How to get really good at Music/Art

[stringtapper]

Branford Marsalis' take on students today

[regretfullySaid]

yup

to that I'd say people should lighten the fuck up, not take themselves too seriously, don't go into this thinking you're some shit hot 'artist' with a voice and a vision that will enamor everyone that gets to see you on stage because you're awesome and will impress people.

no, you're just another monkey with ears and an instrument. shut up and play. enjoy the process, not the bullshit end goal.

Love it:)

[Machinesworking]

what about breeding people so they're not assholes?

"no business skills or manager, and tens of thousands of mediocre bands with a good PR guy."

to that I'd say people should lighten the fuck up, not take themselves too seriously, don't go into this thinking you're some shit hot 'artist' with a voice and a vision that will enamor everyone that gets to see you on stage because you're awesome and will impress people.

no, you're just another monkey with ears and an instrument. shut up and play. enjoy the process, not the bullshit end goal.

Yeah there's always the balance ego wise somewhere between being egocentric and self conscious, and it isn't an easy thing for sure.
My "serious" band in SF back in the day was fully stricken with overblown egos, I was the nice guy at least when it came to fans of the music, the other guys were jerks about it, and it was an issue.

I knew this guy that insisted we rent a studio space to jam in. then he got into his head we were a band. he would tell anyone at work that would listen that he was in a band, when we'd go to bars he'd ask about booking a gig, on and on. he never wrote a single goddamn song but damnit, he was in a band. I just ignored it and let him have his fantasy, his ego needed it.

That story times at least ten incidents! You jam once with somebody and ta-da! you're a band!
I don't mention it much myself, it's kind of a given up here, and it actually works against you.

[Machinesworking]

Branford Marsalis' take on students today

Reminds me of this somehow:

Everythings Amazing & Nobodys Happy

[nathannn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Gladwell
almost every post in here saying there is no such thing as talent reminds me of this guy and his theory of talent= 10,000 hours of hard work.
cant people have an original thought on here? i even read some one saying "talent= 10,000 hours of hard work"

[3dot...]

I vaguely remember someone saying something..
but can't remember...

[nathannn]

another example of the 10,000 hours myth, i have surpassed 10,000 hours years ago.

[regretfullySaid]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... ryMediaBox

ugh

[Machinesworking]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... ryMediaBox

ugh

[nathannn]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... ryMediaBox

ugh

and look who's behind it all the guy that says talent=10,000 hours of hard work.
this guy could write that eating dirt makes you brighter and everyone would do it.

[pencilrocket]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... ryMediaBox

ugh

I think this is good movement. Human development varies one by one. At least it can't be made even by school year cycle.

[acidpenguin]

You've stated this entire thread that there is a top tier that is to you obviously a result of a genetic predisposition, and as we all know nothing has been proven in this field. You're convinced already. Eugenics isn't in itself evil, that wasn't the point. It has a massively positive impact on animal and plant breeding, and getting rid of diseased strains etc. Where it fails IMO is in terms of human potential and development. It wasn't just about the breeding or purifying of a superior race etc. It was about trying to isolate positive and negative genetic traits. This is IMO beyond dangerous for people to speculate about, and at this time I see nothing but speculation about the impact of genes on intelligence etc. Great for scientific research for sure, but not so great to base a theory on.

I really have not been saying that at all . I believe that there 'might' be a top tier determined by genetics and nurture neither of which on their own guarantee anything, somewhat different to what you keep insisting I believe, but anyway. I can keep saying 'if', 'maybe', 'might be', 'would be interesting if' until the cows come home but it's getting boring. Identifying what makes us intelligent really isn't the same as eugenics no matter how much you insist, research into genetics may show indeed that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue (although admittedly it seems unlikely to me). I'd prefer to find out than just ignore it because it presents some challenging ethical questions. Also, scientific research doesn't happen without speculation, surely? You must have a premise in order to test it.

[Cool Character]

Don't think anybody is suggesting that, certainly not me. I was just contesting the notion that anybody can become great with 10k hours practice (as you say, all it does is give you a chance) or that genius does not exist and we all hold the same potential, to me the evidence suggests otherwise.. some people are just better.

Some people are just better.

[c33]

Pretty much. It seems like common sense that some people are innately and inherently better at some things than others. Whether or not what we nurture our strengths and cultivate what's required to do something great with what we've got is another story.

As far as capitalizing on artistic strengths is concerned.. at least for me personally..I think Rilke was onto something and learning to embrace solitude is a big part of the hard work I need to be putting into practice right now.

[regretfullySaid]

+1 for solitude!