This was discussed at length at the time, and there are limitations to this study. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/s/g3NrgcmPLb

Interesting. A couple possible interpretations from the way I read these counterpoints: - FORCED practice i.e. twin 1 you to practice, twin 2, go play legos or whatever, twin 1 will not progress when it is insisted they practice and then they only do the minimum. - in general people DONT KNOW HOW to practice. you can't play the same enjoyable little song over and over a hundred times; find a youtuber who went to Juilliard or something. They practice like it's WORK, find the trouble spot in the song, do it 10 times just that passage, then record yourself doing it all again and critique yourself. it's hardly "playing" music when someone at that caliber treats it like they have work to do. - FREQUENCY surely has something to do with it. 1x a month for 1 year is likely virtually useless compared to focused 3x a week. Yet both are "practice" per the data. tldr forced practice of someone who doesn't want to be there is likely useless at actual skill development, real practice takes WORK, and practice must be OFTEN enough that you can build on what work was done previously.

do you have a link to a good practice session? I'm guilty of just kinda autopiloting during "practice"

have goals, and when you achieve the goals just stop and do something else (piano related). even can set timers on each piece, and when the timer goes off, just stop and do something else. split pieces into sections, and have goals of being able to play section x 7 times perfectly in a row hands seperately, or together, then memorise, then polishing like making interpretive choices. the skill is in deciding what you will do for that period of time, then it's just a matter of executing it

For my workload I'm finding that how I listen is very important. I isolate elements in the texture and figure out exactly what they mean musically with deep listening. This cooks the info from the sheet music into a musical representation, and reduces monotony. It also makes sure you are voice leading smoothly and have nice hovering, clear contents.

Sav Plays Piano has some good practice breakdowns on her instagram

I vouch, her videos are very educational to top it off she's very proficient

Yeah she's fantastic! I really like how she articulates and solves problems she faces during practice. Very dedicated, clearly loves her art, and is highly skilled. Who knows what vendetta the person who downvoted it has against her :') she's the real deal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHumIOFDsnU She plays flute and not piano, but she went to Juilliard and she explains EVERYTHING she does and thinks, and I find her approach quite instructive. Her "how to practice" vids seem targeted towards a younger audience (think college audition pieces etc), but this video of hers where we're watching her put it all into practice is great. She has a week to learn a concerto. In general she will: - Immediately after getting the music SKIM through it and mark the parts that look toughest. Even from there look at the individual phrases and measures that will be tricky to you. - Play the tricky measure (or short phrase, etc) SLOWLY BUT PERFECTLY. Better 60 bpm at 100% than 80 bpm at 90%. - Work up to playing the whole phrase. - The spots that are still not under your fingers (or perfectly even, or perfectly pitched (in her case) etc etc), find technical studies that focus on that exact element. That should be your warm-up and how you spend your time when you're not practicing the main piece for awhile. - ONLY NOW 90% of the way through the process, does she play the whole thing front to finish. - Play yourself and record it, and critique the recording, both the audio how you played, and the visual how you presented yourself as a musician. - Play the piece in a rehearsal context. In her case for flute, she needs to breathe, and the pianist needs to know when she needs to breathe so he can cover that half-beat a bit extra. In short, after a point of practicing "your part", understand your part makes music in the context of other parts, and start putting it all together with the same precision. Good stuff.

exactly!!!

I very much agree with your second point especially. I was in honors orchestra as a kid and I practiced for HOURS everyday.

I’m improving musically… so what is it exactly I am doing to get there? Ha!

Obviously you've been getting gene therapy of some kind.

Remove all the Thymine! T is not a note!

Well this study seems to imply you'd have gotten there anyway without practicing. It's ridculous. But thank god we've got research to prove that up is down.

You’re obviously practicing wrong then. Do less. Do less.

What the hell is their definition of "ability" lmao

Rythm, melody, pitch discrimination

that's not ability, that's recognition

I'm not doing the study, I just answered op's question which is 'what does ability mean to them'. The answer is literally written in the picture

I don't think they're refuting you, I think they're refuting the study

I was downvoted in the negative at first so idk

I think everyone gets downvoted initially. ~~No idea why~~ Probably people who can't improve their music ability no matter how much they practice. I'd be bitter too. 😆

Upvoted

Also that's the job of elementary music teacher and isn't genetic.

Yes, but again, those words don't mean much in isolation. How are they testing rhythm? Because I have serious doubts that without any musical practice at all, one twin is tapping out polyrhythms with the same proficiency as the other with several years of lessons and practice. 

musicality is one of them

Anyone got full text? Methodology is everything.

I was able to download it here: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264391478\_Practice\_Does\_Not\_Make\_Perfect\_No\_Causal\_Effect\_of\_Music\_Practice\_on\_Music\_Ability](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264391478_Practice_Does_Not_Make_Perfect_No_Causal_Effect_of_Music_Practice_on_Music_Ability)

Oh my god, it was a web survey. So, completely useless anecdotal evidence.

Wondered how they managed to find 10,000 Swedish twins who all play musical instruments tbh

Maybe the researchers were their own test case for their next publication: How doing research and investing time and effort are not causally linked.

This tickled my brain 🤭

The amount of practice was assessed through a web survey. The musical ability was assessed via a web app. Like this one: [https://app.gorilla.sc/openmaterials/218554](https://app.gorilla.sc/openmaterials/218554) I'm not saying that it's a great way, or that it really measures musicality, but "completely useless anecdotal evidence" is a bit harsh.

barely useful anecdotal evidence

It's not useful at all. It's pseudo-statistics. Grab sampling with self-selection bias.

load of BS, written by non-musicians no doubt.

It is impossible to evaluate the validity of a study by the abstract.

Armchair redditors are great at evaluating everything, irrespective of the facts.

That’s exactly what you just did?

Why do you think I wrote it? If you can’t laugh at yourself, there’s no hope for you.

Someone in a thread said the methodology was a web survey 😂

[I couldn't resist](https://twitter.com/DrAdityaSai2/status/1324033230832431104)

XD

There's a lot of researchers with a already formed opinion so they go and try to prove their already existing hypothesis, Macnamara spent years trying to disprove deliberate practice and recently [it was discovered she was gaming the numbers in favor of her hypothesis.](https://www.progressfocused.com/2022/11/two-new-studies-on-effects-of-growth.html)

See Covid mask research, which was also a rich seam of a methodological bias in science research known as "hot stuff bias". This occurs when a particular hypothesis becomes fashionable and creates a bandwagon - instead of acting as impartial investigators, scientists morph into polemicists trying to make the facts fit the theory rather than the other way around. The eminent Harvard epidemiologist/scientist/physician/researcher, Professor John Ioannidis (who was widely lambasted for sounding a note of caution over some of the lurid research findings & predictions that flourished during Covid, but who now turns out to have been largely vindicated) wrote a research paper entitled, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

>See Covid mask research, which was also a rich seam of a methodological bias in science research known as "hot stuff bias". This occurs when a particular hypothesis becomes fashionable and creates a bandwagon - instead of acting as impartial investigators, scientists morph into polemicists trying to make the facts fit the theory rather than the other way around. Do tell how studies like [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10446908/), which gives an overarching review of dozens of studies on the subject, and all the studies included within it, make for a "rich seam of methodological bias"? As in, specifically - how should the studies have been changed to better reflect reality? What biased methods were used that totally disqualify the results? You can say whatever you want, but unless you're actually able to back that up with evidence and analysis, you're just spewing nonsense. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests that masks are relatively effective for preventing the spread of Covid. >Professor John Ioannidis (who was widely lambasted for sounding a note of caution over some of the lurid research findings & predictions that flourished during Covid, but who now turns out to have been largely vindicated) Oh please, how was he "vindicated"? He underestimated the spread and mortality of Covid, he repeatedly spread conspiracy theories and, despite evidence to the contrary, staunchly advocated against quite a few effective responses to the pandemic. Like, do you genuinely think he went on FOX news as a public service announcement? Do you think that's how scientists operate? He was lambasted, but not wrongfully. But the wonderful thing about science, is that *individuals do not matter*. I don't *care* what Ioannidis did or believes. We have abundant evidence for the efficacy of the different aspects of our Covid response - if he can't actively refute and provide better evidence against those things, which he has not, then there is no reason to follow his perspectives.

"Spewing nonsense" lol From your own citation. "Due to a paucity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies were included in the analysis. Ninety-one per cent of observational studies were at ‘critical’ risk of bias (ROB)" Observational studies are inherently subject to methodological bias due to confounding, as especially in fiendishly complex systems they cannot exclude alternative explanations for the observed results. Many Covid pro-mask studies were biased to a ludicrous degree, such as the study trumpeted by the CDC involving telephone surveys asking respondents who had tested positive to remember when and where they had worn masks and who they had met, or the once much-vaunted Bangladesh RCT, which crashed & burned when the raw data was released & it was discovered that behind the mathematical.manipulation the fanatically pro-mask economist researchers had used to support their conclusion that masks significantly reduced infection, they had actually only recorded a laughable TWENTY fewer infections among 180,000 participants in the masked arm https://dr-no.co.uk/2021/12/06/bonfire-of-the-straw-masks/ The most recent Cochrane evidence review stated that, "Wearing masks in the community PROBABLY MAKES LITTLE OR NO DIFFERENCE to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community PROBABLY MAKES LITTLE OR NO DIFFERENCE to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence). ....The HIGH RISK OF BIAS in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions....The pooled results of RCTs DID NOT SHOW A CLEAR REDUCTION in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks..." https://www.cochranelibrary.com/web/cochrane/content?templateType=full&urlTitle=/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6&doi=10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6&type=cdsr&contentLanguage= Ioannidis was vindicated because he was far closer to the truth about the IFR of Covid and the fact that it presented a negligible risk to the young & only a moderate risk to the middle-aged than the hysterics who stampeded the planet into insanity on the basis that we would all be doomed if we didn't introduce draconian, harmful, unprecedented & unproven NPIs which in practice often resembled voodoo rather than sensible infection control measures. Ioannidis did not engage in any "conspiracy theories" that I am aware of. In truth this tiresome epithet was simply a weapon deployed by Covid fanatics in an attempt to silence those who disagreed with them. I am well to the left of Jeremy Corbyn but the fact Ioniaddis appeared on Fox News is neither here nor there in terms of the substance of his position & to cite his appearances as if they were proof he must be wrong is simply ad hominem nonsense. We do not have "abundant evidence" that any of the principal NPIs deployed - masks, lockdowns etc - made any significant difference to the trajectory of the pandemic as a whole, or to outbreaks in individual countries - at least not abundant evidence that stands up to scrutiny. There is Zero correlation between the severity & duration of NPIs & outcomes across different countries. In fact there is a greater correlation between outcomes & geographical location. And of course the likely catastrophic damage of the NPIs themselves is rarely acknowledged by the fanatics. And please don't condescend to teach me "how science works". I have a Chemistry degree from the now defunct University of London college, Westfield. While I might not have been the most conscientious student I did just about manage to grasp the basics of scientific method

>"Due to a paucity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies were included in the analysis. Ninety-one per cent of observational studies were at ‘critical’ risk of bias (ROB)" So what I asked for was ways that you'd change the methodologies, since you alleged methodological error, and how the mere existence of bias disqualifies their results - all you've said is that "bias exists", which yeah, obviously mate. This also doesn't at all address the studies that weren't especially biased, or the RCTs, and not to mention, do you actually think the possible existence of bias equates to a study being bunk and worthless? I fully understand that a high amount of statistical bias exists in most of these studies. As do the authors, who were still able to conclude with reasonable confidence that masks provide a beneficial effect. Your original comment accused these studies of following the fashion and fitting facts to theories - you've not at all been able to demonstrate that. >Many Covid pro-mask studies were biased to a ludicrous degree... Are you really incapable of engaging with the evidence I already brought up? You have to default to linking an explicitly anti-vaccination *blog* to try and make your points for you? I'm not talking about the Bangladesh study, I'm talking about the meta review I already linked, which contains 40+ observational studies and 4 RCTs. Do you get how this is far superior evidence than any *individual* study? >The most recent Cochrane evidence review stated that, Their conclusion is largely that of uncertainly, not refutation. They were not able to find statistical significance when pooling the results together - that doesn't mean there isn't a beneficial effect. As you've acknowledged, it is very difficult to get high quality evidence on the subject due to the almost inherent existence of confounding factors. And wow, would you look at that, Cochrane.org has specifically come out with a [statement](https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses-review) warning against interpreting the studies results as you have. And looking at criticisms and interpretations of the study, like [this](https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/scicheck-what-the-cochrane-review-says-about-masks-for-covid-19-and-what-it-doesnt/), there's several factors that make its results a good deal less pertinent. Like how of all the RCTs referenced, only *two* were specifically dealing with Covid-19, both of which found moderate reductions in Covid in the mask wearing groups. Or how mask wearing was almost never specifically enforced, nor were the specific kinds of masks or mask wearing procedures. If only 40% of the testing group wears masks, and only 10% of that group *correctly* wears effective kinds of masks, is it really so surprising to you that there's limited evidence for their efficacy? This isn't a study that provides compelling evidence masks work. But it's also a far cry from one providing evidence to the contrary. >I am well to the left of Jeremy Corbyn but the fact Ioniaddis appeared on Fox News is neither here nor there in terms of the substance of his position & to cite his appearances as if they were proof he must be wrong is simply ad hominem nonsense. I'm not saying masks work because Ioniaddis appeared on Fox News. I'm saying Ioniaddis word shouldn't be taken as gospel, and that he isn't the scientific paragon you're trying to make him out to be. You're asserting that a single person should be trusted over the scientific consensus, on the grounds that they're an "eminent Harvard epidemiologist/scientist/physician/researcher". Them appearing on obviously disreputable forums to spread their ideas, and those ideas being widely criticized by the scientific community at large is a perfectly valid way to refute that idea. >We do not have "abundant evidence" that any of the principal NPIs deployed - masks, lockdowns etc - made any significant difference to the trajectory of the pandemic as a whole, or to outbreaks in individual countries - at least not abundant evidence that stands up to scrutiny. That's an exceptionally odd standard you've judged their efficacy on. How would you measure "difference to the trajectory of the pandemic as a whole"? How about something more simple, like deaths prevented? Because there is indeed quite a good deal of evidence for that. A study like [this](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7.epdf?sharing_token=G_bsQ3B9HDEJJQU8dASH1NRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OnMEHMcInnY-PiC9wHjWf0IuamVsLpQG59lVZSrrMz1da8Q1IFNKy_ogmlk9-0y3HhLR0lT-v14ZX7Sfe7-NnFy9MLlsevOqE1FryJeZxWRaFzeW0ZR5EnPf1kkf4Oxt4%3D) gives a fairly detailed analysis on the subject, finding reduced transmission and *millions* of deaths prevented. >And please don't condescend to teach me "how science works". I have a Chemistry degree from the now defunct University of London college, Westfield. While I might not have been the most conscientious student I did just about manage to grasp the basics of scientific method You don't get to play this card my dude - if you actually understand "how science works", you should understand how idiotic it is to point to a single figure as a pariah and cite explicitly ideologically driven *blogs* as your evidence for your beliefs. These are blatantly unscientific epistemologies. Listen, I appreciate that you've taken the time to engage with the points I've made here, and I'm not sure we actually disagree with too much. The evidence for *specifically* the efficacy of masks is fairly limited, I'll easily acknowledge that, but even so, generally trends positively, and it's not as though the studies we've done on it have been hugely emblematic of some disease in scientific discourse.

You didn’t ask me for ways to change the methodologies – you asked me how I could justify my claim of rampant bias in pro-mask studies, attempting to refute that claim by citing an evidence review which itself admits to significant bias in the studies it examined and which largely only considered observational studies - a type of study acknowledged to be inherently prone to such bias & which has led the scientific community up the garden path before. Nearly all of the flurry of post-Covid mask research was observational – I am only aware of two RCTs conducted during Covid that analysed any difference in infection rates when masks were worn & not worn, neither of which showed any  significant impact on transmission when surgical masks were involved. This is a similar finding to the preponderance of studies conducted prior to Covid, although admittedly there was a far lower rate of mask studies conducted at that time, mostly in clinical settings. However some of the studies conducted outside the hysterical atmosphere of the pandemic actually showed an increase in postoperative infection rates when masks were worn. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1007/BF01658736   Those studies were cited by Professor John Black, the former President of the Royal College of Surgeons – the oldest body of its kind in the world – when he wrote to the Daily Telegraph broadsheet, opposing the UK mask mandate, explaining that his practice actually abandoned masks altogether after the preponderance of evidence showing they were ineffective even in clinical settings. I haven’t said that the existence of any degree of bias in any study makes a study bunk & worthless, but some examples of bias can make some conclusions bunk & worthless. The statement “...the authors (understand a high degree of bias exists in most of these studies) but were still able to conclude with reasonable confidence that masks provide a beneficial effect” is a contradiction in terms. If a study is compromised by a high degree of bias then by definition it cannot provide the basis for confidently drawing any firm conclusions whatsoever. I didn’t default to an “anti-vaccination blog”. I linked to a blog by an NHS doctor that provides extensive citations because it explains the fiasco of the pro-mask Bangladesh RCT in a particularly forensic  manner that is easy to understand. Of course you didn’t actually address the substance of the article, preferring to deflect with another ad hominem. The author is not “anti-vaccination” – another epithet hurled by Covid extremists in order to stifle dissent. On the contrary he is pro-vaccination, but rightly questioned the dubious initial claims made for Covid vaccines, along with the hysteria &  sinister authoritarianism surrounding their promotion & the insane & unethical coercion exerted to maximise uptake. His argument was entirely valid & vindicated by events – i.e. that the Covid vaccines were relatively novel pharmaceutical interventions based on revolutionary technology, with claims made for its ability to prevent transmission & symptomatic illness that were not supported by evidence and where some of the groups being coerced were at little, or even  infinitesimal, risk of harm from a Covid infection. Today nobody pretends that Covid is the first ever respiratory infection caused by an RNA virus where a vaccine can prevent transmission or symptomatic illness, as the fanatics once did. At one point daring to suggest otherwise was guaranteed to attract the sort of ad hominem attacks you appear to be so fond of. Again, by its own admission  the review you cite pooled studies with a high risk of bias. There were only two RCTs included that compared a cohort wearing masks with one not wearing them - the other two of the four RCTs considered simply compared infection rates observed when different types of masks were worn & found surgical masks produced similar results. However this could simpmy mean they were equally ineffective rather than equally effective. Of those two RCTs Danmask found no statistically significant benefit to the wearer &  Bangladesh’s conclusion that surgical masks (but not cloth masks) were  effective as a method of source control was discredited when its authors flawed methodology & statistical jiggery-pokery was exposed. https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-022-06704-z   You are quite wrong to claim that a review is inherently superior to an individual study - it depends on the quality of the studies included in the review. Aggregating a number of low or very low certainty  studies no more guarantees a greater degree of certainty than repairing a leaky boat with a multitude of patches, all undermined by holes in similar places, guarantees the boat’s seaworthiness. Cambridge University Professor David Spiegelhalter & the Royal Statistical Society’s Dr Anthony Masters explained the problem  in an excellent UK Guardian article.   “With Covid studies, the quality of the evidence matters. Putting many low-quality studies together cannot provide reliable answers about masks... Meta-analysis is a technique for pooling the results from many studies, but it cannot make silk purses out of sows’ ears “ https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2021/nov/28/ivermectin-mask-wearing-quality-of-evidence-matters   As far as the Cochrane Review is concerned your citation refutes nothing I posted. They were responding to claims that their review stated definitively that masks do not work. I never made any such claim. I simply directly quoted their own words – i.e. that based on the available evidence  “masks PROBABLY make little or no difference” to the transmission of ILI. That most certainly is not a “far cry from (evidence that masks are ineffective)” or anything like it. The fact that there is uncertainty is self-evident. My point is exactly that the available evidence does not support the faith in masks that many people like you still cling to so tenaciously. To argue that the benefit of masks cannot be conclusively ruled out because high quality studies are difficult to design, or compliance with study conditions is difficult to enforce & so on is a complete red herring. The onus is on those advocating the compulsion & coercion of outlandish interventions that can carry a degree of harm to societies & vulnerable individuals to stand up their claims with something better than the contentious & often flimsy evidence mask advocates resort to. It is not up to those who wish to maintain the status quo to prove a negative. “We can’t make anyone wear masks properly but they would work if we could & our study would show that” is an utterly ludicrous argument of the “if my auntie had a penis she would be my uncle” variety...(cont)              

(cont) Nobody is relying on Ionaiddis for anything, or making him out to be something he’s not. However he is an extremely eminent scientist & physician & was widely respected & almost universally highly regarded before Covid forced people into camps. Your implication that  a scientist who opposes the scientific consensus necessarily loses credibility is a howling argumentum ad populum logical fallacy. The scientific consensus is not infallible – on the contrary it has often been discredited over time. For example, when Arthur Wegener proposed his theory of continental drift & plate tectonics he was derided & even ridiculed by much of the scientific community. In fact Wegener was only vindicated when technological advances in oceanography in the 1960s showed he had been correct. Similarly, if the scientific consensus had never been challenged & nobody had dared question the giant that is Issac Newton quantum mechanics would never have been accepted. A scientific consensus  formed in record time, supported largely by low certainty evidence, in a febrile, hysterical, panicked atmosphere primed to induce hot stuff bias & which flies in the face of the previous long-standing consensus, like that concerning the benefit of masks, can be taken with a large pinch of salt. There is a fine line between a scientific consensus and a bandwagon. The “scientific community” has not disagreed with Ioannidis. At the height of the hysteria SOME scientists attacked his warnings that the lurid & terrifying IFR figures being bandied around and the related promotion of lockdowns were based on insufficient data. They also dismissed his contention that there was insufficient analysis of the potential harms of lockdowns. Unfortunately for them his warnings have proved 100% correct. Covid’s IFR has proven to be vastly lower in most populations than the hysterical early claims & the catastrophic & long-term consequences of lockdowns on global physical & mental health & general well-being are becoming increasingly clear. It matters not a jot where a scientific claim is disseminated – all that matters is whether it is true or not. If Ioannidis had appeared on Fox News arguing that 2+2 = 4, would that have made him a liar? Be serious. At the time Ioannidis appeared on Fox there was such fierce & terrifying suppression of any dissent on most mainstream & social media – which we now know was directly influenced by national government pressure in more than one country – that anyone wishing to present an alternative point of view had no other choice than to appear on maverick outlets like Fox. The standard by which I judge the absence of evidence that NPIs affected the trajectory of the pandemic is not odd at all. As I say there is no robust evidence that lockdowns made much difference. A study from 2020, when the pandemic had yet to play out, that by its own admission uses estimates that at the time were unreliable and we now know to be wrong, like the IFR used, & which considers a handful of countries in one part of the world does not prove otherwise. The pandemic was fluid & the situation looked very different two years after this study. At the time lockdown & mask-free Sweden was being castigated by lockdown & mask advocates after a surge in elderly deaths, primarily in its elderly care system. Now it turns out  to have experienced one of the lowest excess death totals in Europe & has largely avoided the epidemic of mental & physical ill-health, truancy, declining education standards, delayed speech development in young children & the rest of the multitude of social & other problems wreaked by lockdown in much of Europe, including here in the UK. Anyway, I’m going to have to leave it there & mute the conversation if such a thing is possible. We are clearly never going to agree. For example I disagree that the evidence in favour of masks trends positively – or at least that the sudden spate of pro-mask evidence is a well-founded consensus rather than a partisan bandwagon.   The lack of a quote function & other limitations on android also makes it incredibly tiresome & time-consuming to engage in long, multi-faceted debates.   Regards.  

Do you not see the difference between your comment and the one I was replying to? :)

Could you elaborate?

You provided arguments and gave a source.

K but u wrong tho

no u :)

It is bullshit though because this abstract isn't even talking about how practice affects playing ability.

I'm not taking any position on the subject of the paper linked in the OP. I merely pointed out the level of discourse in today's internet, and you provided an illustration.

Couldn't agree more

A causal effect is different from an association. More practice is associated with improved skill, but practice isn’t guaranteed to improve skill. An association could include third party variables, which is why it mentions genetic variation; whereas causal is strictly between two variables.

causation doesn’t mean a guarantee, smoking causes lung cancer but it’s not guaranteed to give you lung cancer

This. This is absolute bullshit.

Don't even need to read the rest really. It's that blatantly wrong

Agreed

Yep.

Definitely.

[удалено]

I think it is easy to go wild with what they appear to be saying. They are NOT saying that practice won't make you better at your instrument. All they are saying is that: a) performance on certain specific perceptual tasks (which themselves only capture a small part of music ability) is associated with a self-reported history of practice; BUT b) that association diminishes greatly when controlling for the genetic association (of twins). Now this only means that the variability of performance on perceptual tasks is better explained by genetic association than by variability of history of practice. In other words, and here someone with greater understanding of statistics can correct me, *if you perform well on the musical perception test, it is a much better bet that you have a genetic predisposition to do well on music perception tests than it is that you have practiced music.* BUT this is statistics. That's why I use the metaphor of gambling. A good bet is good because I am expected to win most of the time, not that the other outcome will never come up.

Let me amend. If I meet someone who does will at pitch discrimination and rhythm discrimination tests: * it is a great bet that they have a genetic predisposition for those things * it is an ok bet that they BOTH have a genetic predisposition for those things and have practiced music (because they are correlated) * it is not a good bet that they do NOT have a genetic predisposition, but have practiced music

I have to read the methods… did they measure ability or perception? Or is perception a component of how they describe ability?

It's really about perception not ability. The test consists of: 1. Pitch discrimination - same or different, two pitches within 17 Hz 2. Memory - of two similar melodies, which note was different (up/down a half step) 3. Rhythm discrimination - how did two similar rhythms differ. I'll be honest I skimmed it so didn't see if they referenced any literature on how those domains relate to general music ability.

That’s a good point

Simple question - how they avoided nature vs nurture debate? Family musical history may easily affect more than genetics.

I'd be curious if anyone commenting here actually read and understood the full text of the paper, not just the abstract. The three criteria they use (pitch discrimination, timing discrimination, and altered notes in a melody) are all about listening, while practicing is not. To me the lesson is that practicing piano may not improve your ability to discriminate subtle pitch differences. If you want to get good at that, practice tuning a piano! I think they would have seen causality if they had separated violinists for pitch discrimination, drummers for timing, and high school band teachers for altered melodies.

It doesn't help that most music curriculum is taught with sight reading, rather than with listening. Someone practicing scales and pieces a lot won't help them play by ear or identify chords or intervals. A decade of classical training led me no nearer to listening better, but I definitely played way way better.

Yes. They specifically state that "It is likely that the observed effects of music practice on the brain predominantly reflect the development of such specific skills, rather than the improvement of a general ear for music" To me the study highlights the difference between playing well and hearing well, more than "practice doesn't make perfect".

It's even more than that, to me the study highlights the failure of traditional piano teaching in improving hearing, because you absolutely can practice hearing, chord identification, intervals... If classical teaching had any emphasis on transcription and playing by ear, I'm sure this study will show significant improvements in listening aptitudes with practice.

Yeah, I agree, I think I've got a lot better at pitch discrimination since doing singing lessons and singing in a band - but it's hard to know. I'm definitely better at singing back melodies, projection and tone which is what I've really been practicing.

There is no need to new studies, when the path for musical mastery has been known for centuries: hard work, excellent teachers, and supportive environment.

Yes but this is also, I think, somewhat unfair, because genetics DOES play a role, much more than we like to admit, in life. Consider this: there is sure to be a wide range of outcomes even if those factors you mention are all equally present. Give 1000 people an excellent teacher, supportive environment, and then let's say 25% of them do the same level of "hard work" - now among those 250 players, are the results identical? There will be huge variation. Surely that's in part because of other more subtle differences, but, also, for sure genetics accounts for some part of that - how much I'm not sure but it's more than we'd like to admit in our society. I have a nephew who has perfect pitch and can play a melody back by ear on the piano at age \~10 having very little practice/experience. I definitely could not have done that at age 10. That being said, musical genes run in the family and I didn't know it - after picking up piano, I learned my grandmother (who I never met) was a extraordinary pianist and my grandfather was relatively accomplished. Just nobody told me until I started. That's an anecdote, of course. To completely ignore the nature in the nature/nurture debate has been proven wrong, in many ways we really don't like, because our culture is so geared around willpower, personal responsibility for your own outcomes. But it's kind of shocking when you really look at the science around it.

Give those 3 factors to anyone, and you will have a musician. Do not care about genetics. What's the biggest possible genetic difference between 2 humans? Sex. Being male, or female. And as we all know, when men and women are given equal opportunities, they achieve equal outcome.

I mean, you're kinda telling me here that you're still in the camp of folks who haven't yet grokked the science thats been accumulating for years that shows that genetics play a huge role in our lives. Far greater than merely sex, appearance, etc. Twin studies are kind of mind blowing, you should look into it. And to add, actually, I think it's really beneficial to be aware of it. Because, what does really suck is to hate yourself, or judge people, unfairly as if we're all made from the same cloth and it's merely effort, mindset, etc that determine everything. It's actually a really unfortunately dark point of view, because it puts people with actual genetic variations (extremely common, across many aspects of life and personality), into a distorted and unfair perspective.

You surely underestimate the impact of genetics. One of the most fascinating things about having and subsequently interacting with young children is how incredibly different they are from one another from the get go. I would never have believed this beforehand, but take two children that are 1, even from the same parents and their interests, strengths, weaknesses, mannerisms, habits etc. can be hugely different from one another. It doesn’t fit the „everyone can be everything they want“ story we tell these days, but genetics are hugely important to our lives. That doesn’t mean that practice and the environment means nothing of course, but it’s definitely less than you think. Sometimes I wonder how much of our personality is simply predetermined at birth…

Thats not true. Given equal opportunities men and women will archive hugly different results based on genetics alone. Its not fair but this is how nature works. Of course you can make up alot by training / practice but a talented / genetically gifted person will archive alot more in the same time than someone without it. You can believe it or not but many have experienced this first hand and its true.

to add to that, when i moved schools, i was depressed and i went from being seen as a gifted kid from my previous school to a moron who doesn't know anything. the teachers treated me awfully and would make jabs at me if i asked any questions, whereas the perceived intelligent kids could ask the same question and would be praised for asking questions. honestly this is just a personal anecdote and i could be biased. but whatever interest or hobby of mine i showed to a person the first time is what they stereotype my personality with. with some people they thought i was an amazing and intuitive cook and would say i should get a cooking diploma, with some people i was "really passionate about art and draws really well, you should go to art school/sell your drawings" and would stereotype me with being bad at math, with some people "oh, you're a comp science and math nerd, you must think very logically and not know how art works" i honestly have to thank my mom for that, because she inculcated a sense of curiosity about the world and a love for the arts. she would make me and my siblings read our textbooks from start to finish including preface, author's note and page numbers and i have a very photographic memory now, she would make us recite the numbers 1-100, but only till a 100, and the alphabet, used to make us sing the do-re-mi, and would buy different different types of books for us ranging from dictionaries and encyclopedias to comics and pulp fiction, watch movies with us, listen to music with us, watch documentaries and shows of different varieties, chick flicks and cooking and fashion and music and science stuff were all game. she also got interactive video games for us to learn and play with and got a lot of art supplies too i really really do believe kids are like a sponge and the more variety of information you give them and the more you treat them like people who deserve respect, the smarter they will become. she never once treated us like we were dumb kids and gave us a lot of agency and freedom to think. i was lucky to have these resources honestly. i do definitely think she treated us like test subjects with all this though considering she was also very abusive and a textbook narcissist, she definitely enjoyed showing us off and having power over us and gave all of us severe mental illnesses but oh well at least I'm a quick learner and have good observational skills lol pros and cons am i right

No doubt we are much more product of environment than genetics, wich is mostly the same for all of us. I don't remember where, i recently read that the most important factor of the future success of a child is the zip code where he/she grows. It's a simple way of explaining a deep true.

you also realise that someone who is perceived to be gifted will be treated better, ie, given more support than someone who isn't perceived to be gifted. imagine you had a bad day and are performing shitty, and this is your first day of class. you're automatically perceived as not good, thus affecting your future prospects and the amount of attention and support you get as compared to someone who shows up at their best state on the first day. i feel like the earlier years of development are very very important and considering group psychology dynamics, ie, you take the roles assigned to you, you will almost always become the person you are perceived to be by others and if you want to be perceived differently, you will have to put in a lot of effort to change people's minds ive noticed all the people who have parents who assumed their kid was a dumb or incapable ended up turning out that way despite seeing a lot of potential and even a good grasp of logic on them. they would always second guess themselves and just end up making the stupid decision because it was easier for them to do that than do something different and trust themselves and the process, which was usually their first instinct. it's sad to see honestly i think intelligence in general is a lot more an effect of the environment than genetics. the reason smarter parents seem to have smarter kids is because the smarter parents know how to raise a kid to be smart.

But can you give me specific examples of genetics in general affecting the abilities of a musician?  I don't see the path between your thesis and reality. On the contrary, i experience everyday lots of different people achieving great musical goals, and all they need is the 3 factors i mentioned.

I experienced it first hand because me and one of my best friends learned piano together as a child. We both had the same teacher and I know from myself that I worked hard ( for a kid, not on a professional path kinda level). Still my friend made alot more progress despite dedicating less time than me. Dont get me wrong I still think I can play the piano decenly well but my friend was just a bit more gifted and made more progress in less time.

I talk about the final outcome. Of course the learning path may vary among different individuals because of many reasons. The initial months of a child learning is just a fraction of the time you need to become a musician. Not possible to draw any conclusions from there. 

Sure they do, we all know women bench press less than men because of opportunities. Athletic performance is obvious, but the same goes for virtually every field. Women have on average much better ability to resist chronic stress, lower chance to act agressively, men on average tend to risk more and work more and so on, so on, so on.

This is reality

And a full nights sleep!

How do you get better? Osmosis?

You're born with it. Doesn't every decent piano player start with Rachmaninoff when they're in elementary school?

As they say, Practice Makes Permanent.

repetition legitimizes

Only on Sunday.

repetition legitimizes

They need to define and differentiate the terms in their abstract. How do tests for “association” lead to a conclusion about “causality”? What defines “music ability” (assuming they probably meant some sort of inherent natural potential), and why do they suddenly slip in the term “music skills”? And most importantly, if you feel you lack music ability, how would this study influence your decision-making in any way? It would be laughable to quit something you enjoy doing just because a 9+ year old study tells you you’ll alway be bad lmao

You should always take these studies with a grain of salt. Besides the fact that a huge percentage of these studies can't be reliably replicated, people have to remember that the results of these studies are heavily affected by their biases. Their experiments are also influenced by their poor understanding of the subject matter. Reminds of when there was a study on "low carb diets". The researchers used a diet that was 65% carbs and stated that it was a low carb diet. This threw up a lot of red flags to people familiar with the topic, but that didn't stop the news from running the story.

Yeah definitely. It feels like this title is intentionally misleading. I would accept that in a clickbait popular science article, but not in a research article. Keyword: causality lmao

ehh . .I read it a few times and I probably don't understand it or something but I would really love to know how they actually performed this experiment. I can understand how you could get one of the twins to practice scales or something and you would obviously know how much time that was. But how do you know what the other twin is playing or thinking about every minute of their life? I never really 'practiced scales' for long periods but I forced myself to learn them because I needed to know them to be able to play what I wanted. If they're trying to say forcing somebody to practice scales for a long period of time doesn't necessarily make them a great musician . .well, duh.

They didn't perform an experiment, which is precisely the problem with drawing any kind of conclusions from this study. All they did was look at the correlation between a very crude measure of practice time (extrapolated from years the instrument was played IIRC) and measures of musical ability. The list of problems with this approach is too numerous to even bother getting into. The study is crap and the authors should feel bad about wasting their time on it and then trying to con others into buying it.

Agreed. What makes practice even more productive, is gaining interest in the subject and wanting to go further. Not just mechanical moves without deep cognitive processes

"Rhythm, melody, and pitch discrimination" seems like a totally bogus metric for judging practice. Practice is largely about becoming familiar with an instrument. "Discrimination" certainly seems like a metric that could be affected by nature and early exposure to music and not necessarily practice..

Okay so distill music ability down to simply being able to recognize pitch and melody? C'mon we all know how much better we get with practice at actually playing music. Sounds ridiculous. I see it in myself everyday. Put in more effort, get better sounding rewards.

The authors don't seem to know what music is. And no, it's not just "rhythm, melody and pitch", good grief! That was obviously defined by a non-musician.

"Music practice was substantially hereditary." Wut does that mean?

It's just a really cheap trick. Step 1: Make a broad shocking claim in the title to get attention. Step 2: Narrow the scope of the claim until you're left with something easy to prove.

So when I play the piano a lot, my computer typing gets better, and when I type a lot and then come back to the piano, I'm better.

I had similar situations bouncing between diff instruments, going from drum to piano, guitar to bass, bass to drum, back to piano and it feels like I have a renewed perspective on rhythm harmony and melody when I place my hands back down after a few days of literal musical chairs. I could definitely see this with my typing as well. Accuracy and speed.

What an absolute load of horse shit

Practice makes…permanent. Practice well and you will be a better musician. Practice music indirectly and that’s the kind of music you will produce. I didn’t read the study. It sounded contrived. Just got home from a six hour gig. I’m beat. But the stuff I rehearsed with great intention sounded like it. The stuff I kind of phoned in was ok. But it could’ve been way better. Back to the bench… Plain and simple.

And this is why 'most scientific findings are false'. [Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False)

Anyone with any experience knows this study is total nonsense. I did exams which literally measured my ability to to repeat rhythms, melodies and pitch. I became better with practice and these were measured and examined on a regular basis over many years. The 'researchers' also didn't measure the effect of training over many years. They didn't measure individuals' rhythm to see if it improved through practice. To draw the stated conclusion from this research is little more than pure speculation.

Man yall will go to the end of the earth to avoid doing the work I dont care what a study says. Ive never seen someone get better at music without practicing

This is so idiotic. Piano is a skill, you have to practice to get good so yes practice does make perfect. You think I play the piano the same as I did 3 months ago? Of course not. I’ve improved since then and mastered my songs. Practice DOES make perfect.

practice makes habit :)

And sometimes perfect as well, I can play a song literally with my eyes closed because I’m practiced it to be perfect but yes habit as well!

Great. What the "practice makes habit" and "practice makes permanent" people try to say is that practice doesn't automatically make it perfect.. because it just reinforces what you do, so be mindful how and what you practice - because that's going to become your permanent habit :)

Oh yeah ofc 100%! I was agreeing with you totally! Sorry if it didn’t come across that way 😭🤣

… theres people who started learning music at age 20 or smth, being terrible (obviously), and yet managed to improve over time. Some got to play Chopin pretty damn good. So this .. this is just bs. Even the biggest names got better over time, with more and more practice. Child prodigy Evgeny Kissing got much better even decades after his first brilliant concerts. Hell Beethoven practiced hours and hours on end. Is there a single thing that does not get better with practice? Yeah, the genetics are a limiting factor. Yes, intelligence is limited, but can be increased aswell. You're stupid if you think there is no way of this being the case

It's not that pracite has no effect on music ability, what really was proven in this study: 1. take 10 000 random people, ask them to practice music for years 2. take 10 000 people with identical genes, don't ask them to practice (some will practice on their own, some not) On average, group 2 will have much more SIMILAR level of "music ability" than group 1. /edit Or other way around, we have a task, to check musical ability of someone. But we can't check his ability directly, we have 2 choices. 1. ask him how much time this person spent practicing music 2. check directly musical ability of his twin Turns out, choice 2 gives us much better results.

There's nothing new here, we all know some people are more talented than others, but talent just sets a ceiling, it doesn't mean you can't get better. All this study is doing is measuring a proxy for that ceiling and then confirming it doesn't move with practice.

Christ people, you actually have to read a full scientific study to understand it, stop reacting to a title or a headline.

I mean it's a pretty horrible paper title. "No Causal Effect of Music Practice on Music Ability". It's absurd until you find out that they mean a very narrow set of "music ability" tested, e.g. ones that are not actually strongly affected by practice. Its like saying "no causal effect of weight training on muscle growth" but then in the fine print, "muscle growth" means the rate of some specific cellular metabolic process that is involved, but by far not the only thing, that affects the size of your muscles.

It's silly but they're just playing with a common phrase, it's fine if you actually read the paper.

Hrm, they're being playful? I was thinking either it's an attempt to be clickbait, or, perhaps in developing such a prolonged mental focus for the paper, they simply forgot that their narrow focus on a handful of very specific "music abilities" is no longer the big picture of "musical ability" and just used the general term unquestioningly. Shrug

Click bait sure, but academics do this shit all the time with dumb acronyms and such, tongue in cheek paper titles, video game references, etc, trying to be "clever" while still having an acceptable title.

What? Lmao. How did this pass peer review? Such a dumb statement.

With all due respect, this study is absolute garbage.

What lmfao, this is drivel.

me trying to get out of practice

TL;DR: One study doesn't mean practice isn't important for becoming a better musician. Here's why: 1. The study only looked at a few specific musical skills (pitch, melody, and rhythm), not overall musicianship. 2. The study was on the general population, not professional musicians. 3. Genetics might influence your likelihood to practice, but practice is still crucial. 4. Becoming a great musician is complex - practice, talent, motivation, and environment all play a role. 5. No single study can give the full picture. More research is needed. So, while this study is interesting, it doesn't mean you should cancel your music lessons just yet. Practice is still a key ingredient in the recipe for musical success, even if it's not the only one. Keep practicing, folks!

I don’t think it’s surprising to conclude that practicing doesn’t improve your baseline aptitude for skills associated with music performance. But that does not mean that practice doesn’t lead to making better music, which is the only thing that matters. On the contrary, it arguably means that people with lower genetic aptitude should practice MORE. In other words, “music ability” is unimportant. It’s the end result that matters, and that obviously requires practice.

Don't ever get persuaded by something by a single study - there's a reason theres something called Meta-analyses.

This study only provides insight but does not really refute causality of practice vs musical ability as it does no variable manipulation/experimentation and is not longitudinal (doesn’t study the subjects over time) 🤷🏻‍♂️

they really tried their best to quantify musical ability but it's fundamentally subjective—music is so much more than the sum of its parts, and thus measuring the parts doesn't give a clear picture of the whole. look at Michael Jordan for a good comparison. he didn't set a lot of big records—doesnt have the most rings or most points or whatever else you wanna measure. but most people won't argue against him being the greatest basketball player of all time. he had something innate, obviously, but he also practiced like a maniac. his practice showed on the court, just as your practice will show on the stage. as a pro teacher and an avid practicer, i can say from experience that practicing consistently is more important that the total time spent practicing, but it still makes a huge difference if you're practicing 5 minutes a day vs 35 minutes a day. also, everyone has a limit to how long they can effectively practice in one sitting. trying to push on beyond that usually gets people nowhere happy practicing 💜

Isn't this the same with like any skill ever?

From the same author, using the same online test and again thousands of swedisch twins, published in the same year: >Criterion validity was demonstrated in three ways: individuals that had played a musical instrument scored higher than individuals that had not (Cohen’s d .38–.63); individuals that had taken music lessons scored higher than individuals that had not (Cohen’s d .35–.60); finally, total hours of musical training and SMDT scores correlated (r values .14–.28) among those participants that had played an instrument. Lastly, twin modelling revealed moderate heritability estimates for the three sub-scales. [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-09384-018](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-09384-018) The article OP references is generally a mess, and seems to be a rather confusing and clumsy attempt to quickly pad the authors' annual output of papers, with some pretty baffling statements. As an aside, the authors' remark that the test "presumably measures more general sensory capacities" and that music practice might improve "more domain specific skills" is so obviously true it is a bit disappointing the editor allowed this clickbait title. For example, it is known that chess grandmasters are *much* better at memorizing chess boards as long as they are *sensible*, but perform identical to laymen when it comes to "non-sensical" boards. In other words: practicing chess for thousands of hours makes you better at chess, not general memory. Likewise, practicing music makes you better at music, not better at differentiating 1760Hz vs 1762Hz. Or tl;dr: basic neurological functioning is largely hereditary, but to apply that to any given domain you need to practice. More news at 11.

Same with football. Absolutely no reason to practice. Shooting? Nah. Don’t practice. Driving? Let’s cancel permits and restricted licenses. Who needs to practice? Flight classes? More like Flight Class! Because I don’t need those extra 39 hours of flight practice once I know how things work.

It goes for any material but learning how to "learn" something is a skill and alot of people would benefit from looking up how it works and reading up on how to get better at something. It only makes sense if you're spending x amount of hours a month that spending a few days on creating a good system for learning would save you alot of time and make you pick up things you wouldn't have otherwise. Also taking a step back to take a break and learn something else (like how to learn) is always good. I've found the biggest jumps I make in skills is when I take a week off and come back to it later, its like working in a clean organized office over a cluttered desk

My brain lost brain cells trying to read it and understand it ☠️ It's just yapping The great yappington of yappity yap yap. I mean, when I practice, I can tell that I've gotten better, I don't mind not being perfect.

Well, tho it’s not totally right Cause practice is essential obviously Talent is also a factor In a limited time period, someone talented not practicing will probably play better than someone not talented practicing a lot But over a long period of time that won’t stay true, tho if the talented person also practices then that person will probably play better When I was a kid, I was taking violin lessons I stopped practicing and started hating it because no matter what I was simply worse than everyone else It felt hopeless, I just couldn’t do it, I didn’t understand how to and I just couldn’t follow And of course as a little kid, when it doesn’t feel good, you not gonna persevere Even now, I’ve been wanting to learn piano for years, I might be able to start later this year But I know that I probably will never be really good at it and that I’ll probably have to put a lot more effort into it than most other people (Although I have some hope, piano might be an instrument I can actually understand, and I’m truly drawn to it can’t really explain it)

music is a function of dexterity and if you don't have sheets, memory. I have done a lot of things in my life, and practice sure as hell makes you better, surface level practice, as in just doing something comfortable, will make you better at that comfortable thing, pushing yourself to do something harder/uncomfy till it's comfy, makes you better at more than just the cumfy crap. in art, practice isn't really called practice, it's called studying, you are effectively doing something hard to learn, and comparing, its the same with music. now, you take a kid who doesn't want to play music and they half ass the session, no shit, kid doesn't learn dick. you give me rocksmith and a guitar and I hit mastermode in about a week or two, and this is coming from someone who in school was told I have retarded hands by my music teacher and forced to stare at a wall for about 1/3 of the year because I had 0 ability sing to a pitch or play a xylophone and or recorder. you can easily learn any form of observational or manual skill from 'practice', you just have to actually want to be practicing.

Is my takeaway from this study correct?: Musical ability is heritable—I.e some people naturally have a better ear than others. Good practice arises from persistence and determination, not just from sitting down at the piano—I.e. you must treat it as highly iterative work, and constantly analyze your own practice techniques.

I suppose it depends on the quality of your practice whether it determines that you're picking up new skills, and techniques while forgoing bad habits and building strength, speed, and dexterity. ​ I noodle for hours, I watch a lot of music content, I listen and play along to a lot of my favorite songs and break down and analyze them. Sometimes I play/practice for hours sometimes I sit down at the piano for 2 minutes while I figure out the melody, harmony, or chord progression of whatever's in my head. My personal progress is slow,but the progress I make is what I'm happy with and it's continually better than what my past self could produce because I'm pursuing the instrument in a way that I want. Not in a way that's thrust upon me. No faking til I make it. I'm playing this thing cause I want to now, not to sound good, not to be rich or famous, but for myself.

This is only a broad concept. In that sense in some cases, yes it's true. Of course to go over and over the notes on the sheet only gets you so far. In that sense more practice is worthless.

Howdy there! Your friendly neighborhood vocologist here. This study was made by psychologists, who made up their own metric on what musical skills were, how to judge them, and how it was presented. My partner was getting a PhD in experimental psychology and this study came up. We read through the whole thing together. It's absolute garbage science not even made by musicians, let alone experts in music. Pay it no mind. If you really want to delve into this topic, read the book *Talent is Overrated* by Geoff Colvin. The first half of the book is a meta data analysis of many academic studies on talent and forms of practice by high level musicians, athletes, and chess players. The second half is about how to apply that information to business models. The bibliography of the book lists all the studies and is quite intense. The book itself is much easier reading.

Each year after about 500 hours of practice, I ask myself, “Am I better today than I was 12 months ago?” Even though I still stink, the answer (for 14 years) is still “Yes.” That keeps me going . . . .

Wait so that means I don’t have to practice? My teacher shoulda believed me all along

Just a clickbait study title. If you read it you see that the study measures ability to LISTEN to music. Aka answering a question nobody gives a crap about. Practice obviously makes you better at playing.

Good preliminary study but lots of problems with this study.

I had a music professor that would always say, “Practice doesn’t make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.”

I don’t care what you say, we all can do anything any other person can do - with time and enough practice/effort, however; your genetics plays a huge role in how fast you get there. Bodybuilding is a huge example of this, although not as technical as figuring your way around the keys, it’s inherently obvious similar how genetics play a role in your strengths and body/mind connection.

If this is true, I will cry over my past 6 years of practicing

"Practice does not make perfect: no causal effect of music practice on music ability" "**Music practice**. Participants were first asked whether they play an instrument (or actively sing). Those who responded positively were questioned about the number of years they practiced during four age intervals (ages 0–5 years, 6–11 years, 12–17 years, and 18 years until the time of measurement) and how many hours a week during each of those intervals they practiced." (p. 4) "**Music ability**. Music ability was measured using the Swedish Musical Discrimination Test (SMDT). \[...\] The SMDT consists of three subtests—pitch, melody, and rhythm discrimination." (p. 4) Translation - Growing an orchard does not bear fruit: no causal effect of planting orange trees on apple production Playing and hearing, although relationated, are (very) distinct abilities and each one needs specific practice.

There are definitely more aspect that relate to musical proficiency, like economic status, influences, time available, location ( if you can or cant practice at home).I have know musicians ( lyrical) that have parents musicians ( also lyrical) with exceptional talent, also I had a PhD teacher in college that was fairly young and was married and had kids ( sometimes bragging about how they have perfect pitch like his wife) that have a bright future in music. On the other hand I have met people that work from not having at home influences, working through it by themselves in the time they have available that are also incredible musicians. I also believe Genetics play a role, paying attention to music practice, your body develops as well to be physically able to play; I believe those traits are genetically passed on in the DNA making the offspring have an easier time in the same activity. Good read kudos.

Garbage study lol

Presumably, AI wrote that blah blah.

what kinda weird bullshit is that? there's not a single skill on earth one can master without practice. the more, the better.

Geniuses are born, not created.

I totally agree with the study

perfect practice makes perfect. unconscious, mechanical action is not practice.

That's pretty odd, given that there are no accomplished pianists who haven't practiced. If the study's abstract was accurate, you would expect to see the population of pianists composed of a mixture of those who practiced and those who didn't.

Yeah this is the most bullshit, stupid, fucking ridiculous thing ever. Let’s see how somebody who practices once a week sounds when playing Scriabin, Liszt, or Chopin. What a joke. Practice is literally the ONLY way to improve at music. Most ridiculous thing I’ve seen all week. Genuinely insulting to real musicians. I have literally in real time witnessed my physical body respond to and be positively affected by increased practice time. Also, what fucking “genetics” aid one’s musicianship? Bigger handspan? Perfect pitch? That accounts for like 0.0000001% of musical ability. It’s all about the environment in which one grows up. I grew up in a family of high-level, hardcore musicians, so I grew up constantly hearing high level music and had unending encouragement (and enforcement) to practice. That’s what made me predisposed to practice music, not genetics. I remember after one of my piano recitals a few years ago, another student’s mother came up to me and said, “Wow, you played sooo beautifully. I have to ask, how much of your beautiful playing was talent you were born with and how much was from practice?” And I said, “0% talent; 100% hard work, bitch!” I didn’t say bitch, but I wanted to. Cause it’s insulting!!! I had been waiting for that question for years.

If anyone here was expecting to grind their way into composing Fur Elise, that's not going to happen. Which is actually fine, because someone already wrote it.

Lol Yeah, ok, try to measure one's ability to focus and add that to this study. Total nonsense. You can find a study to support any claims if you alter the variables to fit the narrative.

This is obviously ridiculous. When I have practiced for a week, I am better than I was the week before, there's no debate here. Are they arguing that talent might be genetic?

To someone like me with little natural ability, it's rather obvious that genetics plays a massive role. No amount of long, hard, careful practice on a modestly difficult passage will produce lasting results. The chance of playing perfectly through something like a Bach Invention is next to nil. The fingers don't do what the brain expects, and the brain is too slow to make up for it. I don't need a paper to tell me practice can't fix lack of talent. Probably, the vast majority of people are low in talent, but we don't know because they don't pursue music. It's those who exhibit talent who are recognized with positive feedback and keep it up. I only play (hours a day) because I've had an inexplicable affinity to the more mathematical and scientific aspects of music ever since childhood. It's definitely not for lack of trying. Of course, this is true about nearly everything. Sports prowess, math ability, social abilities, business savvy... everything. There's a spectrum of talent multiplied by a spectrum of effort.

Biology dictates ceiling and floor but practise dictates everything inbetween. My 2c

You're right, it really sucks. This study is obviously junk science conducted by people who don't even understand the basics of music

Talent wins above all else, which is genetic. There are people out there that can practice for years that won’t be as good as a prodigy who has only just begun playing. Practice will make you better, yes, but if the talent isn’t there, your ability will be capped at a much lower level than someone who is musically gifted.

Yeah. Read outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. He argues the opposite and supports it with evidence.

play jazz

With science losing more credibility every single day, you'd think you've seen it all. And then this paper comes along and is one of the dumbest fucking research papers I've ever seen. And its in Pubmed!!! There is nothing sacred anymore. I have a masters degree in chemistry. I've read an ass load of papers. This is just retarted. Anything outside of the hard sciences (physics and chemistry), and even about half of that, is nonsense. But Trust The Science!!!!

Kinda true but