Is musical ability genetic?

[Flandersh]

I was just trying to make a joke. I left university, because all the intellectuality for thensake of intellectuality was disturbing to me. Not that nothing relevant comes out of it, but I think if one really understands a problem and believes that it is worth a discussion, then there should be nothing stopping them from making it understandable to the people who are no academics. While I find it fascinating that people are able to express themselves like that (and I can too, if I must - at least in german), I find it questionable to make the information only accessible to an elite group (and many times even this group has to reread certain sentences in order to understand). To be fair, texts by US authors tend to be much easier to understand, whereas german texts tend to be really difficult (stuff like Weber or Gadamer etc), and incomprehensible. I know a guy whose PHD thesis was rated excellent, because the professor didn't understand what he was saying. Something is wrong about this.

It is a question which somehow made the foundation for the Enlightenment. It has actually been a long tradition to write intentionally obscure, making the real message stand between the lines (in the same way as the totality of instruments in a song may be what carries the real message, and not the written down parts (the notations of the singular instruments) which played together make the totality). Personally do I find it intriguing; a little bit like the scavenges from childhood, but I understand and respect the idea that a text and a musical piece should be democratic.

Anyway this is a Forum for users of music software. I don't care for bibliography on psychology or any other academic subject really (unless it's about audio production), so even if Flandersh's bibliography is correct, I wouldn't dig that stuff up anyway, because it would probably mean I'd have to go to te uni's library (which I can't because I'm no student) or suscribe to one of tose really expensive scientific magazines that I'm really not interested in.

I have bought quite a bit from betterworldbooks where they often run sale on 5 used books for 30$ inlusive postage, but as I understand you I would recommend to use those 30$ on REs, on the sales run by jrrshop, audiodeluxe etc., on reasontalk etc instead.

It appears to me that this particular discussion about aspergers, does not help many people here.

I think you are very right about that

[zeebot]

This thread is already WAY OT, which maybe the OP is fine with.

A simple yes or no to my original question and a short sentence explaining why would have been sufficient

It was not my intention to enter this debate - wait, are you asking me to answer the question, or is your response directed at someone else?

It was aimed at the the entire thread. I wasn't expecting a serious debate, it was supposed to be a light hearted spin on musical ability but then again this is an internet forum...what was I thinking!
I'm good as long as it doesn't turn nasty.

[avasopht]

It appears to me that this particular discussion about aspergers, does not help many people here. But maybe I'm just projecting my ignorance...

Well, people displaying typical signs of Aspergers have historically demonstrated the highest levels of natural ability. These include Mozart, which is no surprise as it goes beyond the typical levels of learned skill to be able to transcribe every note from hearing an orchestra having played a 20 minute piece just once!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S1HK7LQY2I << Have a look at that video to see a demonstration of how people with High Functioning Autism are able to use their brain. Aspergers behaves like Autism without the additional learning disability. Having a number of relatives with Aspergers it's more than easy to see this first hand - their ability to learn and process information is exceptional!

And I only brought it up as Aspergers syndrome does appear to have a strong genetic influence, and given the relationship between Aspergers and high mental ability seen in many of the greatest minds in history, it was immediately relevant to the topic is it basically demonstrates a case for genetics influencing an ability in music

But it's one of those topics that can cause hot debate.

Personally, I'm yet to find someone of normal ability that I couldn't train to perform as well as someone who is gifted. All I need is a little of your time, so apart from these exceptional cases like that pianist who does what most pianists can only dream of, it's a level playing field in my opinion.

[Flandersh]

What Mozart did is nothing really big to achieve with the right educational methods and the will of the human being. Through listening and understanding speech, human beings are able to discern frequencies with very small differences and most kids in school are even able to write down the words at once on dictation.

So a musical environment which activate the will of the kid in the same way as a linguistic enviroment activate its will when it take the decision to learn to speak mother-tongue, together with a standard listening training to finetune the skill learned by will and in example a training in counterpoint composition technique (as Mozart was trained in), may create a new Mozart.

[EnochLight]

What Mozart did is nothing really big to achieve with the right educational methods and the will of the human being. .

Err.. sorry - but I will most definitely have to disagree with you there.  As a father of a young child who did not have the ability to compose their own work at the age of 5 and currently struggles with basic violin at the age of 7, I am willing to wager that what Mozart did was quite an achievement.  

Source:
Freak'n history, dude.

[PSoames]

What Mozart did is nothing really big to achieve with the right educational methods and the will of the human being. .

Err.. sorry - but I will

most definitely

have to disagree with you there.  As a father of a young child who

did not

have the ability to compose their own work at the age of 5 and currently struggles with basic violin at the age of 7, I am willing to wager that what Mozart did was

quite

an achievement.  

Source:
Freak'n history, dude.

With all the distractions available in this day and age, few children would have the same environmental conditions that nurtured his talent.

When you actually get down to it, It's little wonder that Velcro is now the preferred fastening method for children's shoes.

[Flandersh]

What Mozart did is nothing really big to achieve with the right educational methods and the will of the human being. .

Err.. sorry - but I will

most definitely

have to disagree with you there.  As a father of a young child who

did not

have the ability to compose their own work at the age of 5 and currently struggles with basic violin at the age of 7, I am willing to wager that what Mozart did was

quite

an achievement.  

Source:
Freak'n history, dude.

I respect that. And I also find it very normal for a kid to will the ability to mother-tongue more than anything else, since most people use the mother-tongue more than they communicate through music. And for the kid the will is not so much about communication style, but its wish to be part of the family on an equal line; to be able to communicate their meanings and have an influence (Bingham & Biesta, 2010).

Bibliography:
Bingham, C. & Biesta, G. (2010). Jacques Rancière: Education, Truth, Emancipation. UK: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

[avasopht]

http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2015/autismintelligence-100315

So anyway, a genetic link to intelligence has been found. Apparently there's a similar link with the Lupus related gene(s) inherited from Neanderthals.

[Flandersh]

http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2015/autismintelligence-100315

So anyway, a genetic link to intelligence has been found. Apparently there's a similar link with the Lupus related gene(s) inherited from Neanderthals.

It says as much as this article:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/200 ... m-and-rain

And the problem is that links, associations, correlations etc. does not lead to causal connections, it only says that two or more events may happens at once. To prove a causal connection all other possible factors that may have caused the results have to be ruled out; from environmental and psychological factors to errors in professional judgment. In other words can only a very great research design lead to an eventually proof of causal connection.

So when I read the first sentence "Researchers have found new evidence linking genetic factors associated with autism to better cognitive ability in people who do not have the condition", what I understand is "Researchers have found new evidence without causal connection to genetic factors with has no causal connection to autism to better a human concept (cognitive ability) in people who do not have the condition".

But no wrong seems to done by the researchers, since their study only suggests it and do not prove it.

So the conclusion is..... that since it was a correlation between some users negative approach to the release of Reason 8 and the closing of the forum, it is suggested that Reason is planned to be discontinued.

[forensickbeats]

Hasn`t finished the book yet but it is an interesting read regarding the concept of "neuroplasticity".

[Aggie]

I was intrigued by the leading question of this thread - then I read the content and it seems to have wandered around a lot of different subjects... that being the case, I thought I'd chime in!

I certainly think you have to have an interest in music to enable the possibilities. I had a brother who sang (sadly no longer with us), another who plays drums, a sister who plays guitar and I attempt to compose and produce. However, our interests in music have always been disparate - jazz and soul, heavy/thrash metal, electro, etc. What I do think binds us is the ability to deeply appreciate music in all genres - and not just on a superficial level.

I've responded to quite a few "what do you think of my new track..?" posts on this forum by listening - I mean really listening - to a track and eeking out parts that stand out or just don't quite sound right. To have a deep appreciation of music, you have to be able to allow yourself to become immersed in it - and that is an ability that few can appreciate, let alone nurture.

There are so many factors in determining "ability" - aside from whether it is genetic, that the question has (obviously!) become a debate. Possibly mis-using an old adage, I'd say you need to have music in your blood to really make a go of it. I'm not at all trained, I can't play any particular instrument, but I have a passion for music that borders on addiction - and that, for me, plays a very large part.

One other aspect, I think, is disposition. If, like the majority of a population, your day consists of "sleep, eat, work, repeat" then it is unlikely that you will find harmony enough to nurture any inate skills you may have in music. If, on the other hand, you find yourself hunched over a keyboard (or Reason!) at 3am on a Tuesday, struggling to find the last 4 bars of your latest track, then you've got something...

Thanks for the healthy debate!
aggie

[Gorgon]

It's genetic and shared amongst all human beings

Eh no. Some people actually hate music. Other people have absolutely no sense of rhythm. Music is certainly not for everyone, let alone creating it.

http://www.thelocal.es/20140307/these-s ... hate-music

[avasopht]

It's genetic and shared amongst all human beings

Eh no. Some people actually hate music. Other people have absolutely no sense of rhythm. Music is certainly not for everyone, let alone creating it.

http://www.thelocal.es/20140307/these-s ... hate-music

Hmm, .. but they're a small minority of like 1-5% of the population

[Gorgon]

It's genetic and shared amongst all human beings

Eh no. Some people actually hate music. Other people have absolutely no sense of rhythm. Music is certainly not for everyone, let alone creating it.

http://www.thelocal.es/20140307/these-s ... hate-music

Hmm, .. but they're a small minority of like 1-5% of the population

So it's not shared by all human beings. Period.

[avasopht]

Hmm, .. but they're a small minority of like 1-5% of the population

So it's not shared by all human beings. Period.

A little needlessly pendantic.

Worse when it's obvious what the meaning is, which is, like emotions (which 1-4% of the population do not have), musical ability is very much a general human ability that is enabled in humans but not in anywhere near the same capacity in most animals solely because the differences in our genes (which is why humans are much more intelligent than apes, though some apes do have some strong cognitive abilities). There are a few people incapable of maths and reading, but in general the potential for reading and writing is very much a human ability.

Come on. You know what I mean

To make it simpler:

96-99% of the homosapien population are capable of music (sounds composed from harmony, arrangement, rhythm and harmony). They have this potential because of their genes. This potential is realized through life experiences. Most other animals, even if presented with life experiences are incapable of demonstrating the musical ability the AVERAGE 5 year old homosapien (subjected to the average, as of 2016 American upbringing and exposure to music) is capable of.

#NeedlessPedantryRuinsDiscussion

[Gorgon]

Hmm, .. but they're a small minority of like 1-5% of the population

So it's not shared by all human beings. Period.

A little needlessly pendantic.

Not at all. And that's the people who actually physically can't stand music. Not even to mention people who have no sense of rhythm, or are completely tonedeaf, or simply find no joy in music. So it's not "something shared by all humans". Hell, there are even religions entirely against it.

[Creativemind]

Think it's possibly a bit of both but genetics may play a bigger part. I think some people for instance are more genetically gifted in being able to co-ordinate both hands whilst say playing a piano or on a guitar and singing for instance at the same time. I play the guitar and find it extremely difficult to do unique strums like "You Really Got Me" by the Kinks, "Another Brick in the Wall (Pt2) by Pink Floyd and "Long Train Running" by Doobie Brothers and sing at the same time. My strum always wants to follow my voice or vice versa. I can pull some songs off though, "Pinball Wizard" by The Who is one.

That's what got me into sequencing. So I could lay the strum down first then sing over the top. Detach them.

No-one in my family is particularly musical though but I am. I learnt everything from scratch just because I was very into it, interested and motivated at the time. I didn't put the guitar down (honestly, I was obsessed) for about 2 years (1998-2000) and then I just continued to play but without being as obsessed as much for the next 16 years lol!

[avasopht]

Err, just about every inherently human trait isn't shared among all humans.

Some humans are blind, death and dumb.

Main point is, the ability to play music comes from our intellectual ability, which results from the difference in brain size, arrangement and neurology - determined largely by genetics.

To deny the genetic aspect to the intelligence difference between other animals is uber erroneous as then it leaves only nurture as the element that separates ability between species.

[normen]

Just a sidenote: Scientifically people count as "musical" as soon as they can discern two notes from each other. So yeah, there is people who can't but they are a VERY small minority.

[guitfnky]

musical "ability" cannot be genetic. genes don't determine whether or not you can do something musical. anyone with vocal cords or the ability to move is able to perform music at some level, even if it means you're just banging pots and pans, singing terribly, or blowing through a harmonica. choosing not to do so because you don't enjoy it, or because you're not immediately good at it is a separate thing entirely. being tone deaf or having no sense of rhythm doesn't make you non-musical, it just means you're tone deaf or have no sense of rhythm. those are hurdles, not closed doors.

I guess the question is supposed to be about whether being good at music is genetic. maybe there's some small genetic component to it, but the bottom line is, anyone can improve at it with practice. how much they can improve is mostly just down to how much they want to.

[avasopht]

Yes, it's about the role of genes in being good at music.

Bearing in mind that genes determine whether your brain grows like a human or a bonobo, it would be irrational to dismiss the role of genes in providing the foundation of cognitive ability required to play music at an advanced human level.

I'm pretty sure no amount of training will see an Orangutan display a grade 1 level of music.

Recent findings have found a network of genes that work together and play a significant role in intelligence. This gives hints as to why successive generations after a prodigy see decreasing exceptional abilities - because it's how sections of the brain work in harmony.

I don't have much comment on cognitive abilities across the human race, but between species the genes account for a significant difference in cognitive abilities and brain growth. I think it's pretty hard to rationally deny the role genetics play in differentiating the abilities of species.

[jonheal]

Recent findings have found a network of genes that work together and play a significant role in intelligence. This gives hints as to why successive generations after a prodigy see decreasing exceptional abilities - because it's how sections of the brain work in harmony.

Plus, each successive generation, the "prodigy" side of the family genes is steadily diluted by the other side(s) of the family genes.

My dad is pretty good with music. It only took one generation of genetic dilution for me to more or less lose out on his capabilities. Not to slight my mom, but music was not her strong suit.

[guitfnky]

Yes, it's about the role of genes in being good at music.

Bearing in mind that genes determine whether your brain grows like a human or a bonobo, it would be irrational to dismiss the role of genes in providing the foundation of cognitive ability required to play music at an advanced human level.

I'm pretty sure no amount of training will see an Orangutan display a grade 1 level of music.

Recent findings have found a network of genes that work together and play a significant role in intelligence. This gives hints as to why successive generations after a prodigy see decreasing exceptional abilities - because it's how sections of the brain work in harmony.

I don't have much comment on cognitive abilities across the human race, but between species the genes account for a significant difference in cognitive abilities and brain growth. I think it's pretty hard to rationally deny the role genetics play in differentiating the abilities of species.

I don't think anyone's really denying genes play a role (I certainly am not); I just don't think genes are nearly as important in developing a talent for music as, well, actually developing one's talent for music. people who are mediocre from a genetic standpoint (I have little natural coordination, for instance) can become excellent musicians by applying themselves. practicing one's creativity and one's instrument will take them much farther than some innate genetic predisposition for someone who doesn't care to use it.

[avasopht]

Oh, I'm in complete agreement with you on the aspect of developing musical talent versus complacent talent

And the diluting of abilities - ditto with my dad, though I feel what I inherited from my mother created greater balance. My dad is a little too left-brain dominant.

[Zac]

I read an article recently that tasmanian devils have been suffering from a rare contagious cancer and somehow over a period of time this has 'slightly' been reduced due to some genetic mutation having been bred through latter years. A random genetic mutation, but favourable, so bred down the line.

I don't think musical ability affects survival, therefore it won't be bred for and is more likely to be a nurtured aspect if bred down the line at all.

IMO. I don't know