DNA is so extremely precise they feel comfortable reporting that fucking 200-years-dead Beethoven was "supposed to be bad at music" because of a DNA sequencing, but genetics have absolutely zero nothing nada zilch to do with any other human behaviors, right? Don't fly to close to the sun, now!

The most unexpected part of this brief read is that they actually acknowledge that Beethoven was a very gifted musician instead of trying to downplay it and enforce their own data as infallible. What an odd thing to be researching.

So they did what, compared his DNA to modern standards of fine music shit like Nicki Minaj and Cardi B and just assumed since it was different he couldn't possibly have been musical.

If a genetic study suggests that Beethoven did not have natural musical talent, then well that study is wrong.

Funny I'd just mentioned Beethoven in another thread before I saw this.

Eh, he is still my favorite composer. If you haven’t already take a long walk and listen to the full 9th symphony

Dude was nearly deaf and made music so great that when the masterminds plan comes to fruition, he's on their playlist.

You ain't EVER going to have the boss, as every one of his enemies is snuffed out, he now rules supreme start playing 'Anaconda'...

Beethoven was arguably the first metalhead

I seem to remember he wasn't a musical prodigy or anything. That was Mozart.

Beethoven had his father practice music day in and day out, and then beat the shit out of him if he wasn't perfect. I think injuries from his father's abuse have been attributed to his hearing loss later in life.

genome-wide association study (GWAS) of musical talent. However, a subsequent GWAS involving 606,825 individuals identified the specific locations (loci) of 69 genes significantly associated with beat synchronization ability, assessed by the question: Can you clap in time with a musical beat? A follow-up family study showed that polygenic indices had a small but significant effect on several music-related skills and traits.

An important thing to remember is the term "significant" and its use in studies. In studies, the word does not mean "major" or "very important" but instead means, essentially, "does whatever we're looking at have a role in the outcome, and we're not looking at random chance here". It's just an issue of statistics.

So what they did was look at the genomes for 600k+ people, looked for associations with people with musical talent, and identified a 'beat synchronization' gene. Those who have it have a more innate ability to keep a musical beat than those who don't, which has a small influence in a person's musical ability.

However, this also seems to be something a person can compensate for. Such as, as Beethoven did, practice music a whole ton and brute forced the learning curve.

I guess genes can have some influence on it, at least indirectly. But by far what seemed to be the biggest impact was the musical surrounding and transfer of experience. If you were taught by the best composers in the world, and if you happen to have a little bit of musical talent on top, it's just very likely you'll eventually become a very successful composer if you put some work into it.

Mozart was taught almost everything by his father, who was an excellent musician (composing maybe not so much) and initiated him with stuff like Bach. Mozart and Beethoven met many times and it's likely Mozart gave him some lessons as well. Beethoven was also a student of Haydn (another very big composer), then Beethoven was Czerny's teacher, which was in turn Liszt's teacher (maybe the most famous pianist in history)... The more you dig into it, the more links you find between the most renown musicians / composers.