Musical Memory - The elephant in the room...

[Jazzstdnt]

So you're implying that, for example, if Doug Raney had been separated at birth from his father (i.e. raised in a household with a different 'dad', where Doug had NO contact with Jimmy Raney), Doug would have the same "talents" since these were passed on to him from Jimmy, verses picked up by being raised in an environment that included a first-rate musician.

Note: I understand the answer to this question isn't binary; so the better question is what percentage is passed-on and what is learned. I don't think mankind can ever know the answer even with the genetics studies mentioned and that percentage has a lot of variance on a per individual basis.

It's possible. How's that for a helpful answer? I suppose one could say that everything is passed on to us from our parents, both good and bad. It's just that we don't get to choose what we get more or less of.

And talent is talent and skill is just skill, right? Or is that so? We can take the same skill set training and offer it to multiple subjects. We may find that some fail, some do fairly well, some do well, and others exceed. But can we always explain why? There is motivation, there is a supportive study environment, etc. etc.

Suffice it to say, if one does something exceptionally well it's fair to say that they have some talent, irrespective of their training and habits. (At least as far as I'm concerned).

You can't make people be outstanding. There has to be something there to begin with. Raw materal. Talent. Who cares where it came from? :0

[Cunamara]

All this is well-written and interesting---BUT it's always the same problem for me on this board: involved nomenclature for things instead of simple, understandable explanations for the rest of us. It happens with music, even though I'm versed in THAT, thank goodness, all the time here: using $5 words to explain things that can be communicated on a bandstand in 30 seconds by playing or singing them.

No disrespect here, I promise. You're a smart guy like most here. But I for one am neither brain scientist nor psychologist. And I have GREAT respect for the field of psychology. I also lean more toward scientific data explaining the universe than religious 'visions', etc.

But I have no talent or acumen in either. NONE. So would you please indulge me, and---quoting from Denzel Washington's character in Philadelphia---'explain it to me like I was a 4-year-old'?

Thanks in advance (:

Hi, Joel-

Well, I will take a stab at it. I've been pondering for several days how to do that, conscious of the idea that "if you can't explain it in plain language, you don't understand it yourself."

So let's start with the basic nerve cell, call the neuron. A neuron by itself can't do much, but when it is connected to other neurons it can send and receive signals. Neurons linked together form neural networks just like the electrical components in your guitar or amplifier are also a kind of network. The preamp is one network, the power amp is another network, the pedals in your signal chain are each networks, the electronics in your guitar are a network. Linked together, you have a way to pluck a string on the guitar and that signal is amplified into sound other people can hear. Think of each of those components as a neural network. Brains are made up of many small neural networks that process some bit of information and pass it on to another small network, which then processes and adds to that information and passes it on to yet another network until the end result is achieved- for example, moving a finger. A bunch of those together allow us to tap our feet, feel rhythm and time passing, form thoughts, sing melodies, etc.

Different areas in the brain do different things and then have to coordinate the things they do with the things other parts of the brain do. The parts of our brain that processes music, for example, are not the same parts of our brain that coordinate our hand movements. There are third, fourth, fifth, maybe more parts of the brain that mediate and connect those parts into the purposeful behavior of playing a guitar. The speed at which this can happen truly amazes me- think about McLaughlin or DeMeola or de Lucia blazing away.

Memory is not yet all that well understood. It seems clear that we have different networks providing different kinds of memory functioning- for example, visual memory, auditory memory, biographical memory, memory for impersonal facts and figures, movement memory, etc., may all develop from their own sets of neural networks. The information is encoded into the brain somewhere and somehow we are able to retrieve it when we need it. And those separate kinds of memories can be coordinated together such as remembering your mother's face, name, birthdate, the color of her hair and eyes, what kinds of clothing she wore, what kind of perfume she wore, how her voice sounded, catchphrases she used, etc. That seems like a single unitary memory but there are multiple memory systems at work producing that for you.

With music it's probably the same. When learning a melody or chord sequence I tend to find myself trying to remember it as a series of hand movements- so-called muscle memory. This does not work well as it often sounds mechanical and if asked to transpose that into a different key I can't do it. I think this is also what we hear when someone is "running scales" during a solo. If I can learn to remember the melody and use that as the guiding principle instead of the movements, my playing is smoother and more expressive. If I can remember the sounds of the chord movement/voice leading instead of the finger contortions, that too sounds more musical when I play it. If I can deeply learn the melody and chords to a song, I should be able to play it in any key or almost any key on request. I have never been very good at that, at all. Good jazz musicians can do this; they hear the music in their head and then can reproduce that with their hands. I think that when we are talking about "musical memory," that is the functioning we are talking about. When learning a scale or a melody, the standard old-timers' advice is to learn to play it in a bunch of different positions, in a bunch of different keys. The point of that is to break up the tendency towards relying on muscle memory and instead create auditory memory to which your movements can be coordinated.

As for whether or not someone's ability to do this is genetically inherited versus learned or picked up from the environment, I think the answer is yes. Not to sound too much like Yogi Berra taking the fork in the road. Some people appear to be simply unable to find rhythm or carry a tune, other people seem to do it nearly effortlessly. In order to have that functioning at a high-level, I think it is necessary to have at least some degree of genetic capacity combined with putting in the work. Without learning, which is the programming of the brain, developing those skills is I think not going to happen just on the basis of genetic inheritance. There are a few savants who have some very specific musical skills, such as being able to playback virtually any piece of music on hearing at once. I don't know what to make of outliers like that.

We know that some people have unique inherited abilities such as super-acute color perception, super-acute taste perception, etc. I don't think anyone has the inherited ability to play jazz without teaching, training and practice. I also think there are a lot of people who just simply never develop those abilities but could have, if they had been interested in it.

[princeplanet]

So you're implying that, for example, if Doug Raney had been separated at birth from his father (i.e. raised in a household with a different 'dad', where Doug had NO contact with Jimmy Raney), Doug would have the same "talents" since these were passed on to him from Jimmy, verses picked up by being raised in an environment that included a first-rate musician.
....

If you're really interested in the contentious claims of "soft" inheritance, then check out the link...


Lamarckism - Wikipedia

[grahambop]

So you're implying that, for example, if Doug Raney had been separated at birth from his father (i.e. raised in a household with a different 'dad', where Doug had NO contact with Jimmy Raney)

As neatomic has said, that is more or less exactly what DID happen to Doug. I read an interview somewhere where he said Jimmy left when he was just a kid. Later he got into jazz guitar and learned by listening to records including Jimmy’s.

[Marinero]

Hi, Joel-

Well, I will take a stab at it. I've been pondering for several days how to do that, conscious of the idea that "if you can't explain it in plain language, you don't understand it yourself."

So let's start with the basic nerve cell, call the neuron. A neuron by itself can't do much, but when it is connected to other neurons it can send and receive signals. Neurons linked together form neural networks just like the electrical components in your guitar or amplifier are also a kind of network. The preamp is one network, the power amp is another network, the pedals in your signal chain are each networks, the electronics in your guitar are a network. Linked together, you have a way to pluck a string on the guitar and that signal is amplified into sound other people can hear. Think of each of those components as a neural network. Brains are made up of many small neural networks that process some bit of information and pass it on to another small network, which then processes and adds to that information and passes it on to yet another network until the end result is achieved- for example, moving a finger. A bunch of those together allow us to tap our feet, feel rhythm and time passing, form thoughts, sing melodies, etc.

Different areas in the brain do different things and then have to coordinate the things they do with the things other parts of the brain do. The parts of our brain that processes music, for example, are not the same parts of our brain that coordinate our hand movements. There are third, fourth, fifth, maybe more parts of the brain that mediate and connect those parts into the purposeful behavior of playing a guitar. The speed at which this can happen truly amazes me- think about McLaughlin or DeMeola or de Lucia blazing away.

Memory is not yet all that well understood. It seems clear that we have different networks providing different kinds of memory functioning- for example, visual memory, auditory memory, biographical memory, memory for impersonal facts and figures, movement memory, etc., may all develop from their own sets of neural networks. The information is encoded into the brain somewhere and somehow we are able to retrieve it when we need it. And those separate kinds of memories can be coordinated together such as remembering your mother's face, name, birthdate, the color of her hair and eyes, what kinds of clothing she wore, what kind of perfume she wore, how her voice sounded, catchphrases she used, etc. That seems like a single unitary memory but there are multiple memory systems at work producing that for you.

With music it's probably the same. When learning a melody or chord sequence I tend to find myself trying to remember it as a series of hand movements- so-called muscle memory. This does not work well as it often sounds mechanical and if asked to transpose that into a different key I can't do it. I think this is also what we hear when someone is "running scales" during a solo. If I can learn to remember the melody and use that as the guiding principle instead of the movements, my playing is smoother and more expressive. If I can remember the sounds of the chord movement/voice leading instead of the finger contortions, that too sounds more musical when I play it. If I can deeply learn the melody and chords to a song, I should be able to play it in any key or almost any key on request. I have never been very good at that, at all. Good jazz musicians can do this; they hear the music in their head and then can reproduce that with their hands. I think that when we are talking about "musical memory," that is the functioning we are talking about. When learning a scale or a melody, the standard old-timers' advice is to learn to play it in a bunch of different positions, in a bunch of different keys. The point of that is to break up the tendency towards relying on muscle memory and instead create auditory memory to which your movements can be coordinated.

As for whether or not someone's ability to do this is genetically inherited versus learned or picked up from the environment, I think the answer is yes. Not to sound too much like Yogi Berra taking the fork in the road. Some people appear to be simply unable to find rhythm or carry a tune, other people seem to do it nearly effortlessly. In order to have that functioning at a high-level, I think it is necessary to have at least some degree of genetic capacity combined with putting in the work. Without learning, which is the programming of the brain, developing those skills is I think not going to happen just on the basis of genetic inheritance. There are a few savants who have some very specific musical skills, such as being able to playback virtually any piece of music on hearing at once. I don't know what to make of outliers like that.

We know that some people have unique inherited abilities such as super-acute color perception, super-acute taste perception, etc. I don't think anyone has the inherited ability to play jazz without teaching, training and practice. I also think there are a lot of people who just simply never develop those abilities but could have, if they had been interested in it.

Wow, C!
Thanks for taking the time in an outstanding description and explanation from a scientific perspective that is easily seen in real life examples. This post was truly first-rate! Good playing . . . Marinero

[ccroft]

....We know that some people have unique inherited abilities such as super-acute color perception, super-acute taste perception....

Thanks for thoughts Cuna. I think this part dovetails nicely into the earlier discussions of talent. At the risk of stating the bloody obvious, I believe that a big part of talent is an unusual interest in something, which spawns a special ability to work harder than the next chimp in that arena. And to do it easily and with some measure of joy. As if it's not work at all.

If you can't see like a painter sees, you're going to have a tough time working hard enough at it to get good. I sure don't see color like my painter wife does. And she isn't aware of the sound environment like I am. Neither of us come from artistic families. We were just born that way.

[fep]

I think an example of musical raw talent is the singing ability/quality (tone, pitch, ability to remember melodies) of nonmusicians. Some people are just able to sing better than others, even those with little experience like young children. It just seems to come much easier to some. Others may have to work at it and still not get to the vocal quality of those with talent that didn't put in the work.

First day of ear training the professor took the students one by one and had them sing simple melodies (like 'On Top Of Old Smokey'). She claimed, based on decades of teaching, if you couldn't perform that task you had no chance of passing the class. Perhaps this is a good overall test of musical talent.

[rpjazzguitar]

If you're really interested in the contentious claims of "soft" inheritance, then check out the link...


Lamarckism - Wikipedia

Mouthful as technical terms go, but the gist of it is that it may be possible to pass on to offspring, some environmental influence
experienced by the parent. Or, at least, inheritance is more than just DNA.

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance - Wikipedia

[cosmic gumbo]

Perhaps Edison's quote is relative to the discussion. Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.

[princeplanet]

Mouthful as technical terms go, but the gist of it is that it may be possible to pass on to offspring, some environmental influence
experienced by the parent. Or, at least, inheritance is more than just DNA.

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance - Wikipedia

Interesting, cheers. It seems a bit dismissive of Neo Lamarckism. I recall that Prof. Ted Steele from the University of Wollongong brought back a little respect to NL with his work on

Somatic hypermutation - Wikiwand

.. for the hair splitters ...

[Zina]

...like Yogi Berra taking the fork in the road...

You went from a perfectly intelligible post to arcane references to cartoon bears' adventures with cutlery. One can find words out of one's budget range in a dictionary if need be (as was explained to me when I was 4), so please revert to your usual style. I come here for unadulterated knowledge, not for Disneyfication. I've enough of that IRL.

[grahambop]

You went from a perfectly intelligible post to arcane references to cartoon bears' adventures with cutlery. One can find words out of one's budget range in a dictionary if need be (as was explained to me when I was 4), so please revert to your usual style. I come here for unadulterated knowledge, not for Disneyfication. I've enough of that IRL.

He wasn’t referring to the cartoon bear, Yogi Berra was a real person.

When You Come to a Fork in the Road, Take It – Quote Investigator

[Zina]

He wasn’t referring to the cartoon bear, Yogi Berra was a real person.

Oh, I see. Thank you.

[grahambop]

He was an expert on jazz by the way:

Yogi Berra Explains Jazz

[princeplanet]

He was an expert on jazz by the way:

Yogi Berra Explains Jazz

Yogi Berra's astonishing intellect had only one rival: Sam Goldwyn

Great Minds Thinking Alike | The Hardball Times

[citizenk74]

Perhaps Edison's quote is relative to the discussion. Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.

Damned straight!

[citizenk74]

And let us not neglect the feeling of urgency of the artist, the need to create. For the creative musician, the need to not only to perform the music of others to the highest possible level; but also the urgent need to create new music. It's like an instinct, a hunger independent of financial reward. I play for free. I get paid for schlepping equipment.

[Reg]

Yea... I have a good friend, a neuroscientist, tons of awards, sometimes when at his home, it's like a retirement hang for Nobel Laureates... anyway, he's very current, all over the world, lots of big $.... but I often hear that same line posted by Cosmic... there are many brilliant people...it's always about putting in the time.

[jameslovestal]

actually!! doug was estranged from his dad jimmy!!! and did not get much guitar instruction thru his dad..other than osmosis..eddie diehl was a huge influence on dougs playing...doug and jimmy didn't reconnect until much later..tho they remained extremely simpatico in style...was just pointing out in recent thread that on jimmys last release while alive- but beautiful- (rec 1990)...he sounds more modern... like doug!!

so by your particular example, you have inadvertently proved the theory ^ correct!

haha

cheers

I wonder how much Jimmy was around Doug in his early development years (say 2- 6 or so)? Anyhow like I said how much is nurture vs nature can vary on an individual basis. Looks like Doug got a lot via nature that he nurtured into being a top notch musician and jazz guitar player.

[Reg]

I agree with much of James post above... thanks

[Jazzstdnt]

He was an expert on jazz by the way:

Yogi Berra Explains Jazz

Lol, priceless. Thanks for that.

[Cunamara]

You went from a perfectly intelligible post to arcane references to cartoon bears' adventures with cutlery. One can find words out of one's budget range in a dictionary if need be (as was explained to me when I was 4), so please revert to your usual style. I come here for unadulterated knowledge, not for Disneyfication. I've enough of that IRL.

Yes, sorry, I forgot that the forum has a global audience rather than an American audience and that the reference would therefore be obscure for many.

[Cunamara]

I wonder how much Jimmy was around Doug in his early development years (say 2- 6 or so)? Anyhow like I said how much is nurture vs nature can vary on an individual basis. Looks like Doug got a lot via nature that he nurtured into being a top notch musician and jazz guitar player.

It's hard to come to a conclusion either way as to whether development of that kind of talent is mainly nature or nurture; Doug was originally a rock guitarist when he took up the instrument but by his early 20s was a superbly proficient jazz guitarist. His brother has said that Jimmy did not give either of them lessons as such although he would sometimes listen and critique. I had not listened much to Doug's playing until the past three or four months; he really was good!

[neatomic]

doug raney was beyond good!! unfortunately he grew up right in the era where traditional bebop and even post be-bop guitar was way way way off the charts...he was traveling in no mans land...nowadays he'd be a celebrated hero...but at the height of the r&r era..his kind of playing was overlooked..he fell right in between the cracks...

there's also the psychological factor of proving your worth to an estranged dad..that no doubt drove him...making a connection thru what his dad loved best- guitar!!

gods bless'em both..two masters!!! and equally important on one another...as i've writ before..the last jimmy lp sounds much more modern ala what doug had been doing all along!! they were listening to each other...the duets lp proves that!!



cheers

[Zina]

Yes, sorry, I forgot that the forum has a global audience rather than an American audience and that the reference would therefore be obscure for many.

You're not at fault though. It's just that I'm in a position of receiving a lot of dumbed-down pap and general being talked down to, which had me in a bad mood already, so I reacted unnecessarily sharply.