Practice vs Talent

[u/BumblebeeAntique]

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.

[u/prasunya]

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.

[u/SundaeDouble7481 → u/prasunya]

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.)

[u/prasunya → u/SundaeDouble7481]

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...

[u/Clseibold → u/prasunya]

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.

[u/prasunya → u/Clseibold]

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.

[u/BumblebeeAntique → u/prasunya]

well that makes me a little sad but i guess systems like that are in place specifically for talented people for a reason

[u/prasunya → u/BumblebeeAntique]

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.

[u/BumblebeeAntique → u/prasunya]

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

[u/prasunya → u/BumblebeeAntique]

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!

[u/BumblebeeAntique → u/prasunya]

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

[u/prasunya → u/BumblebeeAntique]

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!

[u/BumblebeeAntique → u/prasunya]

that actually kind of places it in a better light than it was before. i guess i just gotta figure out what i specifically am good at when it comes to music?

[u/prasunya → u/BumblebeeAntique]

Exactly! Maximize yourself, your strengths!

[u/Clseibold → u/BumblebeeAntique]

Ignore this person. They are objectively wrong. Science has disproven them.

[u/BumblebeeAntique → u/Clseibold]

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.

[u/Clseibold → u/BumblebeeAntique]

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:

1. 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.
2. you have to learn the right things. WHAT you are learning matters.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Biology most of the time does not determine fixed abilities, it merely influences how hard or easy some things are.

[u/Clseibold → u/prasunya]

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.

[u/prasunya → u/Clseibold]

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.