-
One takeaway from this thread is I need to read outliers as it seems to really create some passion (positive and negative) in its readers.
I didn't see anything particularly controversial in 'the talent code' but maybe that is because I automatically parse the difference between cause and correlation. A lot of the "scientific" articles we read seem to miss that distinction,
Mike
-
07-12-2014 11:53 AM
-
Sorry about not addressing the athletes...
But again, you're missing the point I think. 10,000 hours does not make you great. But if you lined up a bunch of people who were great at something, 10,000 hours--or lets just say a shitload of hard work, by an early age--would be a commonality among many of them.
Thats what the book says. It also says a lot of hockey stars are born in January. Not all. Nor does it say if you're born in January you'll be a great hockey player.
The whole book looks for commonalities among a group.
So its completely ppossible for someone to be great and not have the hard work or whatever commonality you're looking for. But it's also not common. How many Bo Jacksons have their been?
Ggo back and read the Bill Gates chapter. 10,000 hours is ONE of a series if things Bill had going for him. Still, none of those things made him great. But they are common to others who have achieved greatness in that or similar fields.
The book NEVER says "anybody can be great." It's nit a self help book. Outliers is not about causation.
-
I feel like your reading of Gladwell is way too charitable. If you're willing to admit:
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
1) Not everyone who is great at something dedicated 10,000 hours to it
2) Not everyone who dedicates 10,000 hours to something will be great
3) There's something other than 10,000 hours of dedicated work that you need to be great
Then I guess I don't see what the point of the 10,000 hours metric is anymore. The book is called "Outliers" because he was trying to explain the mechanism by which wildly successful individuals became successful through cross comparisons. My problem is that he doesn't seem to know what he means by "success", he cherry-picks anecdotes that support his claims, and he ignores recalcitrant data.
I've read a lot of Gladwell over the years, and I feel like he always makes the same mistake. He starts from an interesting case study, does a lot of cool research where you learn a lot about an interesting and unusual topic, then draws some goofy "either/or" conclusion about what it means that falls apart within 10 minutes of considering counterexamples. I still read his pieces because I enjoy his intellectual curiosity, but I always tend to end them groaning to myself.
-
I don't think anyone would object to Gladwell saying "people who excel at something spent a lot of time working at it." But if you allow that many people can put in 10,000 hours and NOT be great, well, then what exactly does the 10,000 hours explain? Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
10,000 Hours May Not Make a Master After All | TIME.com
-
I can say this, though: if you're reading about the 10,000 hour rule when you should be practicing, you're not helping yourself. ;o)
-
...Never had much faith in crash courses!...L... Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Some people seem to always try to spin the 10,000 thing into a claim about achieving "greatness" or "mastery". It's not that IMO. For those successes, I think there are a lot of other variables. It's about becoming an "expert". An expert, not a world champion, a top draft pick or a virtuoso. An expert. An expert still has a lot to learn. Expert to me means that one can do something at a consistently high level, not that they are necessarily world-class at something. In jazz guitar, I see it as: you can gig in a guitar-fronted trio as the main melodic voice and make good music.
By the time most people enter a college jazz program, they've probably got around 4,000 to 5,000 of deliberate practice under their belt. Say 4 more years at 1,000 practice hours a year then another year of 1,000 hours after school while they get gigs going. Pretty sure that person will be an expert jazz player. Not world class, not winning Down Beat, but they're going to be a damn good player by any reasonable definition - an expert.
-
I don't think the Beatles would be regarded as expert musicians in that sense, either. Originally Posted by coolvinny
But you know, whatever one thinks of Gladwell and the 10,000 hour rule, we are free to set our own standards.
I think it would be useful for budding jazz guitarists (-who may be young but may have been playing for many years already, just not jazz) to have a sense of what it means to be an "expert" jazz guitarist or even a "well-rounded" one.
Many jazz books may have a list of "must-know tunes" and add something like 'don't head to New York if you can't play most of these' but most guys don't want to go to New York. They don't want to play professionally (-maybe gig some, but they don't file tax returns claiming their employment as a musician) but they want some sense of where 'intermediate' ends and where 'advanced' begins.
We could kick around our own ideas of what that means for us here in this Forum. We're a large, international group. We're not looking to lord it over anyone or keep anyone out, but a lot of guys who aren't pros would like to know what "par" is on this course and see if they're there, or assess what it might take to get them there.
-
Im 35. If I follow how Gladwell actually talks about it, my window for the 10,000 to be meaningful is closed! Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
-
Where does apptitude come in.
Some are mechanically inclined, some not so. Others are more logically inclined others not so.
Does apptitude + 10k hrs = greatness?
-
Something the talent code points out is that practice doesn't make perfect, it makes permanent.
i.e. if you practice sloppily or with a lack of precision, you are cementing that type of playing. If you want perfect, you need concentrated, focused practice always aiming at specific goals of improvement.
That concept (although not novel) has helped me get far more out of my practice time than I used to,
Mike
-
For sure, judged by posts, there are lots of experts here. Expertise, however, speaks nothing about the competence on the instrument. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
Now, advanced players, or average, or ..., ... are we looking at technical and musical devices used (knoweledge) and the level of precision they were executed (skill)?
Being guitar player forum it would be expected to. However, I think the level of competence on the instrument, knoweledge and skill, is not crucial for making of good and interesting music. Playing in tune and time, or convincingly out of, is a prerequisite, though, IMO.
Following is somewhat adapted quote from someone. I could not say it better, so:
... in general I see virtually no correlation between
1. how authoritatively some "speak" on the forum
2. how good I think they are
3. how good they think they are
4. how good other members think they are.
-
The research behind the 10,000 rule was on performance. That was the whole emphasis: performance. It's why classical music and chess are the focus of so much research of this type. Chess players can be ranked, and although classical musicians are not ranked in the same way, young classical musicians can be assessed in a fairly objective way. (At level X you should be able to play piece Y at tempo Z...) In that sense, it is ALL about competence on the instrument. Originally Posted by Vladan
With jazz guitar it is different. Not all jazz guitarists play the same material, and not all of them play the same way.
On another thread, someone posted a televised interview with Wes Montgomery. In it, the interviewer told a story about the great saxophonist Ben Webster, who sought out a famous teacher for technique lessons. The teacher told Ben Webster that his technique was awful but his music was beautiful---don't change a thing!
This is something we deal with in jazz: some have great technique but play music with no soul; some with flawed technique play transcendent music.Last edited by MarkRhodes; 07-12-2014 at 05:40 PM.
-
If the 10,000 hour rule was really true I'd be a Mozart. I've spent way more hours than that. But yes, I can see the commonality. I would bet every great musician, at least defined by how I would define great, has spent tens of thousands of hours. That doesn't mean they'll be great. But I bet they'd pretty be good.
I think this is good. Most people, at least in the US, think talent comes from some secret place. There's little understanding of a hard work ethic. They tend to think someone can just play great. In an interview Michael Brecker said he DOESN'T believe people, great players, when they say they don't practice. He said he knows how much work it takes. If they say they hardly ever practice he thinks they're lying.
But 10,000 hours? That's a bizarre arbitrary figure.Last edited by henryrobinett; 07-13-2014 at 02:26 AM. Reason: Correction
-
"Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect."
Vince Lombardi
-
"You can't practice art". Nickolas Paton....
-
I've read one of Gladwell's books and I think he's full of crap. IMO the 10,000 hour rule he purports is nonsense that he's twisted out of actual scientific research.
-
That's a tough position to be in, saying people you (or Michael Brecker) regard as great are lying when they say they hardly ever practice. I know I have to practice a lot to be any good at all, so I'm going to keep at it until they throw dirt over me. But I only know what others are doing from what they tell me. Granted, some people BS, but if you're talking to a seriously good player and that's what he tells you, it's hard to argue that you know better about how much he must practice than he does. I do think it would be fair to say, "I have a hard time believing that," and then let it go. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
Funny you should mention Mozart. There's a story about a composer coming to see him for advice on writing a symphony. Mozart listened to him and then said, "You're too young to be writing symphonies." The guy said, 'But you wrote your first symphony when you were nine years old!" Mozart said, "Yes, but I didn't need any help." Ouch!
It's always important to appreciate that "all we can currently measure" may not be "all there is to know" about something. One reason for the 10,000 hour rule is that data was available showing how much some kids practiced their violins and it seemed that best ones practice the most. That was the variable that data allowed to be isolated in terms of explanation (-the other variable was how good the kids were; the difference in time spent practicing was the only available explanation.)
-
And yet all artists practiced... Originally Posted by larry graves
-
The other MAIN variable, beyond pure talent, is HOW they practice. Practicing alone means nothing. You can have two people who practice the same amount, but one turns into a great musician and the other just seems mediocre. What separates them OTHER than innate ability is what they practice and how they practice. Or you can have one person who practices HALF or less the amount that someone else does yet he/she gets better much faster. It's what and how. There are very effective ways of practicing, and less effective methods.
Last edited by henryrobinett; 07-13-2014 at 12:35 PM.
-
I thought it was informative someone like Brecker, who was arguably the MOST practiced, the BEST of his generation, says that he believes anyone who says they don't have to practice, speaking of GREAT musicians, is lying. HE would know, you know? He knows these folk. He knows what it takes. He was also born into an extremely musical family and he was also somewhat of a musical prodigy. He was very talented. To hear HIM say this is not insignificant.
-
To give them the benefit of the doubt, I wonder if it is the definition of what is "practice". Perhaps those that think they don't practice are just very efficient at learning and improving when they are "playing". I.e., I never practice, I just play 12 hours a day, Originally Posted by henryrobinett
Mike
-
Yeah, this could be. But I swear I KNOW people who lie about it. They want you to believe they don't have to work at it, or they don't want you to know how HARD they work at it. Im not sure why. Originally Posted by Mimbler
I mean no one has defined what practice means. True. To one person it means playing scales and arpeggios. To another it means playing music on your own. To ME I don't count THAT as practicing. I'd have to add sometimes another two hours a day to my 2-3 hours. LOL. Sometimes.
Maybe guys want to excuse their imagined lame playing. They don't want you to know how hard they have to work to play so badly. Musicians are often obsessed with how bad they play. Very self critical. I was having an online conversation with guitarist Steve Khan. He was talkng about when he used to play in a band with Brecker. He remarked how nobody EVER said to one another, "Man! Great playing!" And always wondered why. Then he realized it was because everyone was obsessed with their mistakes or introverted into their own playing.
-
Further on this - as a recording engineer, mixing/mastering engineer I rarely ever get a call or email from anyone about how GOOD it sounds. I'd sometimes get my feelings hurt because I KNOW the mix sounds good. Or I THINK it does. Then I start doubting myself. THEN I realize that everyone is introverted into their own playing when they listen to the mixes. They might think that the mix sounds good, or maybe the guitar needs to come up (if they're guitar players!). But they are almost without exception worrying about their own playing. Then maybe much later, months later I run into that guy and he says how good it sounds and thanks me.
Whenever I get compliments from folks playing live I socially thank them. Shake hands and smile, but deep inside I have my own disappointments and am constantly thinking about what I can do to improve the errors of my ways. LOL.
-
I will also add an exception Ive observed from this "I never practice" thing. I have seen seasoned musicians who never practice. But these were folks who started when they were about 5 or 6. My theory is their hand grew into their instrument. It's not so much a physical thing for them. They've played and practiced SO MUCH when they were younger they don't need to so much any more. I used to play with a great pianist who could play with great facility. Amazing Oscar Peterson chops. She could be drunk, and often was and you never heard it in her playing. She never ran scales or anything. But she played gigs all the time. At home she rarely played though.
Reply With Quote
mid-ranginess?
Today, 05:42 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos