When people say "X is a gift, you were lucky to be born with it", they're probably trying to give themselves an excuse to not put in the effort needed to get good at that thing.
Maybe, but I don't think that most people who say this are trying to belittle their idol, rather complement them on the fact that they have a greater skill than others. That no matter how much time someone else puts into it, they will never be as good.
And there is some truth to this. You are born a good jocky, most people couldn't train hard to be that small.
I'm not saying it's always conscious, or that this applies to everything. But I think it has a lot to do with how you see the world, and whether you have what Carol Dweck would call a growth mindset or a fixed mindset.
But that simply isn't true! What training did Michael Phelps do to get those extraordinarily long arms and flipper-like feet? Now don't get me wrong, he trains like a madman, but someone who trains equally hard without those genetic advantages is going to lose. Doesn't mean it's not worthwhile trying to be the best swimmer you can be. It does mean that you shouldn't get depressed if you can't beat him.
The people at the top of any field combine hard work with genetic predisposition. You need both because you will be competing with people with both.
It's a good thing that in our field there is no single winner and the rest are losers. As a programmer, I want to become as good as I can, be one of the few. I might never become better than Linus Torvalds (simply because he'll keep getting better too), but that won't prevent me from achieving my goal.
Our field is not a competition. There is plenty of room for a bunch of great programmers.
Behind that stellar job interview were weeks of preparation. Behind that unforgettable 2 hour movie were millions of hours of work. Behind that elegant half hour piano performance were tens thousands hours of practice. Things you see look easy. They only look easy because the people behind them spent so much effort on it. It's not an excuse; People just know so little about something that they fail to see how much effort it takes to master it; And only because they couldn't do it of the bat, they say its "talent".
7' tall basketball players are only good because the game is played inefficiently. Shorter players have a distinct advantage when throwing underarm and can get ridiculous score percentages. Tall players throwing 'properly' are taking a side-shot at the goal rather than confronting the problem head on by going vertical.
Basketball is such a bastardised sport that height and speed are the dominant skills at play in the sport. No accuracy is required when the majority of your goals are scored by (using a soccer term) walking it into the goal. It's pathetic and boring.
The entire point of the sport is that the goal is high to challenge players to exhibit accuracy that is rarely routinely (and especially not consistently) required in other sports. Yet that doesn't exist any more in the NBA it's circus freaks putting balls through a hole instead of sportsmen exhibiting great accuracy like an archer.
I think you're talking about H.O.R.S.E... the game of basketball includes something called defense, which generally calls on productive offenses to be faster / stronger / taller.
Have you watched pro basketball since the NBA legalized zone defense in 2001? Most of the shots taken in games these days are 3 pointers. The days of Dikembe Mutumbo (or even Shaq) hanging out in the paint and doing tiptoe dunks ended about 8 years ago.
Even 7 foot guys like Rasheed Wallace and Kevin Garnett take 40% or more of their shots from 3 point territory. Wallace shoots 35% on three pointers (30% is the "he's a good three point shooter" threshold). The real three point shooters make half of their shots... a feat of accuracy which is really fucking hard, even more so considering they also have to get to the shot and deal with defense. There is no question most basketball players are genetic freaks but anyone playing in the NBA these days is also scarily accurate.
I hate to agree that I now find the NBA kinda boring... but it's not because it's a circus act (circuses are pretty interesting, actually.) The NBA is boring because almost every player is now so superhumanly good that it's hard to imagine how difficult what they are doing really is.
I like what you're saying but there's some pretty gross hyperbole going on here.
You cite zone defense as though it's drastically changed the NBA - but it's rarely deployed.
You say most shots taken in games are three pointers, but they actually make up 18-22% (over the last decade) of them.
And you say KG and Rasheed take over 40% of their shots from three. Kevin Garnett takes 3.3% of his shots from downtown. For Rasheed it's just under 25%. Both are career stats....
Well it's the internet, i reserve the right to hyperbolize.
I guess i was pretty far wrong about KG though... my bad.
But, threes are up like 40% over the past 10 years. Over the past 5 years the games have been more shooting oriented than ever before. The WSJ had an article a while back suggesting that the real reason is because the league hasn't been doing that great financially, and it's cheaper for teams to get a set of 3 point shooters vs. one LeBron or KG.
I think there's truth to this, but I also disagree strongly with the idea that if you're not good at something you haven't practiced enough.
Especially in certain fields — music, design, and programming all fit I think — there is a huge amount that many people just seem to get or not.
I have a degree in music, so I've seen a lot while I was in school. Yes, some people can work really hard and eventually get it, but I don't think that's everyone.
Especially when it comes to ear training, I know a lot of people who have tried really, really hard, but can't seem to develop the skills. I've seen this in many people, even with great teachers, resources, and tons of practice. I think some people have a fundamental difference in how their minds understand music.
I think this can be seen in the idea that certain programmers are 10x more productive than others, and that most "programmers" can't really program at all, even after years of school.
Anybody "normal" can reach a decent mastery at anything given the proper amount of work.
Some people need less work than others because they learn faster.
However, more often than not, people who are very good at something threw an incredible amount of time at it. An amount far greater than anybody is willing to spare.
You're gifted when you reach levels that only few other human beings can.
When you "suck" at something, you're just not trying hard enough.
Derek's point is of "practice makes perfect" variety.
It is true to some extent, however there is one big caveat.
You have to do some of that practice at the right age.
What is the right age? For most skills/professions/hobbies it is under age of 20 and the most critical is age 12-16 or so.
Thus, Derek got some of that singing practice at the right age and got the basics. Unfortunately, he will be disappointed at the progress he can make at programming, because brain is not good at making new pathways at 30 compared to 15.
I am speaking from experience, I did not do enough programming in my teen years and it has definitely hurt my progress after age 30.
Even with today's title inflation, I am yet to find a chess grandmaster who started after age 30. Sure, someone can probably reach a low expert/master, but even those are not common.
On the other hand, I have known quite a few people with the disposable income AND time, who tried to get better at chess and managed at most 100-200 ELO point increase.
I've just read a biography of Martha Argerich. Though she actually did work a lot at time, the fact is that for instance, she played a whole concerto entirely after having heard it /once/. I don't think this kind of ability comes with hard work, unfortunately.
Especially in music I think a large portion is how whether you were involved in music as a young child. Forming that baseline of literacy when your brain is still plastic is really critical for having an intuitive sense of it later in life.
2) Also similar to Steve Yegge's recommended approach to learning to type. (another great read)
3) Is it just me or is the silvers.org site a gold mine of great ideas?
Like this, for example:
My vision of the road to mastery:
- start with the fundamentals
- get a solid foundation fueled by the understanding of
the principles of your discipline
- expand and refine your repertoire, guided by your
individual predispositions
- while keeping in touch, however abstractly, with what
you feel to be the essential core of the art
What results is a network of deeply internalized,
interconnected knowledge that expands from a central,
personal locus point.
When everyone at a high level has a huge amount of
(technical) understanding, much of what separates the
great from the very good is deep presence, relaxation of
the conscious mind, which allows the unconscious to flow
unhindered.
He gets a lot of his writing posted on HN. Do you think he deliberately practices writing or is that just natural talent? After reading this story of 15 years to overnight success it really makes me wonder.
Thanks! That bit you quoted is from the book "The Art of Learning" by Josh Waitzkin, so I can't take credit for it. Great book. Really inspiring. http://sivers.org/book/ArtOfLearning
Writing good essays/articles is something else I really aspire to, and definitely put a lot of work into. I've been studying my favorite essays by Paul Graham, Harry Beckwith, Seth Godin, and even Robert Fulghum. Those are the tops I've found in this short-form blog-length (under 2-minutes read-time) format that I like.
No other motive than the feeling of wanting to share everything I've learned before I die.
I really appreciate your book summaries and sharing -- I just picked up that book now. The motivation of "sharing everything before you die" is awesome.
Like any instrument, technique plays an extremely important role in singing. Poor intonation is less an indicator of a good voice and more of good technique. Of course no one would criticize a girl who picked up a cello and just started playing for just not being a cellist, but also no one would advise her to simply practice alone. The best advice is for that girl to find a good teacher and get some lessons.
I find it interesting that Derek downplays the role of his teachers. He mentions he took lessons with several teachers, but neglects to tell us anything about them. I could not begin to describe my development as a singer without discussing my teachers.
Yes, it takes practice to become a good singer, but any number of hours of practicing poor technique won't do much good.
"Yes it takes practice to become a good singer, but any number of hours of practicing poor technique won't do much good."
Yes, this is true and oft-repeated mantra on YC News. But it begs the question, how does one practice the "proper" technique (I mean after all, doesn't everyone want to follow the correct form of shooting hoops/strumming a guitar chord, but most people don't have a dedicated shooting coach/guitar teacher to watch their every move or they do know the right technique by heart in theory but can't carry it out in practice for various reasons).
The best protip I've received in learning an instrument (and actually doing anything) is when you are stuck at a particular exercise, move onto the next hardest exercise anyways. When you stumble upon the simplest guitar lick on the first page of a guitar book,you might say "are you crazy? I can't even play the first exercise." But if you play the next hardest lick and stumble upon it for a couple of days, then try to play a third lick even harder than the second lick for a couple of days, and then go back to the very first lick. You might find that you can now play it pretty well, or suck much less than before.
Yes, practicing is all about hard work and all that, but it is also about momentum and keeping things fresh and new. If it's not fun, you are doing something wrong.
One of the most important parts of learning vocal technique is learning what feels right and what doesn't. Good teachers will often work on this with students by asking how the student thought something went ("Was that better or worse than last time? What was better about it?") before offering their own feedback. This isn't easy, but it's critical.
When I'm practicing, sometimes I'm just doing something wrong. If I can't fix it or I can't even figure out what it is, but I know it doesn't feel right, sometimes I just stop that practice session. That's when I know I'll be practicing improper technique. I'll try again next time and remember to ask my teacher about it in my next lesson.
There's a great, short book on how to practice while making "good" mistakes. It's called "The Perfect Wrong Note." I've been found it helpful while teaching myself to pick the banjo.
"I find it interesting that Derek downplays the role of his teachers. He mentions he took lessons with several teachers, but neglects to tell us anything about them."
I've actually found that pitch and rhythm issues like this often come not from a lack of ability, but from a phenomenon where the person hears what they intend to hear, rather than what they're actually singing/playing.
Extremely focused, repeated work with a tape recorder will bridge the gap between perception and reality in a hurry.
Also, in a phenomenon somewhat unique to singing, what you hear just isn't what others hear. For example, sometimes people will modify their technique such that their voice sounds very resonant to them, but externally the sound doesn't carry. Sometimes in these cases, listening to a recording can be very helpful, if not a bit shocking. One of the difficulties of learning to sing is learning what good feels like rather than what good sounds like.
This is really true for me. I've been singing for a few years, and I'm still really bad. But I noticed that my pitch wasn't good all the time and had a hard time correcting it.
Now I try to focus on each note and listen to the tone I'm actually singing and that corrects the whole thing. I also pull myself into a kind of a mode where I hit the notes.
But I'm still not good, but at least my pitch has changed dramatically in the last couple of years or so.
Interestingly, if you multiply 15 years by 365 days and the two hours a day mentioned at some point in the article, you get 10,950 hours, which is remarkably close to Malcolm Gladwell's claim from the book Outliers that it takes 10,000 hours to become a superstar at something.
Umm, that's a bit backwards -- the 10k hours number comes from research by K. Anders Ericsson et al, and the first papers mentioning this are from the early nineties, if not earlier (as for book references, it's discussed in Ericsson's "The Road To Excellence" that predates the Cambridge Handbook by a decade).
I listened to his first and last songs and too me his voice sounds almost the same (taking in consideration the age difference).
I think it's partially our self confidence that influences our talents. After 15 year he says, "Yeah, I practiced so much, for SURE I'm much better!" and from now on he is the best. He radiates confidence because he now knows he is good and people around him feel it as well and think he is great.
The moment your brain is free from self-limitation you just fly ,
sadly for most humans it happens after so many years ....
C'est la vie...
There's also something to be said for picking something you're naturally good at an running with that. I, for example, had perfect pitch as a kid and with no practice managed to find myself in the church choir doing solos. I suspect that had I decided to follow up on it, I would have had an easier time than the author making it into a career.
In contrast, I can't dance. And it's not from lack of trying. I've taken classes (like college classes even), salsa lessons, you name it and I still just plain suck. Like the author says, I'm sure I could stick with it for 15 years and get good, but shy of that I'm always going to suck at it.
Other datapoints for me include rock climbing (naturally good), surfing (naturally bad, but on the 15 year path), basketball (naturally bad and gave up early), and computer programming (naturally good and making a career of it).
If you pick something you're naturally OK at and choose that as your focus, I think you'll get a lot faster results than the author.
He definitely has the technical fundamentals down, no argument there. Nevertheless, his vocal timbre and overall style don't appeal to me; he sounds exactly like what he says he is: somebody with an average voice who learned to sing well. I can think of a half dozen really jaw-dropping vocalists--the people who make me rue my mediocre singing genes--who I am certain did not work nearly as hard or as long to get where they are, yet are in every way superior singers. Anyways, my only point is, yes, the deliberate practice meme is really hot right now, but natural talent still counts for a lot. This is especially true when it comes to singing, or anything that is governed by some physical property you were born with.
And frankly, were it not for differences in talents and interests, the world really would be a boring place. I've said it elsewhere, but it is the unique combination of our talents that gives us the opportunity to contribute something truly unique (and potentially valuable) to the world. I would argue that Derek contributes more value to the world through fantastic writing and the ability to capture truth from the world around him and illustrate it through word than his music ever did. But that's just my perception, so maybe my reality is different than his.
hmmm, hate to be a downer, but he sounds alright when you know the story, but if I heard him on the radio I wouldn't think, "wow what a good singer". In fact when I was playing that song my wife was like, "what is that?" and not in a good way...
but still, better than I would have expected someone with no original talent in singing to be able to achieve.
You see this a lot on tv, where people survive a plane crash and thank the lord, rather than the pilot and engineers. Or are cured of cancer and thank god, rather than the team of surgeons and years of hard working medical scientists.
As long as I can remember, I've been a good singer. I've also always enjoyed singing, so the thousands of hours of practice accumulated during childhood, in the car, in the shower, etc. didn't really seem like "hard work". I wouldn't say I've had to work to develop my singing ability in the same way Derek has.
We sang in church, and I took cello lessons and was involved in a choir, but neither of them actively played an instrument. My mother was also a good singer.
No matter where you start, you have to work really hard to become the best. Though it's a bit overused, the quote "Winners never quit, and quitters never win" does actually have a point: Never give up.
What everyone fails to note is that in order to profit from these years of practice, you do have to have a baseline ability in the endeavor that you are trying to develop expertise.
I've never met a great programmer who couldn't grok something like pointers to pointers with just a few exposures. Your mind is either wired that way or it isn't. No amount of practicing is going to rewire it, no matter how hard (or long) you try.
But, once you do pass the baseline - absolutely, practice does make perfect.
While I wouldn't care to listen to him sing very long, if he's satisfied with 15 years of practice then that's OK. Whatever floats your boat.
But there's no substitute for talent. Best of all is talent + training. Humans are not _tabulae_ _rasae_ onto which anything may be written: they have significant genetic differences which are expressed as different talents/abilities. As a young boy, I could listen to music and extract and replicate melodies and chords easily (learn "by ear"), something my sister desired but could not do without a decade of intense music instruction and practice.
It's all relative. Our perception of whether a performance is good is dependent on other performances we've heard. 10000 hours only works because most people don't do it.
One of my treasured childhood memories was getting my first library card. I remember my mother teaching me to read when I was four because I asked her to. I remember devouring every book at home, and in the children's section of the library. I could only read the adult section while Iw as there, so I spent long days doing just that, until I turned 14 and could check them out. I remember vividly Ben seeing em reading the dictionary in elementary school, laughing, and telling the whole class.
In high school, I remember how many students asked me for help with specific challenges, and I was happy to help for free. I remember discussing with my fellow nerds doing experiments at home that easily exceeded what the school taught.
None of these memories will surprise the audience here. Or that so many people over my life have told me how lucky I am to just be born smart. But the lesson it took me the longest to learn was to value my thinking skills and ignore those who make less of them. And to charge for their use, of course. Just because it come easily to me now, doesn't make it worthless.
You know, I'm all for practice, I'm all for hard work trumps talent etc.
But this is a really bad example. I promise i'm not trolling. I actually went to his archives and listened to his music. I hate to say this, but the guy can't sing. On top of that, the improvement from as he says his "early days" to the latest stuff (1999), is marginal.
I think his point still stands. He just uses a bad example.
I think use of a microphone and recording equipment makes a world of difference compared to 'live' singing where you really project your voice.
I mean once I decided to start singing Dean Martin songs during a game of Halo 3 online... and the people on my team kept saying it was brilliant and insisted I continue. (in real life i'm an awful singer, although pitch is not a problem)
"""A while ago, we wrote a New York Times Magazine column about talent — what it is, how it’s acquired, etc. The gist of the column was that “raw talent,” as it’s often called, is vastly overrated, and that people who become very good at something, whether it’s sports, music, or medicine, generally do so through a great deal of “deliberate practice,” a phrase used by the Florida State psychologist Anders Ericsson and his merry band of fellow scholars who study expert performers in many fields.
As we wrote, there are at least three key elements to deliberate practice:
1. Setting specific goals.
2. Obtaining immediate feedback.
3. Concentrating as much on technique as on outcome.""""
It's not a conscience decision. People put the time in because they genuinely enjoy what they are doing.
My thing is bowling. I've been doing it since I was 6 (I'm 26 now). I went to the bowling alley as often as possible, I'd ride my bike down after school whenever I had money. In high school, I bought monthly memberships and would bowl 10-15 games a day, every day. I just couldn't get enough of it.
The past few years I've been averaging in the 220s, which is great, but not professional great yet. In the next few years, when I'm more financially stable, I'm going to try out the PBA Tour, if for nothing else but the experience.
I bowl so much that I developed bone spurs in my elbow that I had surgically removed a couple of weeks ago. I haven't bowled now for over 4 months, which is the longest break I've ever taken.
Moral of the story is, you don't decide to practice something, you do it because you can't imagine not doing it.
I wonder if there are any particular initial conditions that led you to genuinely enjoy it.
For example, a lucky streak or parental encouragement might have led you to make "I'm awesome at bowling" part of your identity, creating a virtuous circle of getting better and being proud and wanting to get even better.
If you had a friend or older brothre that had been doing it for 6 months that was with you when you first tried bowling, you might have decided that you simply weren't any good at it, and therefore why waste your time practising something you're clearly no good at?
I wonder how much of what we all decide to dedicate our lives to is simply down to random initial conditions.
With programming, it was a combination of boredom and having copious amounts of free time after school and on summer breaks. Not having much of a social life and poor self-esteem also helped. Add in a good amount of social anxiety and well... there is your answer.
Can't say it wasn't fun, and it definitely pays the bills now. But I would trade it all to be in a mediocre rock band that plays crappy hole-in-the-wall clubs in tiny godforsaken midwest US towns on Tuesday with a midnight time slot. But I was never good at guitar.
I've always felt that there is no "God-given talent" or even talent, but simply understanding. I came to this conclusion when people would ask me to draw something for them in art class and I'd explain how to do it and they'd be able to draw it themselves.
So, singer-hackers, does the 80/20 rule apply to this, too? I'm not too interested in becoming a great singer, but I'd certainly practice more guitar playing (and would dare to grab it while sitting at a campfire) if I wouldn't be scared of my own voice...
(No, karaoke is straight out. Compared to me, Fran Drescher is the Queen of the Night. I think I actually sounded better while my voice was breaking.)
I listened to the first song. The arrangement really lets it down (guess it's a demo), and I think the verse backing is identical to part of the James Bond theme. But the singing is amazing (which was the point), and I couldn't help but dance to the chorus.
I included my negatives so I could conclude: it's easy to criticize, but hard to make people dance.
