How to get really good at Music/Art

[simmerdown]

mozart...considered genius, but he did not create any 'great' works til his early 20's...after starting at 3 with about 3-5 hours practice a day...which, ironically comes to about 10,000 hours

[acidpenguin]

in an interview with YoYo Ma the interviewer said, 'its amazing what your talent has led you to achieve!'...YOyo: Yes! that, and the 100,000 hours of PRACTICE

comparing sports and music is not an valid comparison

read Outliers (malcolm gladwell) if this topic interests you...in a nutshell, anyone can master anything with about 10,000 hours practice...'talent' is a myth

Except that isn't really what Outliers proposes. Gladwell simply points out that those who succeed are those who have worked hardest and had some luck. At no point does he say that anybody can master anything, that is a modern myth.

If it really is just hard work then why, in the hundreds of years since Mozart and Bach lived, has nobody else managed to match them? Why are there so few great composers when thousands and thousands of people have worked their arses off at their art? Why is Shakespeare still considered the greatest playwright of all time.. others must have spent as many hours writing as he did?

[c33]

If it really is just hard work then why, in the hundreds of years since Mozart and Bach lived, has nobody else managed to match them? Why are there so few great composers when thousands and thousands of people have worked their arses off at their art? Why is Shakespeare still considered the greatest playwright of all time.. others must have spent as many hours writing as he did?

Well, perhaps partially because they've been dead for hundreds of years. Lots of artists aren't fully appreciated until long after they've passed away. All of the artists you listed were also pioneers of sorts, and it's not easy to do things that haven't already been done before nowadays. Mozart, Bach and Shakespeare also created works that continue to be performed and reinterpreted by other artists and were created with this purpose in mind. Whereas contemporary music in the modern world tends to be quite a bit more closed off and artist-centric.

I agree that "just hard work" does not make something great. It's usually an important ingredient, yes, but having innate talents (artistic or otherwise) is not a myth and often pretty important too.

[Machinesworking]

To add to that Mozart died miserably poor.
Plus, (I'm going to get flack for this for sure) Classical music has been bogged down by it's very genre stipulations for untold generations now.
Anytime a music becomes defined to the point that Classical has it become hard to match the 'greats' because you're just treading their ground when you compose in that style. The people who haven't and actually do something new and good will be forgotten for generations then rediscovered when pop music uses some of their musical language. Then held up in high regard long after it won't matter to their decayed corpse.

[pencilrocket]

Stop reading and posting forums?

[Grappadura]

suffer for your art...

in theatre lessons I learned to put my body into uncomfortable positions to reach a higher degree of expression. I´m sure can be translated to music, probably in many ways.

[simmerdown]

there could have been other mozarts since his time who's work never became known because of circumstance
....don't confound mastery with becoming known/famous...two separate issues

ex: katy perry

[synnack]

Good discussion.

I think much of the Suck Factor and motivation issues in general stem from improper expectations.

You could give up. Or not. Or just reset expectations. If you get into music thinking anything less than being U2 one day is failure, you've already failed.

I think a lot of people start out comparing themselves with artists that would not make it themselves if they started out now. It's a different world. You have to do it because you enjoy it even if no one else ever listens or cares.

[acidpenguin]

there could have been other mozarts since his time who's work never became known because of circumstance
....don't confound mastery with becoming known/famous...two separate issues

ex: katy perry

I'm not confounding the two at all. Mozart's fame is not relevant to the quality of his work. The number of people who have heard 'The Marriage of Figaro' has nothing whatsoever to do with it being a work of utmost brilliance (this applies to what c33 wrote as well I guess), we're simply lucky that his work has survived and we get to experience it. As for your hypothetical unknown geniuses; for the point of discussion trees that fall in the woods with nobody there to hear are irrelevant, we can only talk about what we know .

Part of the problem with this whole discussion is that people seem to be suggesting that 'genius' is some form of distinct quality.. some actual 'thing' that can be measured (or not, hence it cannot exist). Since there's no real definition of what genius even means it's perhaps silly to even argue one way or the other. Hard work is essential and, all things being equal (ie the hard work) some people are just better than others.

To add to that Mozart died miserably poor.
Plus, (I'm going to get flack for this for sure) Classical music has been bogged down by it's very genre stipulations for untold generations now.
Anytime a music becomes defined to the point that Classical has it become hard to match the 'greats' because you're just treading their ground when you compose in that style. The people who haven't and actually do something new and good will be forgotten for generations then rediscovered when pop music uses some of their musical language. Then held up in high regard long after it won't matter to their decayed corpse.

I get what you mean but don't entirely agree. It's not that long ago that guys like Holst, Strauss, Debussy etc were around. Britten even more recently broke a lot of 'rules' and had a very distinct style indeed. That said, yeah a lot of modern classical is shit (either totally uninspired 'soundtrack' rubbish or ultra dissonant experimental gibberish). In a lot of ways dance music (and electronic music in general) has become even more bogged down by rules and genre stipulations than classical.

Mozart didn't die miserably poor btw, he had debts but he also had money coming in (he'd just completed a commission for La Clemeza di Tito and The Magic Flute was a great success). It's one of those myths that have sprung up about him and hasn't been helped by Amadeus (he wasn't a raving nutcase either ).. anyway even if he had not too sure why it'd make any difference to whether he was a genius or not.

Stop reading and posting forums?

Coming from you, of all people, that really made me laugh.

[crumhorn]

is anybody seriously saying you can get really good at music/art without practice?

Or that unless you are born with inbuilt genius you might as well not bother?

Few people can achieve real greatness in any pursuit, but that doesn't mean there is nothing for the rest of us to contribute.

At least the 10000 hours practice theory gives some room for hope.

[simmerdown]

At least the 10000 hours practice theory gives some room for hope.

word!...i'm at 37 hours and counting!

[stringtapper]

To add to that Mozart died miserably poor.

Mozart didn't die miserably poor btw, he had debts but he also had money coming in (he'd just completed a commission for La Clemeza di Tito and The Magic Flute was a great success). It's one of those myths that have sprung up about him and hasn't been helped by Amadeus (he wasn't a raving nutcase either ).. anyway even if he had not too sure why it'd make any difference to whether he was a genius or not.

Yeah, his financial situation near the end of his life has been heavily romanticized in popular culture. While there are letters that survive that suggest that he indeed had outstanding debts we know that Constanze was able to pay them off after his death and even make some money off of the estate. We also know that he definitely never went without the kinds of luxuries that a person of his social status would have enjoyed (like a maid) despite his financial woes.

[Machinesworking]

Good to know string and acid. Not that it's important to get rich off your music, but it's a shame what happens to people who are contributing actual output that inspires people. Thinking of all the blues players that got absolutely nothing for inventing a genre that inspired so many for instance.

[stringtapper]

Thinking of all the blues players that got absolutely nothing for inventing a genre that inspired so many for instance.

Yeah but if they had been drinking scotch and eating caviar then it wouldn't have been the blues, right?

You kinda have to end up dying in a ditch to be a respected bluesman.

[3dot...]

whether you die rich or not is not relevant..
there have been many musicians even before someone had the bright idea..
to even make a notation..

Picasso might have died young.. but was a big part of a larger (than his lifetime) movement..

the specific "action".. of a tree falling might not matter..if no person witnesses it's fall..
but the tree itself always does..
we don't live in a vacuum..after all

success..it's a highly subjective term...
and so is "genius"...