Once upon a time...

Below is a copy of another post recently made to a discussion on Daniel Levitin's Facebook page.  It's a re-statement of the content in this older post, but I like the clarity of this new restatement.

In brief, my argument is that (a) there's a difference between "musical talent" and "the ability to handle arbitrarily high UI loads," and that (b) reducing the UI load in a given domain in can increase the success-rates that novices enjoy in that domain.

----------------------------------

Darin wrote:

> If someone has innate talent, then as that person
> practices and progresses, he or she will recognize
> the progress, will be recognized by others for the
> progress, and as a result, will develop real passion
> for the pursuit. If somone does not have innate
> talent, such person will practice, not make much
> progress, will see the lack of progress, and be told
> about it by others, and the passion will not take
> hold, but will wither, and the person will move on
> to some other endeavor.

>
> People with real talent are few.

I respectfully disagree. "Talent" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Please let me explain by example.

1. Once upon a time, the Cherokee were illiterate. The English alphabet was a poor fit with the Cherokee language, so efforts to spread literacy among the Cherokee failed. Then one Cherokee invented a writing system that fit Cherokee perfectly, enabling literacy to sweep the Cherokee almost overnight. Did the Cherokee suddenly gain a "talent" for literacy?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_syllabary)

2. Once upon a time, the Koreans were illiterate. The Chinese ideographic script was a poor fit with the Korean language, so the efforts to spread literacy among the Koreans failed. Then the Koreans invented Hangul, which fit Korean perfectly; now, "a bright child can become literate in a day, and a dull child in ten." Did the Koreans suddenly gain a "talent" for literacy?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul)

3. Once upon a time, physicists couldn't puzzle out the interactions of quantum mechanics, nor could students learn about them efficiently. Then, Feynman invented "Feynman diagrams," and students could understand such interactions in less than a semester. Did physics students suddenly develop a "talent" for quantum mechanics?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram)

4. Once upon a time, European mathematicians could not conceive of "x to the power of y," because Roman numerals could not notate the concept, and the Roman abacus could not calculate it. Then Fibonacci explained how to use Arabic (actually Hindu) numerals and algorithms, and the scope of European mathematical thought widened dramatically. Did Europeans suddenly develop a "talent" for mathematics?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Abaci)

5. Once upon a time, the "value" of a church singer dependend as much on "how many songs he had memorized" as on how well he could sing them, because all songs had to be memorized by rote. Then Guido d'Arezzo invented staff notation and solfeggio, enabling novices to become valuable church singers much more rapidly. Did such novices suddenly gain a "talent" for singing?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_of_Arezzo)

6. Once upon a time, all mathematical calculations had to be executed longhand, making them expensive and error-prone. Then logarithms were invented, and many calculations could be accelerated by looking them up in tables of pre-calculated logarithms. Did this suddenly increase people's "talent" for calculation? Did the invention of the slide rule? Of the pocket calculator?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithms#History) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculator#Pocket_calculators)

7. Once upon a time, learning and practicing chemistry was extraordinarily difficult, with the properties of each element having to be learning individually, and its guiding principles (e.g., phlogiston) being fundamentally incorrect. Hence, few gained mastery over chemistry. Then Lavoisier discovered the combustion principle, Mendeleev invented the Periodic Table of the Elements, and Bohr deduced the planetary model of the atom, all of which reduced the investment of time necessary to master chemistry, thereby dramatically increasing the percentage of the human population that could afford to master chemistry. Did students suddenly gain a "talent" for chemistry?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_periodic_table)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston#History)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model)

YESTERDAY, learning and practicing music-making was extraordinarily difficult, with the patterns of each key, clef, scale, mode, tuning, instrument, timbre, etc., having to be learning individually, and its guiding principles (e.g., 12-tone equal temperament) being fundamentally incorrect. Hence, few gained mastery over music-making. Then [insert here a list of scientific discoveries and technological inventions that, arguably, have not yet been made], all of which reduced the investment of time necessary to master music-making, thereby dramatically increasing the percentage of the human population that could afford to master music-making. Did students suddenly gain a "talent" for music-making?

Of course not.

In all of the above examples, the problem was a lack of technology, not of "talent." The traditional technology of music-making—staff notation, instruments, and theory—is the problem. As with all of the above examples, fixing the technology will fix the problem.

Until we fix the technology of music-making, it hardly seems fair to blame the victims—music students—for their "lack of talent." (Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
(http://www.godrules.net/para/luk/parallelluk6-41.htm)

To argue otherwise is to argue that either

1. all of the above examples are wrong, or that
2. "music is different."

I would welcome the opportunity to dismember either argument. ;-)

Respectfully,

Jim Plamondon
Unaffiliated Musical Heretic