Ableton Forum

jngpng wrote:I think this 10,000 hour rule has a grain of truth to it, but its not even vaguely the whole story - especially when applied to creative pursuits. 10,000 hours working on music will make you a more accomplished producer or composer, but it's not necessarily going to give you new ideas or inspiration.

It's almost a cliche for an artist (of the musical type, at least) to produce their best work near the start of their career. How does the 10,000 hour rule explain that?

hmmm, maybe thats because the keep re-treading old ground. For instance, Aphex twins last release (rushup edge) was probably his best work to date. He seems to get better with age. And I'm sure many of the great composer have gotten better the longer they have worked. I think the reason many modern musicans get worse as they get older is because they either stop trying as hard, get fucked up on drugs or were just never that good in the first place and were hyped up.

It certainly explains why Oasis are shit.

jngpng wrote:I think this 10,000 hour rule has a grain of truth to it, but its not even vaguely the whole story - especially when applied to creative pursuits. 10,000 hours working on music will make you a more accomplished producer or composer, but it's not necessarily going to give you new ideas or inspiration.

It's almost a cliche for an artist (of the musical type, at least) to produce their best work near the start of their career. How does the 10,000 hour rule explain that?

This is a common issue, and there are a couple of explanations that are usually cited in reply:

1. Artists / bands have their whole life in the run up to their first couple of albums to develop and write material. They might not have mastered the craft, but the raw excitement and energy is usually there in a debut release. And they can hone these first tracks in private, with no pressure other than that they place on themselves.

2. When artists move to major labels they have pressures put upon them to release certain material. Some artists resist this and are all the better for it. The majority 'sell out', thus their later work is weaker than their early stuff.

3. Artists get older. Some get better and more challenging with age (e.g. Scott Walker); the majority start a family, or earn enough money to live a comfortable life... basically music comes further down in the list of priorities. The inspiration dries up, or the artist becomes part of the system they once railed against.

10k hours of practicing poor quality, wrong technique, etc might make you a master failure. Quality has to take premise over time.

Leon Tricker wrote:

jngpng wrote:I think this 10,000 hour rule has a grain of truth to it, but its not even vaguely the whole story - especially when applied to creative pursuits. 10,000 hours working on music will make you a more accomplished producer or composer, but it's not necessarily going to give you new ideas or inspiration.

It's almost a cliche for an artist (of the musical type, at least) to produce their best work near the start of their career. How does the 10,000 hour rule explain that?

This is a common issue, and there are a couple of explanations that are usually cited in reply:

1. Artists / bands have their whole life in the run up to their first couple of albums to develop and write material. They might not have mastered the craft, but the raw excitement and energy is usually there in a debut release. And they can hone these first tracks in private, with no pressure other than that they place on themselves.

2. When artists move to major labels they have pressures put upon them to release certain material. Some artists resist this and are all the better for it. The majority 'sell out', thus their later work is weaker than their early stuff.

3. Artists get older. Some get better and more challenging with age (e.g. Scott Walker); the majority start a family, or earn enough money to live a comfortable life... basically music comes further down in the list of priorities. The inspiration dries up, or the artist becomes part of the system they once railed against.

I agree that this is true of "rock/pop" artists (certainly not all of them however). But what about classical composers and performers? Or, jazz artists, like classical artists, grow and refine like fine wine. Even when age doesn't allow them to play with the technique they had in their youth, great jazz and classical performers play with musicality that they didn't when they were younger. This is also true of some artists in electronic music genres. Aphex Twin, Boards of Canada, (bunches of others), are maturing in their compositions much in the same way that Corigliano and Torke are finding their mature voices.

Yes.

And, I agree. Time and repetition have allowed me to hone my listening skills, develop my own sound, improve my efficiency and, most importantly, make a lot of mistakes, from which, I have learned the most.

I will not discount Tone's point regarding talent which I personally believe cannot be created. You either have it or you don't.

Personally, If i wasn't having so much fun in the process, I never would have gotten through 10,000 hours. Enjoy the journey or get off the bus.

Tod

I have easily put in that time playing the drums - have been playing for well over ten years! I wouldn't say that I am a master, but I certainly have my area of expertise.

udp wrote:I agree that this is true of "rock/pop" artists (certainly not all of them however). But what about classical composers and performers? Or, jazz artists, like classical artists, grow and refine like fine wine.

Sorry, yes, I should have clarified that I meant rock or indie bands. As I said in the post, someone like Scott Walker (or indeed classical / jazz / electronica artists) does mature and get better with age.

Another specific example: Squarepusher. He is definately forging new paths with each album. And while I am not a huge fan of his latest, I respect the fact he is pushing (no pun intended!) himself in new directions.

radialson wrote:10k hours of practicing poor quality, wrong technique, etc might make you a master failure. Quality has to take premise over time.

Agreed. This was what I was trying to say earlier, but I didn't put it so well

but technically shouldn't it be 10k hours on composing and another 10k hours on production to actually become a "master"?

mihai wrote:but technically shouldn't it be 10k hours on composing and another 10k hours on production to actually become a "master"?

Very good point: the computer music production boom has been a blessing for so many reasons... but because the tools of ALL the trades are now so readily available, there is an expectation that you have to be a master of every stage in the creative process.

Me, I like to create. The technical aspects of recording/mixing/mastering bore me to death. And with a home set-up, there is only so good I can ever become because of the monitoring/acoustic treatment limitations of my spare room!

Which is why from now on I am going to pay for my tracks to be mixed/mastered by someone I know who runs a local, commercial studio and whose work I like. It'll cost me £70.00 per track, but that is well worth it to me because I can focus on the 'creative' side.

I'll provide him with mix stems from my tracks, and he'll mix them at the studio. He'll email me 'work in progress' mixes, and I'll go to the studio to listen to the final mix before I pay him. This service may be avaiable elsewhere for cheaper, but I like the work he's done for other people, and I want someone who is local.

timothyallan wrote:I would argue that quantity gets you quality.

Not necessarily.

Practice makes permanent.
Perfect practice makes perfect.

Leon Tricker wrote:

mihai wrote:but technically shouldn't it be 10k hours on composing and another 10k hours on production to actually become a "master"?

Very good point: the computer music production boom has been a blessing for so many reasons... but because the tools of ALL the trades are now so readily available, there is an expectation that you have to be a master of every stage in the creative process.

Me, I like to create. The technical aspects of recording/mixing/mastering bore me to death. And with a home set-up, there is only so good I can ever become because of the monitoring/acoustic treatment limitations of my spare room!

Which is why from now on I am going to pay for my tracks to be mixed/mastered by someone I know who runs a local, commercial studio and whose work I like. It'll cost me £70.00 per track, but that is well worth it to me because I can focus on the 'creative' side.

I'll provide him with mix stems from my tracks, and he'll mix them at the studio. He'll email me 'work in progress' mixes, and I'll go to the studio to listen to the final mix before I pay him. This service may be avaiable elsewhere for cheaper, but I like the work he's done for other people, and I want someone who is local.

with the tools so readily available every common person out there is fixated on being a Producer. that drives me nuts, all show, no go. it used to be we'd learn an INSTRUMENT to get into the game, now every poser out there things they're Flood. some of you are pretty damn talented, most are just posers with powerful, affordable tools.

/rant

glitchrock-buddha wrote:

timothyallan wrote:I would argue that quantity gets you quality.

Not necessarily.

Practice makes permanent.
Perfect practice makes perfect.

those are good lessons.

glitchrock-buddha wrote:

timothyallan wrote:I would argue that quantity gets you quality.

Not necessarily.

Practice makes permanent.
Perfect practice makes perfect.

yeah, what do you think practice is? staring at your instrument? no, its playing your instrument a lot (quantity).


i think its pretty true, maybe the number is made up kinda, but its point is that in order to be a master of your art you must put a significant chunk of your life into learning the art.

and tone deft: wheres some of your music, i looked but i found a bunch of random shit(christian blues band, is that you?). you talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?

drumrak wrote:

glitchrock-buddha wrote:

timothyallan wrote:I would argue that quantity gets you quality.

Not necessarily.

Practice makes permanent.
Perfect practice makes perfect.

yeah, what do you think practice is? staring at your instrument? no, its playing your instrument a lot (quantity).


i think its pretty true, maybe the number is made up kinda, but its point is that in order to be a master of your art you must put a significant chunk of your life into learning the art.

and tone deft: wheres some of your music, i looked but i found a bunch of random shit(christian blues band, is that you?). you talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?

I talk the talk a helluva lot better than you.

I've shared my music with the people I choose to, it's not to gain acceptance from jerks like yourself.

edit - sorry, it's morning-ish here and I was in a hurry. if you can teach me something or make me laugh I'm in your debt. let's be real, I don't know you, you don't know me, at least you're a music lover and a Live user, props for that.

as i understand it, you need to spent 10k hours on practice ONE art to become a master. saying "making music" in repect to a home-studio setup and doing all yourself is not one art. it´s many things, as said before: at least it´s knowing your sequencer (10k), your recording tools (mikrophones, soundcards, digital audio, analogue audio for those who work with a tape-machine (let´s say another 20k), playing ONE instrument well and lets say pressing your keyboard keys in the right order (15k, 10 for the instrument and 5 for the keys), arrangement (10k), mixing (10k), and the most important: get a feel and ability to create a track (10k because the experience comes with the other mentioned arts imo).
so we are at 75.000 hours, then you could consider you a "master" of producing your own music --- hmmm.

but i think it is true that you have to take a certain amount of time (let´s say 10.000 hours) on RIGHT practising an art to become a master. and master for me means that you have just little boundaries in playing your instrument, wether it´s drums, guitar, mixer or creating songs.
but the point is after 10.000 or whatever hours you are not finished. you are never finished, i guess you know that already

the whole point for me in saying you need so much time to master something, is that all those guys who call themself "producer" and actually just have made two tracks with apple-loops should ask themself how someone like squarepusher or aphex-twin or ...... got their skills.

drumrak wrote:

glitchrock-buddha wrote:

timothyallan wrote:I would argue that quantity gets you quality.

Not necessarily.

Practice makes permanent.
Perfect practice makes perfect.

yeah, what do you think practice is? staring at your instrument? no, its playing your instrument a lot (quantity).


i think perfect practice makes your technique perfect - but that doesn´t necessarily means you are a perfect musician - and to me so called "perfect"-musicians,-songs,-mixes,-music is boring!
but if you got a "perfect" technique you can express yourself in every musical situation! and that´s why spending so much time with your instrument is worth it!

btw, really interesting thread !! like it.