As an adult learner of a musical instrument for whom this is not coming easy... I hope and pray he is right!! But I also believe there is such a thing as innate talent. The thing is, all the talent in the world only goes so far if you don't work hard at it. So rock on!
Yes, Lennon and McCartney are geniuses. Hard work only is an issue when the people doing the work have the intelligence to focus and learn from the mistakes. Hard work will fill the time, and the 10,000 hour rule will only make the people who do drudge work bitter that they haven't been given the gift of greatness. Genius doesn't make you great, but it does save you time.
I'm very happy to have read the book and I learnt quite a lot, however instead of encouraging people to follow the 10 000 hour rule ( as recommended by the book) , we should rather be encouraging people / learners to value the 'quality of hours' & not simple the amount.
I totaly agree. I have a story to tell about this. A friend of mine is a chess genius. when he was a about 8-10 years he was on 2000 in rating in chess ( and he still is at the same level). The problem was that he did not like the game and never played 10 k hours. I love the game and have played 10 k hours, but never on topp focus ( just playing for fun not studying the game). Whats sad/funny is that i have gone from 1200 level to around 1530 in about 20 years. But he who is a genius hates to play the game and is now a drug addict. He hates the fact that he did not focus on the game to get to master level, that he seldom plays... and if he do its under the influence of drugs/alcohol. The 10 000 hours rule only matter if you study at max focus. If you dont you need even MORE talent. And if you dont have the talent you need more than 10 000 hours!
@@Ikaros23 so if you don’t have the talent…say you want to be a guitar player but have short fingers…where will the 10,000 hours get you? Someone like Rudy spent a lot of hours to get better at football and only got 1 play in his entire collegiate football career. Maybe his 10,000 hours would be better spent elsewhere?
What he doesn't discuss here is that musical ability doesn't always correlate to commercial success. Some great musicians never have the commercial success and some folks that make a ton of money, are more marketing creations than musicians. Some would argue that Fleetwood Mac's earlier stuff was better but it's largely a matter of personal taste. He's right that hard work has a lot to do with it but natural ability can't be developed unless it is there to start with. Most of us could practice basketball 24/7 but we'd never be Michael Jordan. So the real answer is it takes both talent and work to be good at something.
Great article, but the analogy of 10yrs & 16 albums before Fleetwood Mac 'made it' is wrong. It is widely accepted that they outsold both the Beatles and the Stones in the late 60's. However, in the context of this article, Peter Green, etc had put in the hours with John Mayall in addition to hours of practise but natural talent was there in abundance.
Many bands are ten and more years in the making putting out the same effort and NEVER get a major hit and become famous so while effort is a requirement it is NOT a probability, never mind a guarantee.
I believe that practice is very important but, like many other people in this comment section, I also believe that talent is innate and cannot be taught no matter how much practice. This following quote is from Dave Grohl about John Bonham: "I spent years in my bedroom - literally fucking years - listening to Bonham's drums and trying to emulate his swing or his behind-the-beat swagger or his speed or power. Not just memorising what he did on those albums but getting myself into a place where I would have the same instinctual direction as he had". I really like Dave Grohl. He's very good. But he ain't no Bonham. You cannot teach what Bonham did. You either have it or you don't.
Fleetwood Mac was "anything but good for 10 years"? Wrong. In fact during the time period under their founder, Peter Green, they sold more albums than the Beatles and Rolling Stones combined. Yes, after Peter Green left they went through a fallow period but to maintain that they were "anything but good" before Nicks and Buckingham came onboard is revisionist history.
This conference mainly says : work hard and you will be rewarded - the usual concept used by most religions. And the world is full of people that work very hard, every day, but they get nowhere. Besides, many of the world greatest artists did NEVER reach success, in terms of wealth or money, they just produced joy for others; I believe, on the contrary, that artistic talent cannot be gained just by hard work. Same with happiness : can it be reached through "hard work" ?
I believe you can "work" on happiness... Happiness is a fleeting emotion however, but by putting a little effort in (e.g devoting time to charity, fostering good relations, meditation etc) it can boost your overall contentment with life
@ZenRester I don't think that's what's being said at all. He's not saying if you work hard you will achieve success. He is saying that the people who have achieved great success did not do so overnight, but by years of hard work. That's hardly the equivalent. I haven't seen the rest of his talk, so I can't comment on exactly where he is going with this, but you are correct: working hard will not necessarily mean you will be successful. It also matters what is meant by success. Not all success is judged by wealth or fame. And yes, happiness (contentment?) can only be achieved through hard work. Again, doesn't mean you will definitely be happy, just that without the work, you will probably not be truly happy. Then again, I don't know everyone or the outcome of every life.
I do concur with this principle, yet there are lots of true overnight successes in the music industry. Just one example, where some teenagers met in a migrant hostel in Australia and began playing music together. With a lead singer who was just 17 they were a huge success and set the Australian music scene on fire lasting for many years > The EASYBEATS.
i dont aspire to have true expertise. i aspire to be "pretty good" LMAO. I got ONE year of intense public speaking training and I got pretty good compared to other kids at school. Like intense public speaking training. Some weekends was 8 hours a day. 3 hours a day after school. So now I consider myself "pretty good" at public speaking and im satisfied with where im at.... not everyone wants to be a world class expert.....
I call bullshit on this '10 000 hour' rule. Genius is obviously related to intelligence and skill (and skill is something that can be fostered through hard work), but the really outstanding characteristic of genius is original thought - which is actually most evident in early life, and is a lot more organic. You don't usually see artists and musicians become better with age: just look at Bob Dylan. Even he has difficulty explaining the way his songs came naturally to him. The theory just seems like another way of consoling the every man.
+PigLover69 I've been playing music for probably 38 yrs. I'm 52. I started fooling around with the guitar when I was like 14 or something... I totally agree with Gladwell. Not only do you have to put the work in, but it's the quality of the work you put in that matters as much as the work itself. The natural talent you speak of is the exception. The majority of us have to "put in the work". There's no other way. I'm no better than I am at music because I've never been serious enough at it. So, while people tell me I'm "good", I know I don't compare to someone truly great. I've never put the work in. And even if I do, there's still no guarantee I'll be up to some standard of "great", let alone famous.But if I don't do anything at all, we all know what becomes of no effort. People who we think are great, invariably spend unimaginable amounts of time with their craft/instruments. And not because they want to be great, but it's simply what they love. I used to fall asleep with my guitar when I was a kid, wake up and keep playing.You don't think Carlos Santana, David Gilmore, David Grohl, Prince, or any of your favorites have gotten to be better musicians with age? Bob Dylan's brain is most likely inebriated by now anyway. The sixties, you know, lol. I don't think the theory is to console, but to merely point out how much work the average person tends to spend on his or her craft.
+Shawna Love Thanks for the reply. What I'm saying is that 'natural talent' SHOULD be the qualifier for the term, not the amount of time you put into it. Imagine these two scenarios: A kid produces a brilliant, original piece of music with little to no musical education. "Wow, that's amazing, how long have you been making music?" "A week." "-You're a genius."" A man produces a brilliant, original piece of music after writing music for 38 years. He was slow to develop, but now, 38 years later, he's starting to get it. "Wow, that's amazing, how long have you been making music?" "38 years." "-You're a genius." The term wouldn't normally be applied to the second case for good reason. Genius is characterised as: "Exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability." Sure, putting in a lot of work is obviously something that geniuses would do, I wasn't making a point against that, but Gladwell's definition undermines the actual meaning of the term. P.S. I listen to all those artists that you listed, and the quality that defines their earlier work (their genius), in my opinion, isn't evident in their work any more. Sure, their technical skills would have increased, but what good are technical skills when you can't write 'genius' melodies any more?
At the London BUSINESS forum??? So what is the main point in pop-rock music? Be succesfull in your careers? That means sell a lot? Make a lot of money? Become the number one? I thought pop-rock music was another thing: art, fun, freedom, life, not business.
Think it's fair to say that artful success, if different to commercial success is enhanced if people like it and demonstrate that by opening their wallets. Not trying to be condescending but business success for a producer of art gives the artist freedom to be more of a creator than a struggler. Casting business as a dirty word for musicians helps to keep them broke and can send them eventually to a job of convenience where their art is no more. :)
Ralph Graham It all depends on the departure point, mine is different from yours. Thank you for another point of view. Part of the reason is on your side. I do not think art in general and music in particular is first of all a matter of money, business, as wel as health care, for example. If you are a producer answer this cuestion, Why are you at the show businees? For the shake of getting money or for the shake or art itsaelf? On the other hand artistic people and producers must earn some money.
You practice that amount of time exactly because you know what yo want to do or become. The book talks about it from the perspective of "passion". For example, Bill Gates gathered that amount of time because programming was his passion and The Beatles did the same playing a lot of time in Hamburg. I would also add another rule to Gladwell´s book: having a mentor.
This makes so much scene and so true So get rid of Xfactor and programmes like that. A true artist in what ever form take s time and practice there are no short cut in becoming good at what you do just believe in your self and don't worrie how long it takes just enjoy the journey its not a race . Some will develop quicker so what as long as you get there.
Next to the FitBit 10,000 steps lie, I think 10,000 hours of practice is next on the line. Of course George Carlin optimised the 10 commandments. 😂😂🙏🙏👍👍
I've heard of Fleetwood Mac but I have never actually heard anything that they performed. Maybe this kind of stupid argument works with people who listen to Fleetwood Mac. But it could hardly be more wrong about Mozart. Contrary to what Gladwell says I have listened to a lot of Mozart written when he was a child. For example there's 'Mithridate Re di Ponto'. I have two full length recordings of it. The entrance of Mithridate as sung by Bruce Ford is a hit on RUclips. Check it out. Mozart was 14 when he wrote it. It's a full length opera in three acts. Its quite wonderful and has been appreciated all over the world for over two hundred years. Mozart was one of those prodigies that just 'popped up' out of the European masses. He was recognized almost at once as something special. He practiced of course but his genius was not a function of his number of hours of practice. Gladwell is an idiot who is peddling untrue pop psychology. He pushes ideas that flatter the audience. He's an intellectual con man.
Reading the book, I was astonished to find that a person of Gladwell's intelligence consider "china and paddy-field" as the beginning & end of culture on right of Atlantic ! Serious Misconception.
The 10,000 hours rule is caca. It doesn't take into account degrees of natural talent, depth of concentration, etc. Who's holding the stopwatch on these achievers?
Don't confuse "good" with the questionable (to say the least) taste of the plebs. They - they- they - who is the "THEY"? Think about it. And Malcolm needs to get that hair under control - seriously.
As an adult learner of a musical instrument for whom this is not coming easy...
I hope and pray he is right!! But I also believe there is such a thing as innate talent. The thing is, all the talent in the world only goes so far if you don't work hard at it. So rock on!
Yes, Lennon and McCartney are geniuses. Hard work only is an issue when the people doing the work have the intelligence to focus and learn from the mistakes. Hard work will fill the time, and the 10,000 hour rule will only make the people who do drudge work bitter that they haven't been given the gift of greatness. Genius doesn't make you great, but it does save you time.
This inspired me so much 8 years ago when I was in a band touring the UK and America
I'm very happy to have read the book and I learnt quite a lot, however instead of encouraging people to follow the 10 000 hour rule ( as recommended by the book) , we should rather be encouraging people / learners to value the 'quality of hours' & not simple the amount.
I really like this point!
By writing this it seems you missed the point of the book.
I totaly agree. I have a story to tell about this. A friend of mine is a chess genius. when he was a about 8-10 years he was on 2000 in rating in chess ( and he still is at the same level). The problem was that he did not like the game and never played 10 k hours. I love the game and have played 10 k hours, but never on topp focus ( just playing for fun not studying the game). Whats sad/funny is that i have gone from 1200 level to around 1530 in about 20 years. But he who is a genius hates to play the game and is now a drug addict. He hates the fact that he did not focus on the game to get to master level, that he seldom plays... and if he do its under the influence of drugs/alcohol. The 10 000 hours rule only matter if you study at max focus. If you dont you need even MORE talent. And if you dont have the talent you need more than 10 000 hours!
@@Ikaros23 so if you don’t have the talent…say you want to be a guitar player but have short fingers…where will the 10,000 hours get you? Someone like Rudy spent a lot of hours to get better at football and only got 1 play in his entire collegiate football career. Maybe his 10,000 hours would be better spent elsewhere?
i think it is inherent in the rule itself,
i guess one should not put a comment before reading the main book, everything is well explained there. this is just a five minute fifty one seconds.
What he doesn't discuss here is that musical ability doesn't always correlate to commercial success. Some great musicians never have the commercial success and some folks that make a ton of money, are more marketing creations than musicians. Some would argue that Fleetwood Mac's earlier stuff was better but it's largely a matter of personal taste.
He's right that hard work has a lot to do with it but natural ability can't be developed unless it is there to start with. Most of us could practice basketball 24/7 but we'd never be Michael Jordan. So the real answer is it takes both talent and work to be good at something.
wes Montgomery is a great example
Very inspiring. LOTS of truth here!
Great article, but the analogy of 10yrs & 16 albums before Fleetwood Mac 'made it' is wrong. It is widely accepted that they outsold both the Beatles and the Stones in the late 60's. However, in the context of this article, Peter Green, etc had put in the hours with John Mayall in addition to hours of practise but natural talent was there in abundance.
Many bands are ten and more years in the making putting out the same effort and NEVER get a major hit and become famous so while effort is a requirement it is NOT a probability, never mind a guarantee.
It took him 10 years to be that good speaker.
MALCOLM GLADWELL IS IMPRESSIVE BOOK FOR SPEECH SOURCE
Thank you so very much for the teaching. Its very interesting.
I believe that practice is very important but, like many other people in this comment section, I also believe that talent is innate and cannot be taught no matter how much practice. This following quote is from Dave Grohl about John Bonham:
"I spent years in my bedroom - literally fucking years - listening to Bonham's drums and trying to emulate his swing or his behind-the-beat swagger or his speed or power. Not just memorising what he did on those albums but getting myself into a place where I would have the same instinctual direction as he had".
I really like Dave Grohl. He's very good. But he ain't no Bonham. You cannot teach what Bonham did. You either have it or you don't.
He did alright though didn’t he? So you kind of proved the point
Fleetwood Mac was "anything but good for 10 years"? Wrong. In fact during the time period under their founder, Peter Green, they sold more albums than the Beatles and Rolling Stones combined. Yes, after Peter Green left they went through a fallow period but to maintain that they were "anything but good" before Nicks and Buckingham came onboard is revisionist history.
This conference mainly says : work hard and you will be rewarded - the usual concept used by most religions. And the world is full of people that work very hard, every day, but they get nowhere. Besides, many of the world greatest artists did NEVER reach success, in terms of wealth or money, they just produced joy for others; I believe, on the contrary, that artistic talent cannot be gained just by hard work. Same with happiness : can it be reached through "hard work" ?
I believe you can "work" on happiness... Happiness is a fleeting emotion however, but by putting a little effort in (e.g devoting time to charity, fostering good relations, meditation etc) it can boost your overall contentment with life
@ZenRester I don't think that's what's being said at all. He's not saying if you work hard you will achieve success. He is saying that the people who have achieved great success did not do so overnight, but by years of hard work. That's hardly the equivalent.
I haven't seen the rest of his talk, so I can't comment on exactly where he is going with this, but you are correct: working hard will not necessarily mean you will be successful. It also matters what is meant by success. Not all success is judged by wealth or fame.
And yes, happiness (contentment?) can only be achieved through hard work. Again, doesn't mean you will definitely be happy, just that without the work, you will probably not be truly happy. Then again, I don't know everyone or the outcome of every life.
Î learned a lot from this.
did anyone think he looks like the guy in the Simpsons who's always in jail and trying to kill Bart Simpson?
I do concur with this principle, yet there are lots of true overnight successes in the music industry. Just one example, where some teenagers met in a migrant hostel in Australia and began playing music together. With a lead singer who was just 17 they were a huge success and set the Australian music scene on fire lasting for many years > The EASYBEATS.
Are you referring to Daniel Johns and Silverchair ?
i dont aspire to have true expertise. i aspire to be "pretty good" LMAO. I got ONE year of intense public speaking training and I got pretty good compared to other kids at school. Like intense public speaking training. Some weekends was 8 hours a day. 3 hours a day after school. So now I consider myself "pretty good" at public speaking and im satisfied with where im at.... not everyone wants to be a world class expert.....
I call bullshit on this '10 000 hour' rule. Genius is obviously related to intelligence and skill (and skill is something that can be fostered through hard work), but the really outstanding characteristic of genius is original thought - which is actually most evident in early life, and is a lot more organic. You don't usually see artists and musicians become better with age: just look at Bob Dylan. Even he has difficulty explaining the way his songs came naturally to him. The theory just seems like another way of consoling the every man.
+PigLover69 I've been playing music for probably 38 yrs. I'm 52. I started fooling around with the guitar when I was like 14 or something... I totally agree with Gladwell. Not only do you have to put the work in, but it's the quality of the work you put in that matters as much as the work itself. The natural talent you speak of is the exception. The majority of us have to "put in the work". There's no other way. I'm no better than I am at music because I've never been serious enough at it. So, while people tell me I'm "good", I know I don't compare to someone truly great. I've never put the work in. And even if I do, there's still no guarantee I'll be up to some standard of "great", let alone famous.But if I don't do anything at all, we all know what becomes of no effort. People who we think are great, invariably spend unimaginable amounts of time with their craft/instruments. And not because they want to be great, but it's simply what they love. I used to fall asleep with my guitar when I was a kid, wake up and keep playing.You don't think Carlos Santana, David Gilmore, David Grohl, Prince, or any of your favorites have gotten to be better musicians with age? Bob Dylan's brain is most likely inebriated by now anyway. The sixties, you know, lol. I don't think the theory is to console, but to merely point out how much work the average person tends to spend on his or her craft.
+Shawna Love Thanks for the reply. What I'm saying is that 'natural talent' SHOULD be the qualifier for the term, not the amount of time you put into it.
Imagine these two scenarios:
A kid produces a brilliant, original piece of music with little to no musical education.
"Wow, that's amazing, how long have you been making music?"
"A week."
"-You're a genius.""
A man produces a brilliant, original piece of music after writing music for 38 years. He was slow to develop, but now, 38 years later, he's starting to get it.
"Wow, that's amazing, how long have you been making music?"
"38 years."
"-You're a genius."
The term wouldn't normally be applied to the second case for good reason. Genius is characterised as:
"Exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability." Sure, putting in a lot of work is obviously something that geniuses would do, I wasn't making a point against that, but Gladwell's definition undermines the actual meaning of the term.
P.S. I listen to all those artists that you listed, and the quality that defines their earlier work (their genius), in my opinion, isn't evident in their work any more. Sure, their technical skills would have increased, but what good are technical skills when you can't write 'genius' melodies any more?
+PigLover69 Read his book
You sir, are undeniably turning RUclips into a house of fuckin lies
At the London BUSINESS forum??? So what is the main point in pop-rock music? Be succesfull in your careers? That means sell a lot? Make a lot of money? Become the number one? I thought pop-rock music was another thing: art, fun, freedom, life, not business.
Think it's fair to say that artful success, if different to commercial success is enhanced if people like it and demonstrate that by opening their wallets. Not trying to be condescending but business success for a producer of art gives the artist freedom to be more of a creator than a struggler. Casting business as a dirty word for musicians helps to keep them broke and can send them eventually to a job of convenience where their art is no more. :)
Ralph Graham It all depends on the departure point, mine is different from yours. Thank you for another point of view. Part of the reason is on your side. I do not think art in general and music in particular is first of all a matter of money, business, as wel as health care, for example. If you are a producer answer this cuestion, Why are you at the show businees? For the shake of getting money or for the shake or art itsaelf? On the other hand artistic people and producers must earn some money.
This "10,000 hour" rule is an incredible misnomer. Practicing that long at anything means nothing if you don't know what and how to practice.
You practice that amount of time exactly because you know what yo want to do or become. The book talks about it from the perspective of "passion". For example, Bill Gates gathered that amount of time because programming was his passion and The Beatles did the same playing a lot of time in Hamburg. I would also add another rule to Gladwell´s book: having a mentor.
This makes so much scene and so true So get rid of Xfactor and programmes like that. A true artist in what ever form take s time and practice there are no short cut in becoming good at what you do just believe in your self and don't worrie how long it takes just enjoy the journey its not a race . Some will develop quicker so what as long as you get there.
@babyguitar21 why do you put down oj simpson?
Next to the FitBit 10,000 steps lie, I think 10,000 hours of practice is next on the line. Of course George Carlin optimised the 10 commandments. 😂😂🙏🙏👍👍
I've heard of Fleetwood Mac but I have never actually heard anything that they performed. Maybe this kind of stupid argument works with people who listen to Fleetwood Mac. But it could hardly be more wrong about Mozart.
Contrary to what Gladwell says I have listened to a lot of Mozart written when he was a child. For example there's 'Mithridate Re di Ponto'. I have two full length recordings of it. The entrance of Mithridate as sung by Bruce Ford is a hit on RUclips. Check it out.
Mozart was 14 when he wrote it. It's a full length opera in three acts. Its quite wonderful and has been appreciated all over the world for over two hundred years. Mozart was one of those prodigies that just 'popped up' out of the European masses. He was recognized almost at once as something special. He practiced of course but his genius was not a function of his number of hours of practice.
Gladwell is an idiot who is peddling untrue pop psychology. He pushes ideas that flatter the audience. He's an intellectual con man.
This video is really informative.
I white guy with an afro!! kind of cool
Reading the book, I was astonished to find that a person of Gladwell's intelligence consider "china and paddy-field" as the beginning & end of culture on right of Atlantic ! Serious Misconception.
The 10,000 hours rule is caca. It doesn't take into account degrees of natural talent, depth of concentration, etc. Who's holding the stopwatch on these achievers?
@YawningBoy LMFAO...heck yeah; but I love this guy (too). ;-)
BWAAAAAAH!!!! crazy rabbits
@babyguitar21 i was thinking of sideshow bob though lawl
Very cool video; I have a Tally Counter
Im going to try to get 10,000 hours in making music
So, whats the result? It's almost 10 years
Don't confuse "good" with the questionable (to say the least) taste of the plebs.
They - they- they - who is the "THEY"? Think about it.
And Malcolm needs to get that hair under control - seriously.
Growth mindset is this books enemy 😂😂😂
he has the hair of Lindsey Buckingham yet he claims not to be a BIG FAN...MALCOLM....i think that you think you are in the fekkin band....
His hairdresser should do 10,000 hours of practice.
Complete nonsense
@kuvtsisnyiamkoj Actually, you just suck, lmao.
He didn't say shit about the Beatles.