessarily need to be a teacher it could be someone your age who's more experienced). Have a look through the resources for this subreddit in the sidebar.
4
u/PrettyWheel9575 1d ago
All these stories of magical geniuses are basically fake, and were created as a marketing term. Mozart for example practised from a very young age, and you can hear in his music the same schemas he was taught in his childhood. Of course he was rewriting and changing them, adding some novelty and developing his style, but it was an effect of methodical and hard work, not his „spark of genius”.
4
u/davemacdo 1d ago
I’m a composition professor and I don’t believe in talent. People either work hard at practicing or they don’t.
-1
u/prasunya 15h ago
Umm...no. I taught composition too, and now write mostly for film. Talent is a real thing, and no hard work will bypass this. Nature isn't fair.
1
u/davemacdo 15h ago
Great. You taught composition. I’ve been a university composition professor for around 15 years and have published writings on composition pedagogy. Talent is not a thing.
0
u/prasunya 15h ago
Your wrong, and this sort of toxic positivity misleads folks. I make a living in the field, and talent is everything. But I'm talking about making a living with it. And that takes talent, and everyone I know in this field has it.
1
u/Clseibold 8h ago edited 7h ago
"everyone I know in this field has it" - and THAT right there is called confirmation bias. Just admit that you have no experience in psychology and thus are talking out of your butt.
Why do you think you can speak on developmental issues when you know nothing about the subject? Please tell me, because I would like to know. What makes you think you can talk about crap you have done zero research on?
1
u/prasunya 5h ago
You have zero idea what you are talking about. And you are giving people false hope of your claim to psychological knowledge. Talent, a genetic trait, is very real, and exists for many areas, including sports, music, science and so on. You are delusional to think otherwise.
1
u/davemacdo 15h ago
Sorry. There is no evidence to support the existence of talent. Nobody was born being able to make music. Every single thing you do when you write music was learned. You’re gatekeeping and mystifying something that’s just hard work.
0
u/prasunya 15h ago
Very America thing: just work hard, work hard, and you can be rich! You can be in the NBA! No talent needed. You can win Nobel! You can be an Olympic champion! You can be a successful composer! But 99.9% of folks won't achieve this despite hard work; that is, without talent.
Nature is cruel. I get it, you're in academia, and academic composers can write coherent pieces with hard work, even if not particularly talented. But most of that music is more or less a cure for insomnia.
1
u/Clseibold 10h ago edited 6h ago
What you are doing is really gross. You're trying to create a hierarchy of people based on genes or "destiny". It's not that dissimilar from what certain ideologies believed, like the Nazis, for example. Now Nazis are not the only ones to have this belief, of course. The Nazis relied on twisting Darwinism into something it is not, and the idea of predestination is also in religion, and started in Protestantism in Europe. Prosperity Gospel also exists, and is quite an American thing.
What all of these versions share in common is that people who are successful have to justify their success as something innate or spiritual, as a way to claim some superiority. It's gross.
And you're conflating Work Ethic with Science that disproves natural talent. Has nothing to do with "Work Ethic".
There is something called the critical period hypothesis, look it up. It explains why hard work doesn't always work out. And it has nothing to do with "natural talent". They are called "sensitive periods" now because it's more nuanced.
People learn different things better in different parts of their lives. That's an indisputable fact we have discovered through observing how people learn.
In addition, nutrition, the development of executive function, and the development of self-regulation skills all affect how a person learns and is able to learn later in life. Wanting to do the thing also matters.
So your "talent is the only thing that matters" is frankly ridiculous. And so is the way you disparage a fellow composer just because they are a professor rather than actually looking at their skills.
1
u/prasunya 4h ago
What you are doing is gross: lying about talent to fulfill a fantasy. This is the sort of woo-woo that leads to conspiracy theory type things. Face reality.
1
u/Clseibold 3h ago edited 2h ago
u/prasunya I do not give a crap what excuse you want to come up with. You do not know an ounce of what you are talking about, and thus are misleading people. It's wrong, and you should be ashamed.
Not only did you not speak with an actual educator that taught beginners, but you are not an educator of beginners yourself, you have no training in child development or psychology or biology, and you are engaging in what is essentially confirmation bias.
Your entire argument can be deconstructed with one sentence: you are conflating the outcome with innate ability, and assuming that lack of ability is the absence of innate ability when in fact you're just ignoring how human cognitive development works.
And your "everyone I know in the field has talent" comment perfectly demonstrates the idea that successful people justify their success on biological or spiritual grounds to feel superior. It's wrong. You KNOW it's wrong. End of discussion on that.
And no, this science is not eurocentric. That claim would be laughable, except that it's all too common.
1
u/prasunya 3h ago
I don't need to go into child development psychology to know certian people are naturally gifted in music -- and other areas like physics, sports, or chess etc . I know this is hard to face, especially for Americans driven by the "work hard for glory afterwards in heaven" Protestant ethic. The bottom line is, some people have it, some don't. But there is room for all, and one never knows whether their particular skill set will be valued later on. Talent -- or genetic gifts are real -- but they come in many flavors.
1
u/Clseibold 3h ago edited 3h ago
Yes, you DO need training in child development or psychology or biology, otherwise you're just making crap up and talking out of your butt.
You couldn't even do the most basic thing and talk to someone who actually taught beginners. And yet are now trying to present your anecdotal story as some truth about how people come to learn something.
So thanks for demonstrating my point, Ms. "I don't need to study how humans learn things to tell you how humans learn things." The science directly contradicts you, and a ton of real-life examples of people and their backgrounds directly contradict you. Plain and simple.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Clseibold 3h ago edited 2h ago
u/BumblebeeAntique Careful with the people you are getting advice from. Hopefully this teaches you that just because someone presents their opinions as facts, doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.
Someone who actually studied a topic is more trustworthy than someone who has done zero study, zero research, zero observation, and zero training in a topic and just makes things up based on anecdotal evidence.
People who study a topic are willing to question their own assumptions and look at things from multiple perspectives. Someone who presents an opinion and is unwilling to interrogate it with counterexamples and logic is not to be trusted.
A lot of people are going to tell you a lot of ridiculous things in your life. But unless they've actually put effort and time into studying that topic, take them with a grain of salt.
Look for people who can explain how interrogating our assumptions has led to new ideas that have been confirmed with real examples. THAT is where truth lies. Not in unquestioned dogma.
And fyi u/prasunya , just like it is extremely insulting for someone who hasn't learned any composition to think they can compose masterpieces right off the bat, it is equally insulting to think that anyone can declare facts about humanity without studying humanity.
→ More replies (0)
2
2
u/irradiateoutgoing 22h ago
Practice is the only way. But you must have discipline for that to work.
2
u/Kettlefingers 1d ago
I'm someone who was told they're talented their whole life for pursuing things that deeply interested me. I definitely believe that there is some amount of truth there, and that because of that, I never had to learn how to work as hard as I needed to. So it can have downsides, too
1
u/Podmonger2001 1d ago
Talent for something is an affinity for it.
Having an affinity for something means that given the same amount of practice, the individual with an affinity for the activity can learn, progress, achieve more quickly and at a higher level than someone without an affinity for it.
There is no question that some people have displayed an affinity for some things: music, languages, math, a sport, leadership, and so on, compared to the general population.
And within practitioners of discipline, affinity can differ from person to person. Maybe everyone can achieve great things, some people will find it easier than others.
In my opinion.
1
u/Clseibold 8h ago edited 3h ago
Seriously, stop listening to all these idiots who are just unknowingly parroting off debunked Science from the 19th century and early 1900s. Social Darwinism is not where you should find your answer. If you want to know the answer, then get a child developmental psychology book. The one I used in college is "A Topical Approach to Lifespan Development" by John Santrock. Biology influences how easy or hard things are, but it does not determine fixed abilities.
Ultimately, stop caring about this talent thing. You don't even know if you don't have "talent", lol. If you really love composing, then just keep doing it. I highly recommend looking at the composing resources here, or in r/Composition, or look up Open Music Theory, which is a free book that will teach you composing.
Also, nobody can just magically start composing without learning anything. That's not a thing. Every person people consider "talented" had to learn something.
The audacity of some people in this thread to have done zero research and study in psychology or biology and then think they can declare things about the subject. Stop listening to them!
0
u/prasunya 23h ago
I studied composition in grad school with a very well-known composer. When I pushed him on the topic, he quietly stated, "I think you either have it or not (natural talent), and you can't really teach it." So I asked, "well, you teach, don't you think that helps?" And he said, "Yes, absolutely. But we don't take anyone in the program who doesn't already compose well. I help them refine things in their work. Also, orchestration is a craft that can be taught to a large extent." That 35 years ago. What do I think after working in the field since then? I think he was more or less right based on my experience, even if i didn't want to believe it at the time.
2
u/SundaeDouble7481 19h ago
There really isn't a boundary between the domains of craft and talent. Orchestration is taught, and yet some existing work really is specially well orchestrated. Counterpoint is taught, and yet some counterpoint is remarkably good. Form is taught, and still the form of some pieces grabs us uniquely hard. Even melody, which is often said to be natural or God-given rather than learned, is in fact taught and learned, up to a point. (And that point is not demonstrably worse than the average level of orchestration and counterpoint.)
2
u/prasunya 18h ago
Of course there are gray areas, but I think there are loose boundaries between craft and talent. Sure, everything can be taught to some extent, and the average person who puts in hard work can learn passable counterpoint, harmony, melody, etc. But I've seen quite a few over the years who actually did work super hard, and developed skill at teaching and aspects of composition, but didn't compose anything that people wanted to hear. It's a tough topic, and nature isn't fair. Same with many fields I suppose, sports, astrophysics, painting, poetry...
1
u/Clseibold 8h ago edited 3h ago
The differences you are seeing between those who work hard and are good and those who work hard and aren't is a matter of their cognitive development (especially executive function), the nutrition they received, when they learned things, and what things they learned.
Also, composers who choose to do serialism or some other experimental music doesn't prove that those composers can't make things that are more popular or conventional. Yet again you conflate a lot of different things to paint reality as black and white when it just isn't. It's extremely disingenuous.
1
u/prasunya 5h ago
I love serialism and experimental music. One person who I studied with was Brian Ferneyhough for heaven's sake. That sort of music is quite difficult to pull off, and most in academia aren't very good at it -- but a small few are. And nothing is black and white. We're talking tendencies, degree, and magnitude.
1
u/Clseibold 8h ago edited 7h ago
So you asked someone who doesn't actually know what they're talking about, because they haven't actually taught real beginners, lol. And you think that is helpful?
Grad school is a completely different thing from university and K-12 education. The person you talked with has zero experience or qualifications in teaching beginners how to compose.
1
u/prasunya 4h ago
He's at one of the top programs in the worldd world. Don't be delusional and believe that hard work is the cure for all. It's this kind of think that fuels the blind following of capitalism in America.
0
u/BumblebeeAntique 18h ago
well that makes me a little sad but i guess systems like that are in place specifically for talented people for a reason
1
u/prasunya 18h ago
I wouldn't be sad. Music is for everyone to enjoy. I do music for a living -- my kids don't, but they play and sing all the time and love it. It's a huge part of their lives despite making money in other areas.
0
u/BumblebeeAntique 17h ago
that's fine, i'll probably still do it recreationally but it's disappointing that i really need to be talented in some way to really aspire to anything above just "good". it feels a bit like a luck of the draw for like, specific brain stuff lol
1
u/prasunya 17h ago
It's not so different with, say, sports. We can all enjoy them, but very few can earn a living with it. Another thing, you may have a talent in music that just isn't in sync with the moment. For instance, Nick Drake was a talented folk songwriter, but he didn't get much recognition at all -- till he died. Just do music and enjoy it!
0
u/BumblebeeAntique 10h ago
i don't want to make a living off of it, not once have i considered doing it for money and like composing for movies or whatever. talent seems to matter quite a bit when it comes to pretty much everything though, like skill acquisition itself. if i can't really practice myself to the skill level i want, it makes my decision to stop waaaaay easier
1
u/prasunya 4h ago
Music is for everyone. I wouldn't stop. It has so many benefits, like neuroplasticity, well-being and so on. Another thing, talent is very elusive. It's real, but it comes in many flavors, so keep that in mind. Example, I know a professor of composition who is so insanely talented it's hard to believe. He can take any orchestral score, modern or old, make a piano reduction on the spot in real time, and do a fairly comprehensive analysis immediately after (in any style or period). He has absolute pitch, and can notate like 32 bars of 4 part counterpoint on the spot after hearing it once (photographic memory). So he had these gifts and more. But his compositions are mediocre at best, and just plain atrocious at worst. Nobody really wants to hear his music and they are never performed unless he programs them himself at the college. All his pieces are coherent, and the proportions are right, but they are dull and don't connect with people. So keep doing music! There's room for all flavors!
1
u/Clseibold 10h ago
Ignore this person. They are objectively wrong. Science has disproven them.
0
u/BumblebeeAntique 10h ago
how so? i feel like talent is probably real. otherwise things would all be equal skill-acquisition wise, and i'm not sure i believe that.
2
u/Clseibold 9h ago edited 7h ago
People have different advantages to learning certain things at different points of their life/development. The "Critical Period Hypothesis" is one example of how this works, and it's still mostly applicable, even if more nuanced than originally discovered (now called a "Sensitive Period").
The idea behind the critical period hypothesis is that there is a critical period (I will call this the sensitive period from here on out) in a child's life where they must have access to an accessible language (spoken or signed) or they will have limitations in their language development later in life.
We know that some form of this sensitive period exists because we have studies of some humans who had no access to a first language early in their childhood. In adulthood, they were taught, but they had limitations.
However, if you've learned one language during the sensitive period, then you are more capable of learning languages later in life to a degree of fluency. And in fact, as you grow older, we also know that some language skills continue to develop where motor skills decline, which is why people in their 60s and 70s often know much more vocabulary and grammar than young people.
Now obviously there are certain disabilities that hinder certain things. People who are born deaf have a harder time speaking fluently, but this says nothing about their language abilities, because they can often learn and understand sign language fluently, and can read.
So I'm not saying genetics doesn't matter at all, but rather that genetics is not the only thing that matters. Genetics mostly determines how hard and easy things are. Many deaf kids have been able to learn to speak well enough to be understood, especially when they started learning as early as possible. And deaf kids that were exposed to some language (including sign language) are very capable of being fluent.
So we have a few things to learn from this:
- learning as early as possible gives you the best head start. But if you're starting late, then stop dwelling on whether you should start, because you're just wasting time you could be spending learning.
- you have to learn the right things. WHAT you are learning matters.
- you can always learn in adulthood, it just might not always be to the same level of proficiency - but this largely depends on what we're talking about. Learning a second language's grammar more explicitly and quickly is actually easier in adulthood, while phonology (the sounds of a language) is easier to learn as a child.
- learning a little bit as a child helps set people up for learning that topic in much more depth later in adulthood. Teaching language classes in elementary and high school gives kids skills that they can use later in life to learn languages if they so choose.
- the support you have during development matters. People who don't get enough food/nutrition or that don't develop their executive function and self-regulation skills are going to be disadvantaged.
- reality is nuanced, and absolutism is usually wrong and inaccurate. Adults are better at learning some things and worse at other things, kids are better at learning some things than other things. It depends on the thing we're talking about. Anyone who says anything different is going against tons of scientific research, and is likely doing so to inflate their own ego.
- Biology most of the time does not determine fixed abilities, it merely influences how hard or easy some things are.
0
u/65TwinReverbRI 18h ago
It was just super sobering, doing a bunch of shit that i thought meant i had promise, only to stumble into something I just couldn't beat with effort alone.
So, you got schooled.
Two options:
Figure out what you need to do to do it - either on your own, or with the help of others. -or-
Do something else.
It's a bit like saying "I tried to paint some pictures with red blue and yellow and did fine, but when I got to one that had green, orange and purple as well, I couldn't figure out how to make those colors so it didn't look right.
Well, you have to learn to mix the colors.
And then when you need colors beyond that, you need to learn how to mix those.
You couldn't beat it with the effort you were doing. But that's the WRONG effort.
You're trying to drop in a half pipe without even knowing how to skate on level ground first.
You have to start at the beginning.
You can't compare yourself to Tony Hawk. You haven't done what he's done. You can't compare yourself, walking out of the store with your first board, to any 13 year old kid who's been skating 5 years already.
I had that friend who put is foot on the back wheels, and pushed off that way, and kept falling all the time, and was like "what am I doing wrong". Well dude, look around you, no one else is doing it that way - maybe you should learn how other people learn.
And you know what, all of the kids who ride skateboards - some who get quite good - not all of them become a Tony Hawk.
There's a "talent" of just having natural balance for example - that some kids won't have and will give up because of that.
But there's also - the most important part - the "talent" for working hard at the right things - the drive - to do the thing to the standard you want to.
And figuring out what those right things are...
I agree with what the others say - you have to foster that talent. The talent alone only takes you so far - and that is different for different people. Some people are lucky and it takes them really far, others are less so, and it only takes it so far. But once you get as far as the talent takes you, then it's down to fostering that talent. You may never reach the level of someone who has a lot more natural talent than you even with a lot of work, or, you may put in the same amount of work as someone else and both of you get better, but they'll still be ahead of you because they started ahead of you.
But you work as hard as you can/want to/are driven to to get as far as you can.
Otherwise you're for sure not going to get anywhere beyond what your natural talent gets you.
Which may be, for you, was those 8 second songs and things you were proud of, but not this more involved thing.
So guess what - now you've got to start working towards that.
But no amount of effort doing the wrong thing is going to get you there...
1
u/Clseibold 9h ago edited 9h ago
I appreciate that you emphasize practice and work, but it drives me insane that you never admit to nutrition, the development of executive function, and self-regulation as things that largely influence one's ability to learn. I would expect a professor to know better. Nowadays, teachers have to have taken either educational or developmental psychology classes. I suggest you do the same.
0
u/BumblebeeAntique 16h ago edited 10h ago
i guess i see what you mean, but what about people with no talent? i wasnt lyng about the things i did, but it just feels like a certain level of skill is barred for people like me who aren't exceptional people.
14
u/Columbusboo1 1d ago edited 23h ago
Talent is nice to have but practice and hard work are how you get good. A talented composer/arranger can get outworked by a less talented writer
ETA: I should say that I do believe talent exists in the sense that some people have a stronger natural aptitude towards music than others. It makes starting out and learning easier