quote:

Originally posted by SDM BT sucks. he need to learn that 90% of the time less is more. Fibonacci Sequence is the exception but im guessing he was high or something when making it caus he never made anything like it before or after, not even close.

No. You lose.

quote:

Originally posted by SDM great musicians are only that because they have been widely/largely exposed to great music and at the same time have the interest in it enough to analyze it and understand it, and then learn the tools needed to create something themselves.

Once again, you've attempted to substitute wishful thinking for actual facts.

What's being said here is "oh, I listen to a lot of music, so how hard could it be to play or to make?" Just try to imagine how this statement would sound in another context. "I drive cars a lot, how hard could it be to build one?" Or, "I work on Windows all day, how hard could it be to design an operating system?" The only people who would say these things are people who are so ignorant of the craft that they don't even know how to recognize skill (or talent), much less obtain it.

Intelligent people don't just pull ideas out of their asses and call them theories. It's great that you're imaginative enough or smoked enough weed to come up with these little nuggets, but maybe you should spend your energy actually researching the issue instead of trying to convince people on a forum, because without any evidence, these claims aren't worth shit.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Talent is greek for “divine gift”, and since I do not believe in anything divine, I do not believe in predisposed skills.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/m...&pagewanted=all

quote:

when it comes to choosing a life path, you should do what you love — because if you don't love it, you are unlikely to work hard enough to get very good.

Some studies have lead to the theory most sucess is through training persistence, no latent talent.

One such study below (note my highlighted passage);


Gladwell observes, ‘Modern problems require persistence more than genius, and we ought to value quantity over quality when it comes to intelligence…
The point of interest is that he advocates taking problems slowly – noting that expertise comes with approx. 10,000 hours of training. He thereby identifies the ‘mismatch problem’, which is simply the idea that standards used to judge/predict success in a given field don’t match what it takes to be successful in that field. Below is a transcription from Gladwell’s speech:
“But here we’re saying the critical part of what it means to be good, to succeed at the very specific and critical task at finding colon cancers, has nothing to do with speed of facility – on the contrary, it depends on those who are willing to take their time and willing to very very painstakingly go through something that seems like it can be done in a minute. In other words, that’s a mismatch: we select on a cognitive grounds for people being fast at things, but what we really want is a personality characteristic that allows people to be slow at critical things. Here we have the same thing with Wiles in a certain sense. We have erected in our society a system that selects people for tasks like solving Fermat’s or tackling big modern problems on the basis of their intelligence and the smarter they seem to be, the more we push them forward. But what we’re saying with Wiles is, that the critical issue here was not his intellectual brilliance, it was his stubbornness, it was the notion that he was willing to put everything else aside and spend 10,000 hours on a problem no-one else thought could be solved. So, this is the question: Are we actually selecting people for stubbornness? I don’t think we are.”
A lot can be accomplished in 10,000 hours. It’s been said throughout the psychology community that

the application of learning towards a craft…any craft for a period of 10,000 hours gets you closer to mastery in that said craft.


Now I’ve been at the “craft” of Performance Engineering formally for 7 years an informally for 10 years. If we assumed a steady 40 hour week schedule for let’s say 48 weeks a year (I’m being generous since I often read about PE on my vacation). That’s 13440 just for the 7 formal years. I’m well past the 10,000 hour mark. So how come I don’t feel a master in PE?

___________________
https://soundcloud.com/butlerrichard

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Butler Some studies have lead to the theory most sucess is through training persistence, no latent talent. One such study below (note my highlighted passage); Gladwell observes, ‘Modern problems require persistence more than genius, and we ought to value quantity over quality when it comes to intelligence… The point of interest is that he advocates taking problems slowly – noting that expertise comes with approx. 10,000 hours of training. He thereby identifies the ‘mismatch problem’, which is simply the idea that standards used to judge/predict success in a given field don’t match what it takes to be successful in that field. Below is a transcription from Gladwell’s speech: “But here we’re saying the critical part of what it means to be good, to succeed at the very specific and critical task at finding colon cancers, has nothing to do with speed of facility – on the contrary, it depends on those who are willing to take their time and willing to very very painstakingly go through something that seems like it can be done in a minute. In other words, that’s a mismatch: we select on a cognitive grounds for people being fast at things, but what we really want is a personality characteristic that allows people to be slow at critical things. Here we have the same thing with Wiles in a certain sense. We have erected in our society a system that selects people for tasks like solving Fermat’s or tackling big modern problems on the basis of their intelligence and the smarter they seem to be, the more we push them forward. But what we’re saying with Wiles is, that the critical issue here was not his intellectual brilliance, it was his stubbornness, it was the notion that he was willing to put everything else aside and spend 10,000 hours on a problem no-one else thought could be solved. So, this is the question: Are we actually selecting people for stubbornness? I don’t think we are.” A lot can be accomplished in 10,000 hours. It’s been said throughout the psychology community that the application of learning towards a craft…any craft for a period of 10,000 hours gets you closer to mastery in that said craft. Now I’ve been at the “craft” of Performance Engineering formally for 7 years an informally for 10 years. If we assumed a steady 40 hour week schedule for let’s say 48 weeks a year (I’m being generous since I often read about PE on my vacation). That’s 13440 just for the 7 formal years. I’m well past the 10,000 hour mark. So how come I don’t feel a master in PE?

Could I have the link to the entire article?

Release something and then we can tell you if you are a master or not.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi change your avatar for fucks sake.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Butler Now I’ve been at the “craft” of Performance Engineering formally for 7 years an informally for 10 years. If we assumed a steady 40 hour week schedule for let’s say 48 weeks a year (I’m being generous since I often read about PE on my vacation). That’s 13440 just for the 7 formal years. I’m well past the 10,000 hour mark. So how come I don’t feel a master in PE?

Because the 10,000-hour mark is a gross generalization made by one person - not an immutable law of nature. As to why you're not as far along as you wish you were or think you should be, it's not really possible for us to answer that, but I suspect that it has something to do with the manner in which you are learning. Maybe you need to read less and experience more, or vice-versa? Maybe you need a more focused approach with formal instruction? Or, maybe you're further along than you think you are?

___________________
cryophonik.com | facebook | soundcloud

Sonar Platinum | Ableton Live 9 | Logic Pro X | Access Virus TI2 Keyboard | Kurzweil PC3X | Nord Lead 4R | NI Maschine

like cryophonik iterated, the 10 000 mark is an average and he is very specific that those 10 000 hours are conscientious practice. Just making track is not a focused approach to practice.

having a timetable with goals , longterm and short, and exercises to achieve those goals is what you need to do.

If you do 4 hours of producing,

1 hour on mixing
1 hour on arranging
1 hour on sound design
1 hour on listening.

My own personal schedule a couple years back when I was in school was

1 hour sight reading
2 hours of orchestration exercises
1 hour of piano exercises
2 hours of composition
1 hour of analysis
1 hour listening

and of course added to this was actual school work. I woke up, did music, then went to bed.you have to focus and work smart. I had exercises I did in the bus, I had exercises when I took a shower. I basically found every possible way to make use of my time a little better.

you need incredible discipline because it isn't always fun and it is something you can't do forever because you will crash. I've had 3 burnouts (like to think of it as a vacation) over the last 28 years which were always preceded by years of intense practice. Would do 5 years or so of intense studying then fuckabout for a year.

Last edited by RichieV on Oct-19-2009 at 18:12

As cryophonik and RichieV have already said, simply spending 10,000 hours doing something is meaningless.

Spending 10,000 hours focussing on what you need to improve on, and structuring your practice around that, will bring you a long way towards "genius".

quote:

Originally posted by cryophonik Because the 10,000-hour mark is a gross generalization made by one person - not an immutable law of nature. As to why you're not as far along as you wish you were or think you should be, it's not really possible for us to answer that, but I suspect that it has something to do with the manner in which you are learning. Maybe you need to read less and experience more, or vice-versa? Maybe you need a more focused approach with formal instruction? Or, maybe you're further along than you think you are?

Hey, I did'nt make it clear, none of that quote was by me, it was a music maker on another forum responding to an American study into what separated top performers in all fields.

The scientists argue that a minimum 10,000 hours training was a pre - requisite, but like you I agree that training muist be the right training and properly focused. They went onto say that for example all acadamy of music students had more or less similar talent at the start, but a few by sheer force of will went onto to practice more than the rest and it was that single characteristic that set them apart. It argued this was the key characterisrtic that determined outcomes in all fields to include sports. I remeber Arnold Swartzenegger saying this a long while back - that he simply put in more effort than everyone else. Again not my theory. I cant find the theory on google, it was released last November.

Also I have'nt read many production books, and I soend a lot of time working tracks.

My only bewilderment came when one or two amateurs claim to have got signed after just 12 months part time producing, one using nothing but headphones. Now one of them has a very good sound, and I just don't get how it did it with headphones and a very very basic setup. The take home message if what he says is true is - some people are born with a gift and can apply themselves without years of work and struggle.

Perhaps they have some supernatural gift and it all just fell into place, or they are'nt being honest or they released stuff that is'nt so good.

I'm fairly ok where I'm at, and was offered a deal to make 5 tracks a year ago but I felt my stuff was'nt good enough so I declined to proceed. I can envisage some thinking I might have made this up, but honestly I just knew my sound was not what the professionals were putting out so I just could'nt see the point for me personally.

___________________
https://soundcloud.com/butlerrichard

Last edited by Richard Butler on Oct-20-2009 at 13:20

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Butler Hey, I did'nt make it clear, none of that quote was by me, it was a music maker on another forum responding to an American study into what separated top performers in all fields.

Ohhhhh - I see.

___________________
cryophonik.com | facebook | soundcloud

Sonar Platinum | Ableton Live 9 | Logic Pro X | Access Virus TI2 Keyboard | Kurzweil PC3X | Nord Lead 4R | NI Maschine

That article above discusses, and I quote, "the very specific task at finding colon cancers," and points out that this is a task requiring more patience and attention to detail than talent. And I somewhat agree. However, what "talent" really means (at least to me) isn't the ability to complete a specific task more quickly/easily than others, it's the natural ability to quickly or easily learn all the information and mental/physical processes required to complete various tasks in a certain field or subject.

The fact that some people learn quicker than others doesn't even really need to be researched - the vast majority of us have seen it firsthand. So yes, while it may take 10,000 hours for an experienced professional to develop the task scheduler for an operating system regardless of any innate ability, some people may reach that level of proficiency after 5 years of experience while others won't reach it until they've been doing it for 20 years.

We know this to be true. Think of how it applies to physical disciplines as opposed to intellectual ones. How many of us could take up basketball now and ever make it to the NBA - even if we practiced for 16 hours a day? What about martial arts, Olympic sports, that sort of thing?

Of course we all just guess intuitively that these things are hard, because they look hard. There seems to be this seductive charm around watching somebody who sits at a desk tapping away on a keyboard or looking into a microscope and going "pah, I could do that, if I really wanted to!"

It's the World of Warcraft generation, believing that effort equals outcome. Just spend enough time at it, build up enough experience points, and you can take on anything. In reality, if you spend 10,000 hours learning inefficient or even wrong methods then you've accomplished less than somebody who spent 1000 hours but had an intuitive sense and/or a particularly good teacher.

In scientific terms, one would say that experience as measured in terms of time can be a necessary but not sufficient condition for mastery of a particular skill.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here