The real benefit of learning a musical instrument at a young age

**DuB** · 05-04-2009 08:00 AM

As you can see, this is a rather lengthy post. However, I feel that it offers a certain amount of insight and that it could possibly lead to some interesting discussion. Hopefully I've kept it reasonably engaging throughout.

By now, the idea that fostering musical ability in young children--for example, by having them take piano lessons or encouraging them to take up the guitar--is ultimately beneficial for their development is becoming part of the 'conventional wisdom.' Particularly in higher socioeconomic status (SES) families we see the trend of parents encouraging (or in some cases mandating) their children to enroll in lessons to learn a musical instrument. Motivations on behalf of the parents vary; it may be based on a simple hunch that they will enjoy it, or the desire for them to be "well-rounded," or a belief that it will expedite their cognitive development. Regardless of the reasoning, we have found something very interesting about these children: it really does appear to be beneficial for them. Compared to controls, they appear to learn to read faster, test somewhat higher on measures of spatial IQ, and generally seem to do better in school.

There have been several theories to account for these observations. Some suggest that the process of learning music aids in the development of focus and concentration. Others say that the spatial aspects of learning music (particularly keyboard) serve as 'exercise' for the visuospatial faculties in the developing brain. Still others suggest that the hand-eye coordination involved encourages transfer of information between the two hemispheres of the brain, leading to lasting changes in information processing. Regardless of the precise mechanism, most seem to agree that the observed effects on academic performance and tests of intelligence are due to enhanced cognitive abilities in the child.

There is likely a degree of truth to these theories. Certainly they sound plausible. But I argue that there is another, far more important benefit of learning a musical instrument at a young age. An effect that reaches beyond the implications of the above theories, while possibly accounting for them as well.

I argue that the most important benefit derives not from the musical training per se. Children are clever; they extrapolate from the case of learning a musical instrument to the much greater domain of learning in general. As young children become adept at playing a musical instrument, they learn something very important about both themselves and the world around them. Essentially, they learn that they have the capacity to improve their skills, abilities, and most importantly, their traits. They learn that their personal characteristics are not set in stone, things that you are simply born with a certain amount of. Rather, they come to understand their traits as malleable entities that can be increased. As it turns out, this is one of the most valuable things that a child can learn; and unfortunately, something that many never learn.

What is the significance of acquiring this belief about oneself? In short, it determines how we set, interpret, and strive for goals in our lives. Let's consider two hypothetical students, Jim and Drew. Jim's implicit theory is that human attributes are something you are born with and simply have more or less of. Drew's implicit theory is that human attributes can be changed with effort.

Let's say that Jim and Drew have both enrolled in a college math course. How are they likely to approach the course? Remember, Jim views mathematical ability as something that everyone has in fixed amounts, so it logically follows (for Jim) that any sort of test--such as this course--primarily serves as an indicator of this underlying ability. Because of this, Jim is likely to interpret the course as a grade to be earned, as a chance to demonstrate his competence to other students, a meter to help him decide whether he has a future in mathematics, etc. In short, Jim frames the course in terms of his performance in the course. Drew, on the other hand, is more likely to interpret the course as a chance to improve his math abilities, learn new study habits, generally become a more well-rounded and informed student, etc. In short, Drew frames the course in terms of what he will take away from it.

As you can imagine, these two frames will have serious implications for their performance in the course. For example, if both students begin to get behind or do poorly in the course, they are likely to react in very different ways. Jim is likely to become discouraged and believe that this is an indicator of his poor mathematical ability. Consequently, he may drop the course and may even choose to avoid math courses from then on. Drew, on the other hand, is likely to view the problem as a sign that he needs to put more effort into the class, reform his study habits, etc. Drew is more likely to persist and therefore ultimately succeed.

Beyond the interpretation of goals, Jim and Drew are likely to set very different goals for themselves. Since Jim believes that he has a certain, stable amount of traits such as intelligence, creativity, etc., he is more likely to set easier goals that are attainable according to his beliefs about what he can personally handle, and to avoid difficult goals as being a waste of time. Drew, however, is more likely to set challenging (and ultimately more rewarding) goals for himself, with the belief that he can rise up to meet the goal--and better himself in the process--if he only puts in the required effort.

As you can imagine, given these differences in the interpretation, pursuit, and setting of goals, Jim and Drew are likely to experience very different levels of success and achievement throughout their lives. And what was the root cause of much of it? Their implicit theories about the nature of traits; which are heavily influenced by their early experiences with achievement and goal-striving.

With regards to teaching children to play a musical instrument, it is my belief that the 'real' benefit lies not in fostering cognitive abilities (or some other borderline mystical mechanism, a la the "Mozart Effect"), but rather in teaching children that they have the capacity to take control of their selves and effect change in their personal outcomes. Importantly, this is something that can be--and often is--learned in an entirely different context from that of learning music, having little to do with the instrument itself. Although I think that learning a musical instrument offers enough attractive fringe benefits that it should be considered a valuable and worthwhile endeavor regardless.

If you've made it to this point, give yourself a well-deserved pat on the back

. I would very much like to hear your thoughts and opinions on the matter, as well as personal experiences.

**Man of Shred** · 05-04-2009 02:26 PM

That's cool. If i have kids. I'm gonna go as far as having the mother put headphones on her belly while the baby is developing. Play easy listening music, such as classical and stuff. Then i would raise the child to have some musical ability.

**Xei** · 05-04-2009 04:34 PM

I agree. I've played piano since I was about five and I'm a total genius.

I think your idea is creditworthy. In fact I have always maintained a similarly egalitarian position; that talent in a subject such as mathematics is not down to an innate ability, but simply a correct attitude towards learning. Whenever somebody says that they're 'rubbish' at one particular subject or other, it really ticks me off; how can the brain possibly be genetically geared towards something as extremely specific as an academic subject? It's just not a logical belief - I think it's simply a lazy one. The only reason that I am reasonably good at mathematics is that I have practised a lot and developed my visual skills; and I suppose you could be correct, this was a lesson I learned early on from my piano playing.

There could well be other benefits, such as strengthening the connections between neurons involved in pattern recognition or similar things too, and there is probably some degree of genetics to intelligence at least, but your point is probably just as important as these factors.

**guitarboy** · 05-04-2009 04:51 PM

I agree and disagree. I have a natural ability for music, and I never thought much of it, until I tried to teach my friend[I was Ten or Eleven, mind you, I teach now] how to play guitar. Within my first few weeks of playing[self taught] I was playing chords. I played piano for a while, never seriously, but it made my fingers long and strong. My friend, on the other hand, could not reach.
What I'm getting at is that this showed me that I had great talent for music,

Essentially, they learn that they have the capacity to improve their skills, abilities, and most importantly, their traits.

I never really thought this, at least, not about anything other then music. I started playing piano at age 6; I never took lessons. I started playing guitar at age 9 or 10. I was self taught for a little bit, then I took lessons. This showed me that I had great talent for music, and I took up other instruments. I play over 10 instruments, and I will probably use that to shape my future. To tell you the truth, the only other thing I have tried to improve my skills in was science[marine biology], and that will probably be my career to fall back on.

Rant Rant Rant, I don't even think I made a good point.

**DuB** · 05-04-2009 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by guitarboy

I have a natural ability for music

This isn't quite what my OP was about, but it's something that I feel very strongly about.

Talent is a myth.

Now that I've dropped the bomb, let me soften the blow a bit. In the strictest sense, it's probably not true to say that talent (or some innate ability) is not a factor at all in learning a musical instrument. For example, I think that there is a substantial genetic factor in pitch discrimination, which is a very important skill for a musician. But pitch discrimination can be developed through practice, and even individuals born with a "good ear" for music stand to benefit from aural training. My point is that the effects of "talent" are negligible. As far as predispositions go, infinitely more important than "talent" is having a passion for learning music. The reason for this is nothing mystical; being passionate drives you to practice. And it's practice--and practice alone--that determines how one progresses in learning music.

Some time ago, there was conducted a longitudinal study with young violinists. They recruited many, many children who had just begun violin lessons and they initially assessed them on wide variety of factors: age at beginning, socioeconomic status, height, length of fingers, intelligence, and so on. And most importantly, they asked the students' violin teachers to assess how much "natural talent" each of their students had for playing violin.

Then they followed these children for years; 20 or more, if I'm not mistaken. They diligently tracked who kept playing violin, who quit, how often they practiced, and for those who would go on become professional musicians, their level of success and acclaim. As it turns out, many of our young music students would go on to become virtuoso violinists. So more than a decade later, they analyzed all the data they had accumulated in order to determine just what the most important factors were if one was to become a virtuoso. What they found profoundly surprised a lot of people.

As it turns out, almost none of the factors mattered at all. Age at beginning, length of fingers, none of it had any bearing on a student's later violin ability. What was most surprising, however, was the effect of a student's "natural talent": there was no effect! A child who was evaluated as being the next Mozart was no more likely to become a virtuoso than a student they deemed as hopeless.

But there was one variable that accounted for almost all the variance in the students' success. It was the total number of hours spent practicing. When they ranked the adult violinists on a measure of overall ability in the instrument and plotted it against accumulated hours of practice, they found a beautiful linear trend. The more the violinist had practiced, the better they ended up being. Furthermore, it appeared that the "magic number" of practice hours for becoming a virtuoso was 10,000 hours. That's 2.7 hours of practice every single day for 10 years. Nothing else mattered.

What's really interesting is that this 10,000 hour rule appears to apply to a much wider domain than music. Whether it's computer programming, basketball skill, or nearly anything else, it takes around 10,000 hours of practice before one will advance themselves to the level of expert.

If you're interesting in reading more about the myth of talent, Malcolm Gladwell's newest book Outliers talks about it in some detail. Like all of his books, it's an extremely interesting read. Highly recommended.

**DeathCell** · 05-08-2009 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Xei

I agree. I've played piano since I was about five and I'm a total genius.

I think your idea is creditworthy. In fact I have always maintained a similarly egalitarian position; that talent in a subject such as mathematics is not down to an innate ability, but simply a correct attitude towards learning. Whenever somebody says that they're 'rubbish' at one particular subject or other, it really ticks me off; how can the brain possibly be genetically geared towards something as extremely specific as an academic subject? It's just not a logical belief - I think it's simply a lazy one. The only reason that I am reasonably good at mathematics is that I have practised a lot and developed my visual skills; and I suppose you could be correct, this was a lesson I learned early on from my piano playing.

There could well be other benefits, such as strengthening the connections between neurons involved in pattern recognition or similar things too, and there is probably some degree of genetics to intelligence at least, but your point is probably just as important as these factors.

Perhaps part of this belief that one is less "geared" toward something is the simple fact that some people use certain parts of their brain more often. Of course practice would improve this, it still gives off the image in peoples heads that they are just not keen to it.

And Dub, Malcom Gladwell is always a good read.

**Kael Seoras** · 05-08-2009 08:55 PM

I think you make a good point about music helping one to work to improve oneself rather than relying on innate ability. I'm studying music performance (trumpet) in college and I am constantly learning new things and improving. I am better at trumpet now than I was at the beginning of the school year, and I know I still have more improvement to make in the coming years.

**Licity** · 05-08-2009 11:30 PM

I learned the violin at a young age, and if I had to say what about it most benefited me, it would have to be the virtue of practice. Practice really does make perfect, and I noticed that at all levels I had a higher tolerance for studying and carrying out repetitive tasks.

**Posquant** · 06-06-2009 05:48 AM

Yes. There are many many benefits. Learning of one's own plasticity is certainly one.

There is another, very very important, very basic: PATIENCE.

In all the studies correlating later success with early character, one early trait stands out as clearly determinative of later success: PATIENCE.

Sit down, practice your lessons, do your homework, study for your exams ... slow and steady finishes the race... and discovers beauty and meaning, along the way.

**Posquant** · 06-06-2009 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Perhaps part of this belief that one is less "geared" toward something is the simple fact that some people use certain parts of their brain more often. Of course practice would improve this, it still gives off the image in peoples heads that they are just not keen to it.

And Dub, Malcom Gladwell is always a good read.

All true perhaps, but note the exceptions: Mozart, DaVinci, Chopin, many of our childhood-polymath modern Nobel physicists.

These guys were hard-wired, supercharged for symbols.

Maybe almost anyone can work up to some high level.

But no amount of work will replicate those early abilities ... gifts.

**tkdyo** · 06-06-2009 06:14 AM

I agree with the initial post~ whatever the reason learning music does help people learn other things better. I experienced this myself. However, I disagree that talent is a myth. Obvioulsy someone who practices long and hard will do well. BUT there are some people who in fact do not have to practice as long or hard to get the same results. I experience this in academics, not to sound like Im full of myself but its true

**DuB** · 06-06-2009 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Posquant

There is another, very very important, very basic: PATIENCE.

In all the studies correlating later success with early character, one early trait stands out as clearly determinative of later success: PATIENCE.

Sit down, practice your lessons, do your homework, study for your exams ... slow and steady finishes the race... and discovers beauty and meaning, along the way.

That's a good point too. Here's a brief video of a guy discussing the famous Stanford marshmallow studies and his own replications with hispanic children:
http://www.ted.com/talks/joachim_de_...allow_yet.html

Originally Posted by Posquant

All true perhaps, but note the exceptions: Mozart, DaVinci, Chopin, many of our childhood-polymath modern Nobel physicists.

These guys were hard-wired, supercharged for symbols.

Maybe almost anyone can work up to some high level.

But no amount of work will replicate those early abilities ... gifts.

I'm glad that you mentioned those names. Let me share with you what has long been one of my favorite quotations:

"People make a mistake who think that my art has come easily to me. Nobody has devoted so much time and thought to composition as I. There is not a famous master whose music I have not studied over and over."
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, 1787

I believe the case to be similar for all prodigies. Attributing their success to an innate talent is pleasing for both cognitive (i.e., we don't have to expend effort searching for less obvious reasons) and motivational (i.e., it excuses us for not reaching their level of success if we werent "blessed with their talent") reasons, but it's really just the easy way out.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

However, I disagree that talent is a myth. Obvioulsy someone who practices long and hard will do well. BUT there are some people who in fact do not have to practice as long or hard to get the same results. I experience this in academics, not to sound like Im full of myself but its true

To further clarify, my position isn't that there is no such thing as talent, but rather that the effects of talent are negligible in relation to other factors when it comes to long term success. A student may have a proclivity for math that allows them to be lax in studying during high school, but this has little or no bearing on whether or not that student will go on to become a mathematician; that is reserved for students with a passion for math (who are thus motivated to study), regardless of how naturally easy it comes to them.

**Posquant** · 06-06-2009 03:26 PM

DuB, good stuff. Nice quote from Mozart. But wasn't he playing impressario level at age 4 or something? I seem to recollect ... no fact check.

Anyway, I agree with you ... even reserving savants as the exception.

Olympic athletes are a great example. Anyone who practices at that level for that length of time will naturally perform to about the same level.

So....

**Posquant** · 06-06-2009 03:30 PM

Oh, and many thanks for the link to the de Posada research... I only had it from secondary source before. Ku.

**DuB** · 06-06-2009 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by Posquant

DuB, good stuff. Nice quote from Mozart. But wasn't he playing impressario level at age 4 or something? I seem to recollect ... no fact check.

Indeed, he was made to practice piano tirelessly at the tenderest of ages by his father, who carted him around Europe to perform for royalty like a show monkey. This experience gave him quite a head start on his 10,000 hours.

Thread: The real benefit of learning a musical instrument at a young age

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

The real benefit of learning a musical instrument at a young age

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions