10000 Hours

Rockshamrover

I was reading this article recently about what it is that makes some people brilliant at things and others not.

Seemingly, to be considered brilliant at what you do, you have to have some natural talent. then you have to spend 10000 hours at it over a period of a few short years. One of the examples quoted was the Beatles. According to the article, the Beatles had gigged for this amount of time before they made it (I find that hard to believe)

Anyway, I am just wondering how many hours you guys have clocked up in the studio? Could you be on the verge of brilliance?

Neurojazz

minimum of 58400, i'm obviously MAD.

Mars Bar

Neurojazz wrote: »

minimum of 58400, i'm obviously MAD.

If my math is correct(which it most likely isn't), you have spent 6.66666... years in the studio!:eek:

PaulBrewer

I know a lad what spent 10,000 hours getting a snare sound ....

In about '86/'87 I did over 6 straight months without a day off. I used do the daytime and the other Engineer did the nights.


We looked like Robinson Crusoe after it - beard, long hair .....

I can only imagine what shyte we were doing then.

jtsuited

I did a full 38 hour session there a few weeks ago. Took an hour break about 12 hours in to get some dinner.

Fortunately my work paid off as the results of this marathon session are being released by a fairly big and respected German label.

Over the past year, I went from doing a healthy amount every day (8/9 hours) to just seeing weeks dissapear as 16 hour+ became the norm. It's bad for the health though so I'm considering doing the 2009 marathon to offset it.

Caffeine and nicotine, while being a bit cliche, are truly amazing things for long periods of work.
Although anything you can get your hands on (legal and illegal) will do the trick!

I'm a young lad though so can get away with this sort of nonsense. In saying that, I've gone from being a star athlete health freak two years ago to being a chain smoking lardo, who probably needs a solid month's sleep.

1000 hours though, seems a good bit short by my reckoning.

studiorat

I reckon about 36 hours is the most I've done.

I remember one of the first gigs I did as an assistant was about 27 hours long.
I used to do sessions 14 hours a day for 5 or 6 weeks at a time, there just isn't the work around for that anymore since people are buying their own gear instead of renting studios.

PaulBrewer

I did the couple o dayers with relish as a youth - pure nonsense really as after 8 or 10 hours the work quality drops significantly. The drop in quality will probably stay into the following days work too.

I remember one session I was doing were I was doing a drop in for a bar or whatever, these are the days of 2 inch tape, so no undo.

I got the very tight drop in perfectly but fell asleep before the drop out .... finger on the stop button sitting up.

I woke up again when everyone started shouting

Seziertisch

I think that time is only one factor in "greatness". Obviously talent is required, but autodidactism and self criticism play just as big a role. The ability to diagnose problems and weaknesses and correct these is crucial.

This is the difference between being only alright and being good. How many times have you seen a band say, and thought that a certain song by them has a good intro or a good middle eight or a good bassline or whatever but is let down by the rest of it? Too often probably. If they were a great band they would have picked what was best, scrapped the rest and then built on that. And what's more, they would have stuck at it until they were happy i.e. persevered, another defining character of greatness.

Someone says to this band, "I liked the ..., but the rest was not up to much" How do they react? Do they get kind of stroppy, do they start to defend it, do they think what does this guy know, or do they think "hang on, he could be onto something here"? Any or all of the first 3 possibilites and that is as good as they are going to get. They have reached plateau. If you think you can't improve then you won't.

Which brings me onto the next thing that greatness requires; a lack of ego when it comes to the tunes. Far too many musicians out there that are kicking back on their non-existent laurels. They tie their own egos up with their work and are unable to see beyond "I did this, it's great because I did it". No better way to not improve.

So when you get up in the morning, take a moment, look at your own reflection in the mirror, think of the greats (whoever you aspire to emulate in terms of greatness, pick someone properly great like David Bowie or whoever), ask "Am I even fit to lick their boots?" (the answer is no, probably), then remind yourself of how fundamentally weak and limited you are in your abilities and say "Today I will try and be a little less ****"... Then get to work.

So, in a nutshell, be hyper self-critical, keep at it until you are truly satisfied, don't start weeping like a teased vagina because its taking a while (know that every mistake you make now, every dead end you pursue all bring experience and as such are worth it even though it might not feel like it at the time) and as Snoop say "Step yo game up" (meaning never get complacent and keep pushing yourself because its the last 20% that sometimes take the longest and requires the most work. This same 20% is what will set you apart from the competition).

The oracle has spoken.

PaulBrewer

Seziertisch wrote: »

Obviously talent is required, but autodidactism and self criticism play just as big a role.

Yes, I use Autodidactism 4.7 VST

Rockshamrover

Seziertisch wrote: »

I think that time is only one factor in "greatness". Obviously talent is required, but autodidactism and self criticism play just as big a role. The ability to diagnose problems and weaknesses and correct these is crucial.

This is the difference between being only alright and being good. How many times have you seen a band say, and thought that a certain song by them has a good intro or a good middle eight or a good bassline or whatever but is let down by the rest of it? Too often probably. If they were a great band they would have picked what was best, scrapped the rest and then built on that. And what's more, they would have stuck at it until they were happy i.e. persevered, another defining character of greatness.

Someone says to this band, "I liked the ..., but the rest was not up to much" How do they react? Do they get kind of stroppy, do they start to defend it, do they think what does this guy know, or do they think "hang on, he could be onto something here"? Any or all of the first 3 possibilites and that is as good as they are going to get. They have reached plateau. If you think you can't improve then you won't.

Which brings me onto the next thing that greatness requires; a lack of ego when it comes to the tunes. Far too many musicians out there that are kicking back on their non-existent laurels. They tie their own egos up with their work and are unable to see beyond "I did this, it's great because I did it". No better way to not improve.

So when you get up in the morning, take a moment, look at your own reflection in the mirror, think of the greats (whoever you aspire to emulate in terms of greatness, pick someone properly great like David Bowie or whoever), ask "Am I even fit to lick their boots?" (the answer is no, probably), then remind yourself of how fundamentally weak and limited you are in your abilities and say "Today I will try and be a little less ****"... Then get to work.

So, in a nutshell, be hyper self-critical, keep at it until you are truly satisfied, don't start weeping like a teased vagina because its taking a while (know that every mistake you make now, every dead end you pursue all bring experience and as such are worth it even though it might not feel like it at the time) and as Snoop say "Step yo game up" (meaning never get complacent and keep pushing yourself because its the last 20% that sometimes take the longest and requires the most work. This same 20% is what will set you apart from the competition).

The oracle has spoken.

Wow, that's powerful stuff Seizer.

I think you hit everything on the head there. The only thing I would add is that no one can do it alone. Along with nature (talent) you need nurture, someone to hone that talent.

Seziertisch

Oh definitely, it's that team magic that makes it really great. It is about the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.

I saw an interview with U2 I think it was, where they said that they were more a bunch of musicians that played great together as opposed to being a bunch of great musicians.

For this reason a lot of all-star bands never capture let alone surpass the greatness that their individual members achieved separately with their respective bands. Fantasy football it ain't.

And sometimes the loss of a member can change things completely. Look at the Smashing Pumpkins without Jimmy Chamberlain. The same is true of Guns'n'roses following Steven Adler's departure. There are some demos on youtube of songs that were on the Use your Illusion albums but which have Adler instead of Matt Sorum on drums. Which one is the better drummer, technically speaking Sorum, musically and from the point of view of the GnR sound definitely Adler. Just check this out, I challenge you to find a finer version of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV42wzGjVF4

PaulBrewer

Seziertisch wrote: »

Oh definitely, it's that team magic that makes it really great. It is about the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.

I saw an interview with U2 I think it was, where they said that they were more a bunch of musicians that played great together as opposed to being a bunch of great musicians.

For this reason a lot of all-star bands never capture let alone surpass the greatness that their individual members achieved separately with their respective bands. Fantasy football it ain't.

And sometimes the loss of a member can change things completely. Look at the Smashing Pumpkins without Jimmy Chamberlain. The same is true of Guns'n'roses following Steven Adler's departure. There are some demos on youtube of songs that were on the Use your Illusion albums but which have Adler instead of Matt Sorum on drums. Which one is the better drummer, technically speaking Sorum, musically and from the point of view of the GnR sound definitely Adler. Just check this out, I challenge you to find a finer version of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV42wzGjVF4

Therapy, never cut the mustard post Fyfe.

Seziertisch

I have known a few bands that have splintered (i.e. creative differences or sacking a key member). In both cases they went from bands with a quite a bit of buzz around them to having since done nothing.

In one case they had been covered heavily in the NME and for all intents and purposes were about to break out, except they split into two factions (relatively amicably), neither of which has really done much since. It was kind of a Lennon/McCartney style songwriting relationship (one darker/one poppier). The magic was no longer there. In the other case, a team of "respected producers" expressed an interest in working with the band, except they said under the condition that they lose a few members, one of whom was the bass player who together with the guitarist was the kernel of their magic (IMO). Those guys had started it together and just played really well together. Bass player was given the boot. That was a couple of years ago, I think they are still together but their collaboration with said "respected" producers seems to have produced nada. They went from a band that were getting played a lot on local radio (not here in Ireland) to a band that seem to have done nothing since. Even the stuff up on their myspace is all recordings done with the old line up.

Alchemy is what its all about. If the chemistry is happening don't f**k with it.

PaulBrewer

Seziertisch wrote: »

I have known a few bands that have splintered (i.e. creative differences or sacking a key member). In both cases they went from bands with a quite a bit of buzz around them to having since done nothing.

In one case they had been covered heavily in the NME and for all intents and purposes were about to break out, except they split into two factions (relatively amicably), neither of which has really done much since. It was kind of a Lennon/McCartney style songwriting relationship (one darker/one poppier). The magic was no longer there. In the other case, a team of "respected producers" expressed an interest in working with the band, except they said under the condition that they lose a few members, one of whom was the bass player who together with the guitarist was the kernel of their magic (IMO). Those guys had started it together and just played really well together. Bass player was given the boot. That was a couple of years ago, I think they are still together but their collaboration with said "respected" producers seems to have produced nada. They went from a band that were getting played a lot on local radio (not here in Ireland) to a band that seem to have done nothing since. Even the stuff up on their myspace is all recordings done with the old line up.

Alchemy is what its all about. If the chemistry is happening don't f**k with it.

Don't just type all that waffle without saying who it is ya Prick!

Seziertisch

Discretion, Paul Brewer, is a commodity almost as precious as greatness. I tell you the names next time we talk in person. Not knowing the names takes nothing from the cautionary nature of these tales.

PaulBrewer

Seziertisch wrote: »

In one case they had been covered heavily in the NME .

Discrete you say?