Constructs of musical ability

The talent conception of musical ability is a widely held assumption in Western culture. As a boundary marker, it simply delineates the divide between those who are regarded as possessing musical ‘talent’ and those who are not. Ethnomusicologist, John Blacking posed the rhetorical question, ‘Must the majority be made unmusical

so that a chosen few may become more musical?’ to highlight the ‘talent’ conception

of musical ability in Western societies (Blacking, 1976, p. 4). He suggested that rather than constituting an advance in human sensitivity and technical ability, the restriction of access to musical participation to a privileged minority is in reality ‘a diversion for elites and a weapon of class exploitation’ (p. 4).

Supported by conceptions of musical ability which maintain that some people have inherited an innate aptitude for music, the talent assumption reasons that because few have the necessary ‘talent’, few people are destined to become expert musical performers (Sloboda, 2005, p. 297). In short, musicians are considered to be in possession of a special inherited musical talent and are primed to play instruments. The ‘talent’ explanation of why one child is regarded as being more musically

91

accomplished than another utilises conceptions of ‘natural aptitude’ and ‘inborn ability’ connected to the notion that such capacities are fixed and immutable (Sloboda 2005, p. 297).

The psychology of the ‘talent’ conception may be observed in the structures of the ‘conservatory’, its main pedagogic feature, supported by more than a century of practice, being selection by aptitude testing and the individuated form that learning takes. Many music schools test children at entry level to determine musical aptitude for placement in instrumental music programmes. Although there is no musical equivalent to IQ testing, musical aptitude testing profiles sensory discrimination skills or gauges responses to the artistic qualities of music. Musical ability testing began as early as the 1880s with the development of simple tests by Carl Stumpf (Hallam & Prince, 2003, p. 2). Musical aptitude testing was utilised and refined over the next century to determine basic musical capacities to select those ‘most likely to succeed given that resources for providing tuition were scarce’ (Seashore et al. 1960, in Hallam and Prince 2003, p.3).

The ‘talent’ concept of musical ability is not shared across all cultures. Studies show that some Eastern Asian cultures regard children’s attainment depending on effort rather than innate ability (Hallam and Prince 2003, p.7). Observing musical practices among indigenous African societies during the 1970s, Blacking observed the concept of special musical ability to be non-existent in some cultures. Researching musical practices among the Venda people of southern Africa who regard all members as musical, he concluded that all humans have an equal capacity for musical competence of a similar order to linguistic ability (Blacking 1976, p.7).

Sloboda argues that there is no logical connection between the ‘talent’ explanation and differences in the performances of learners, maintaining that the perceived

92

outcome differentials consistent with equal human potential for musical activity indicate that differences in performance are entirely due to prior musical experience in particular family cultural backgrounds. (Sloboda 2005, p.297). Most instrumental music teachers perceive musical skills as developing on a continuum through opportunity and effort, depending on the commitment and motivation of the learner (Hallam and Prince 2003, p.19). Thus, from a socio-cultural perspective, musical ability is socially constructed; but nevertheless, traditional conceptions of ‘talent’ persist in the discourse of instrumental music with regard to levels of musical expertise.

Assumptions and beliefs concerning ability are not only peculiar to the musical ability context. Looking at reading and ‘spelling age’, Gillborn and Youdell refer to schools adopting a view of ‘ability’ as if it were fixed, generalised and measurable (Gillborn & Youdell, 2000, p. 162). In a comparative study of two UK second level schools they found a contradiction in teachers’ beliefs regarding the relationships between ‘ability’ and outcomes. Teachers initially spoke of ‘loose fits’ and were reluctant to acknowledge clear connections between the two, but under further examination it became clear that these relationships are at the centre of their approach to prediction and selection. While teachers question the deep-seated belief in the ‘simple, unitary version of ability/intelligence’, they ultimately exhibit the same beliefs through their actions Gillborn & Youdell, 2000, (p.162). On the basis of these conceptions of ability, ‘underachievement’ becomes a prominent discourse surrounding ability and attainment (Gillborn & Youdell, 2000, p.135).

Terms like ‘ability’ and ‘talent’ minimise the dynamic of the contextual relationship between individual and environment. Despite advances in the conceptualising of learning as socio-cultural participation, traditional entity-based theories of

93

knowledge still locate learning in the head of the learner. Recent research has shown the weakness of traditional approaches to ability and talent (Barab & Plucker, 2002, p. 168). Positivist epistemology directly feeds into perceptions of learning as acquired, and ‘talent’ as the possession of the individual.

Jerome Bruner expresses a cultural understanding of mental activity being ‘neither solo nor conducted unassisted...mental life is lived with others, is shaped to be communicated, and unfolds with the aid of cultural codes, traditions and the like’ (Bruner, 1996, p. xi). This is developed by Lave and Wenger, who show learning to be an integral aspect of social practice, whereby the whole person is understood as actively engaged and participant in the world, rather than seeking to acquire a body of factual knowledge. In short, ‘learning is an integral and inseparable aspect of social practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 31). To illustrate learning as social practice, Barab and Plucker cite studies showing inconsistencies in the ability of persons performing maths calculations in different settings: adults in the US who seldom make an error in supermarket calculations averaged poorly in maths-testing situations; similarly, children selling in street-markets in Brazil easily make complex calculations, but perform badly in formal maths-testing (Barab and Plucker p.167). Both of these examples demonstrate that characterising ability as inherent ‘talent’ in purely mechanistic cognitive terms is lazy and misguided – rather, abilities and competencies must be situated in the active relation of persons in particular environments. Therefore learner, learning material and context cannot be separated. Barab and Plucker advocate that educators try to understand how some individuals can take advantage and function within contexts, which are supported by whatever resources, social or material, they may have at their disposal. ‘Educators must

94

support smart contexts, not simply smart individuals’ (Barab and Plucker pp.170, 175).

In musical ability terms, a distinction may be perceived to exist between ‘ability’ and ‘talent’. A ‘talented’ person is usually regarded as being possessed of exceptional musical ability. What about everyone else? Constant testing and selecting imposes a deficit verdict on the musicality of those regarded as being less than ‘talented’. Sloboda identifies three cultural myths regarding talent:

i) Musical ability depends on a pre-existing rare inherited ‘talent. ii) Musical excellence comes from within by solitary effort. iii) Work and pleasure are separate (Sloboda 2006, p.312).

Barab and Plucker’s argument is that ‘ability is not a trait existing within an individual but instead is a description of contexts through which some individuals appear to be talented’ (Barab and Plucker p.175). The responsibility lies with the educator to provide supportive structures and contexts in which potentially talented

activity can be facilitated.