4 ms·

And yet, any professional musician will claim that practice is an essential part of the craft, required for learning difficult sections and tightening up loose

And yet, any professional musician will claim that practice is an essential part of the craft, required for learning difficult sections and tightening up loose licks. I wonder why these two viewpoints come to such opposite conclusions.

haberman 9y ago
> And yet, any professional musician will claim that practice is an essential part of the craft, required for learning difficult sections and tightening up loose licks. It absolutely is. Practice is necessary but not sufficient for high-level musical performance. The study talks about musical ability in terms of rhythm, melody, and pitch discrimination -- mental skills around music -- and finds that these are not changed with practice. These two statements are not in conflict.
- limaoscarjuliet 9y ago
  And, perhaps, cause and effect are reversed: people who are gifted see increase of satisfaction (but necessarily skill) when practicing. Then they report that practice is crucial.
  - haberman 9y ago
    This is easy to falsify by having someone else evaluate whether a musician's performance improves with practice. This is very easy to double-blind: just record "before" and "after" performances and don't tell the evaluator which is which. I would be willing to bet that the effects of practice on a musical performance are very easily measurable.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  But if practice is necessary for high-level musical performance, then that implies it has a causal effect on it. This paradox seems to be resolved by noting that where the paper uses 'music ability' it means scoring well in certain traits (rhythm, melody, and pitch discrimination), not being able to perform well.
  - haberman 9y ago
    > This paradox seems to be resolved by noting that the paper uses 'music ability' it means scoring well in certain traits (rhythm, melody, and pitch discrimination), not being able to perform well. Exactly. I think the paper is trying to establish that there is some kind of inborn talent that is not affected by practice, even if other things (like performing ability) are.
shacharz 9y ago
The article talks about music ability defined by them to be rhythm, melody, and pitch discrimination. Not the memorization of a musical piece.
ComputerGuru 9y ago
They're not at all conflicting unless you choose to interpret them in that way. I think the premise here is very well understood, and it's whether or not any amount of practice can make up for what some would argue is an innate lack of musical talent. The benefits of practice thereafter are incontrovertible.
yasth 9y ago
They aren't opposite. You need the practice to learn the music, but it doesn't help (apparently) you determine pitch , or pick out rhythmical differences (which is what it actually tested). It doesn't necessarily mean you play, but it will probably affect your ability to self regulate and learn by ear.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

haberman 9y ago

> And yet, any professional musician will claim that practice is an essential part of the craft, required for learning difficult sections and tightening up loose licks. It absolutely is. Practice is necessary but not sufficient for high-level musical performance. The study talks about musical ability in terms of rhythm, melody, and pitch discrimination -- mental skills around music -- and finds that these are not changed with practice. These two statements are not in conflict.

limaoscarjuliet 9y ago
And, perhaps, cause and effect are reversed: people who are gifted see increase of satisfaction (but necessarily skill) when practicing. Then they report that practice is crucial.
- haberman 9y ago
  This is easy to falsify by having someone else evaluate whether a musician's performance improves with practice. This is very easy to double-blind: just record "before" and "after" performances and don't tell the evaluator which is which. I would be willing to bet that the effects of practice on a musical performance are very easily measurable.
mannykannot 9y ago
But if practice is necessary for high-level musical performance, then that implies it has a causal effect on it. This paradox seems to be resolved by noting that where the paper uses 'music ability' it means scoring well in certain traits (rhythm, melody, and pitch discrimination), not being able to perform well.
- haberman 9y ago
  > This paradox seems to be resolved by noting that the paper uses 'music ability' it means scoring well in certain traits (rhythm, melody, and pitch discrimination), not being able to perform well. Exactly. I think the paper is trying to establish that there is some kind of inborn talent that is not affected by practice, even if other things (like performing ability) are.

shacharz 9y ago

The article talks about music ability defined by them to be rhythm, melody, and pitch discrimination. Not the memorization of a musical piece.

ComputerGuru 9y ago

They're not at all conflicting unless you choose to interpret them in that way. I think the premise here is very well understood, and it's whether or not any amount of practice can make up for what some would argue is an innate lack of musical talent. The benefits of practice thereafter are incontrovertible.

yasth 9y ago

They aren't opposite. You need the practice to learn the music, but it doesn't help (apparently) you determine pitch , or pick out rhythmical differences (which is what it actually tested). It doesn't necessarily mean you play, but it will probably affect your ability to self regulate and learn by ear.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]