TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- SciAm: "Secrets of the Expert Mind"

SciAm: "Secrets of the Expert Mind"

I figured that that this article from Scientific American is relevant to some of the more recent discussion as to whether or not production and musical skills are innate or cultivated.

Scientific American: August 2006
"The Expert Mind" by Philip E. Ross


Click Here To Read Full Article

Select Quotes:

"The one thing that all expertise theorists agree on is that it takes enormous effort to build these structures in the mind. Simon coined a psychological law of his own, the 10-year rule, which states that it takes approximately a decade of heavy labor to master any field. Even child prodigies, such as Gauss in mathematics, Mozart in music and Bobby Fischer in chess, must have made an equivalent effort, perhaps by starting earlier and working harder than others. "

"Ericsson argues that what matters is not experience per se but "effortful study," which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence. That is why it is possible for enthusiasts to spend tens of thousands of hours playing chess or golf or a musical instrument without ever advancing beyond the amateur level and why a properly trained student can overtake them in a relatively short time. It is interesting to note that time spent playing chess, even in tournaments, appears to contribute less than such study to a player's progress; the main training value of such games is to point up weaknesses for future study.

Even the novice engages in effortful study at first, which is why beginners so often improve rapidly in playing golf, say, or in driving a car. But having reached an acceptable performance--for instance, keeping up with one's golf buddies or passing a driver's exam--most people relax. Their performance then becomes automatic and therefore impervious to further improvement. In contrast, experts-in-training keep the lid of their mind's box open all the time, so that they can inspect, criticize and augment its contents and thereby approach the standard set by leaders in their fields. "

"Although nobody has yet been able to predict who will become a great expert in any field, a notable experiment has shown the possibility of deliberately creating one. L�szl� Polg�r, an educator in Hungary, homeschooled his three daughters in chess, assigning as much as six hours of work a day, producing one international master and two grandmasters--the strongest chess-playing siblings in history. The youngest Polg�r, 30-year-old Judit, is now ranked 14th in the world. "

"Thus, motivation appears to be a more important factor than innate ability in the development of expertise. It is no accident that in music, chess and sports--all domains in which expertise is defined by competitive performance rather than academic credentialing--professionalism has been emerging at ever younger ages, under the ministrations of increasingly dedicated parents and even extended families.

Furthermore, success builds on success, because each accomplishment can strengthen a child's motivation. A 1999 study of professional soccer players from several countries showed that they were much more likely than the general population to have been born at a time of year that would have dictated their enrollment in youth soccer leagues at ages older than the average. In their early years, these children would have enjoyed a substantial advantage in size and strength when playing soccer with their teammates. Because the larger, more agile children would get more opportunities to handle the ball, they would score more often, and their success at the game would motivate them to become even better."

Interesting read

"Ericsson argues that what matters is not experience per se but "effortful study," which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence"

So does this mean that a producer should try to make each track a bit more professional than he/she can competently do? Or maybe tackle a genre that is a bit trickier than they are comfortable with?

Great article, I agree wholeheartedly.

Should we push ourselves in spite of our preferences? Absolutely, at least for the purposes of furthering technical expertise. It's easy to point out, though, that music is not just technical, it's artistic...
And yet in computer music, the results also lie heavily in the marriage between technical and artistic capability. One becomes the other, to a degree. Sometimes you need to find how to achieve a particular technical goal to realize what's in your mind. So pushing yourself technically is a bit more important than an outsider might realize. But we already know this.

It's a tough balancing act, though... Two months back on KVR, I griped about how my intense recent effort to master my tools left me as a capable technician... But a deficient artist. I'd hit a milestone in technical capacity, but with(to my mind at the time) nothing to show for it. It was very distressing.

In retrospect, I see that the above article can be used to understand what was going on. I had not put any effortful study on the compositional end, I'd only focused on the technical. To my own credit, my study really paid off. I pushed myself, and the benefits are apparent, considering the amount of time I've been at this. I learned a ton very quickly, at least on the production end. Not so much on the artistic stuff, composition.

Since then, my compositional ability has been slowly building... Nothing like my rate of learning on the technical end, though. This improvement, though, occurred much by virtue of my prior mastery of Cubase, and some somewhat competent mixing and grasp of sound design concepts and whathaveyou. A few roadblocks, removed as a stand-in for proper effortful study.

So it's slow going so far. It's more difficult to know how to push myself on the artistic front. I guess I know some ideas, there's some great ones outlined in the KVR thread, but they're not easy to follow through with. It really does require a specific kind of enthusiasm, or a lot of discipline. It's hard to keep that up.

Oooh, I'm rambling.

Yeah, but this simplifies a little. For example, in the question of whether writing good tracks is innate or learned, you have to consider that because some people can't write good tracks to start with, they never actually learn because they never make effortful study of it instead only ever dealing with the engineering aspect of tracks.

On the other hand, somone who maybe had experience in good writing through another activity (maybe learning piano and stuffing around) will maybe have a better basis and not simply decide its too hard.

with today's software, do you think that guys have accellerated their development? Instead of 10 years through just a few pieces of gear aquired incrementally, it might take a guy a shorter time to master music?

No. Its got nothing to do with how much gear you have, that doesn't make you a good producer. What the learning is about is learning the actual uses of that gear, and how to construct music.

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips No. Its got nothing to do with how much gear you have, that doesn't make you a good producer. What the learning is about is learning the actual uses of that gear, and how to construct music.

well what i'm saying is that it's way, way, more efficent to make music today than it was back then. Imagine just working with hardware and tape, wires, and wires, and there is a lot bouncing around etc.

Ehhh, I'm thinking it's more about 'different' than easier or harder. Composers didn't sit in front of computers till basically the recent 20 years, not for composition. They did it on pianos, guitars, with pen and paper, blah blah. And it worked great. I think our modern technology and techniques have shifted peoples' goals. So it's sorta like apples and oranges, in a way.

quote:

Originally posted by -FSP- well what i'm saying is that it's way, way, more efficent to make music today than it was back then. Imagine just working with hardware and tape, wires, and wires, and there is a lot bouncing around etc.

THat has nothing to do with the skill involved. Its still just as hard to write a good track, structure it well, and engineer it (using the correct selection of EQs and compressors) to bring out its best points.

Great article.

As far as talent is concerned.. I've witnessed quite a few producers start making music. I taught a few of them myself, others though themselves.. and one thing is obvious: One has to have talent.
Say what you will, but I've seen friends make awesome tracks with nothing more than fruity 3, and a few vst freebies. These are ppl who have no idea how a compressor works, but they know know how to make it sound good. I've seen this with my own eyes.
On the other hand, there are also ppl with money and nice home studios who couldn't make a good track to save their life. And no matter how much knowledge they aquire, their music will still suck for one reason: They don't "feel" music... and ofc some are tonedeaf
So you always hear them make excuses, get more and more gear hoping that it will make them sound more pro. Many actually get the production sounding ok over time, but still lack that fundamental spark of creativity.
I've got 2 mates like this. And no matter how much you try to teach them, and no matter how much they try... it sound awful.
Ofcourse today it's much easier to fake talent. With today's software most can get some kind of musical result. But true talent will always show... and let's not forget: Ordinary ppl will listen to great tracks even with mediocre production quality, but nobody will listen to crap, no matter how much one tries to polish it.
I'm not saying that only ppl with talent should make music. It's a great hobby for everyone who wants to do it. But there are those who were born to do it, and those who weren't.. and you can see evidence of this everywhere.
Just my 2c..

I think you were looking for this thread, m8.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.