Wow, a single post where football, the Beatles, coin-flipping, dish-washing, waitering and the implied programming ... appear together.
> Look at virtually any modern band
If modern bands don't have to practice so much to be famous, that says so much more about their quality and the record labels that promote them.
And I don't see any "modern band" being as popular and as eternal as the Beatles. Michael Jackson was close, but he wasn't exactly known for his quick and painless path to success.
I think the point I'm trying to make is that they can write high quality songs at the beginning of their career as well as at the end. They didn't need 10,000 hours to come up with a great song, an expert quality song. I bet many had only written 20-30 songs before getting famous, certainly nowhere near 10,000 hours of song writing. You even get bands which then fall into mediocrity after a fantastic debut.
I have no doubt they put in hours beforehand, but they've been at school, certainly not playing for 3 hours a day for 10 years.
Not only that they have some mastery of the instruments, song writing, stage charisma, all distinct skills. Many great guitarists write crap songs.
So where did they get the 30 years to get all 3 skills?
I think the Beatles example is bad because they had an extra skill, the ability to morph their music with the times that many other bands don't (Bowie is another example of someone who was able to do this). They are eternal because they constantly changed, put out great albums, which has nothing to do with the 10,000 hours of practice they put in in Germany.
I'd agree with you. You can be talented and create a hit early on. I think one of the points of the 10,000 hours thing, is that you have to be really dedicated to a pursuit to become an expert/top percentile in your field.
Innate talent is another requirement and will slow you down or speed you up, but I would doubt that you find any experts who are not greatly committed to their field (even if they hadn't dedicated 10,000 hours to it yet, they fully expect to).
And I don't see any "modern band" being as popular and as eternal as the Beatles. Michael Jackson was close, but he wasn't exactly known for his quick and painless path to success.
Michael Jackson was more than just close, he achieved it.
The Beatles sold more albums than Michael Jackson, they had more successfully released albums to begin with (eight vs five), they had more nr. 1 singles in the US/UK, their hits stayed longer in the #1 position ... and the Beatles were active for eight years, certainly shorter than Jackson's career which is longer than 20 years.
Not that it matters much ... Michael Jackson's albums are here to stay.
I was just saying that to be great (instead of just acceptable) ... you have to put a whole lot of effort into it. For instance I haven't heard of a single great gymnast who hasn't practiced until every muscle in his/her body was pushed well beyond limits. I actually heard of a few cases where people have passed out, out of sheer exhaustion.
So you're born with a natural talent ... but so are many other people. What makes you stand out is the effort you're putting in achieving your goals.
First, to be clear, I agree with your main point ... I'm just arguing off-topic about Jackson vs. The Beatles. :)
Second, these minor differences between the two are not relevant ... they amount to nit-picking. My point is that they Michael Jackson and The Beatles are in the same equivalence class. Who sold more records or whatever really isn't particularly important.
> Look at virtually any modern band
If modern bands don't have to practice so much to be famous, that says so much more about their quality and the record labels that promote them.
And I don't see any "modern band" being as popular and as eternal as the Beatles. Michael Jackson was close, but he wasn't exactly known for his quick and painless path to success.