In particular, shrink-wrap sealed records from the 70s, when exposed to heat from storage or from direct sunlight, can warp the hell out of the record and sleeve as the shrink contracts and expands. I would even say this is a common problem for sealed records of that era.
I find the layout of poster downloads on the detail pages of the individual laws, with the text of the law and lawofux.com tag on the right side, unfortunate. The layout of the posters on the top-level page are 100x more evocative and elegant. They are the posters I want.
Reminds me of when my wife conveyed enthusiasm about her tech job to some family and friends of family back in France, how interesting the work was, creative, etc, only to have them snicker and declare, "look at you, so American now, you can't stop smiling." And yes, the connotation was something like vanity and superficiality.
I often think about Arthur Rubenstein, the phenom mid-century pianist, for whom a lot has been written about his mission in early life to "practice as little as possible." There's a lot of hyped up romanticism in these quotes and anyone who plays at his level has spent a lifetime playing piano, period. Regardless, his guidance about spontaneity, creativity, and the relationship to practicing too much, which I equate to the current discussion on overworking, is highly interesting.
"I was born very, very lazy and I don't always practice very long, but I must say, in my defense, that it is not so good, in a musical way, to overpractice. When you do, the music seems to come out of your pocket. If you play with a feeling of 'Oh, I know this,' you play without that little drop of fresh blood that is necessary—and the audience feels it." Of his own practice methods, he said, "At every concert I leave a lot to the moment. I must have the unexpected, the unforeseen. I want to risk, to dare. I want to be surprised by what comes out. I want to enjoy it more than the audience. That way the music can bloom anew."
Not all work benefits from risk, the drop of blood, the unexpected, that are all baked into the right amount of effort, but a great deal of valuable and innovative work does.
There's simply no relation between the constant death-march described in this article and "practice" in the sense of personal improvement and skill-building. In fact, they're antithetical.
Even the strongest advocates of "practice makes perfect" doctrines, such as Anders Ericsson, talk about something called deliberate practice, which is an expertly designed regiment, requiring exhausting mental and physical effort, the close tutelage of a veteran teacher, and adequate rest periods for its positive effects to properly ripen.
These authors typically assess that even a top motivated and well-rested individual can only engage in "deliberate practice" for 4 hours daily at the very most.
So if you want to do that, then far from almost doubling the length of your workday, you should actually cut it in half, and ensure plentiful rest and light recreation before and after your workday. Basically, mimic the way top athletes train.
Otherwise, don't delude yourself that you are "practicing" or "improving". You're simply working, chugging along sub-optimally, doing what you already know without substantial improvement or room to grow or learn much.
These very same authors predict that by working a punishing 10-12+ hour daily schedule, your skills will not improve, and likely will deteriorate, since you will become deeply disengaged (cf The Power of Full Engagement).
The idea that perpetually over-worked, over-stressed, nearly-exhausted engineers are "practicing" or "improving themselves" is a romantic wishful-thinking with no basis in reality or scientific research.
Anecdotally, I've seen such places up close. Most people there burn out and/or move on quite quickly. Turnover in these companies tends to be very high, and they only keep those who can't find a better job.
Practice is important for building skills, and for knowing the piece.
The point is that you should be able to play the piece like you know how to walk.
Imagine: if you had do 'think' about walking, about every step, you would walk unnaturally. You'd certainly not be able to swatter.
When you can play as you walk - then - you can loosen up, and focus on having fun, making it creative i.e. have swagger. The actual notes are mundane, like walking, then the music can come out. If you have to think about it, it needs more practice.
Also - 'work' is not 'music'. Most of work is not practice, it's building stuff.
A carpenter who worked 1/2 days would probably get just about only 1/2 done, for example. I know tech is not quite the same, but it's mostly similar. We are not solving complex math problems, most of tech is mundane.
A programmer can usually average ~4 hours of focused highly productive work where they are not on Hacker News etc per day. Fewer people can do that kind of focused effort for ~8 hours a day regularly. I have never met someone that can do that kind of highly focused effort for ~12 hour days.
That does not mean highly focused effort is the only valid type of work. But, it is very valuable for most programming jobs.
Further, cutting back hours often increases productivity even if you spend the same amount of time in the office.
Modern day programming is so much more than just opening up your IDE and churning out code. You have to collaborate, talk, review other people's work etc. There is also a meta aspect to it to improve you productivity at work by looking at your own work from a level above.
You also have to keep learning new bleeding edge stuff to not be out of business in a few years.
Plus doing a lot of side projects and extra work, always opens up avenues for new opportunities and helps you to meet with other smart people who often have something new for you.
All of this is work. And there is no way you can be good at this if you only work for 4 hrs a day.
A type of deliberate practice only relates to a specific skill. Normal work programming has little impact on interviewing or competitive programming skills.
However, it is very relevant to getting better at exactly those specific kinds of things the company is working on.
My brother is in a bluegrass band. They've been around for 10 years now, and there's a lot of music they've played so many times I'm sure they could do it in their sleep.
There are a few songs that I really do think they used to do better, back when they were just starting out. Specifically, some of the fast, most technically difficult songs that they used to play right up until they were at the edge of what was possible for them. Those songs were full of an energy that they just don't have anymore, now that they can do them perfectly without a sweat.
That particular form presents an interesting challenge. Many performers tend to stay with memorized breaks, or within certain patterns, that they can do on stage without breaking a sweat. The blood only shows in jams or informal performances. Unlike jazz, where it is not. cool. to play the same solo twice anywhere.
I think of the Rolling Stones for this. They have played every song 10,000 times now, and it shows. Their 60's and early 70's shows were magic and energetic. It sounded like the song could fall apart at any moment, like we were on a musical quest discovering the song WITH them. Yeah, they're in their 70's, but plenty of other musicians their age pull it off.
Didn't Rubinstein humbly then revisit technique and practise religiously in his 40s? (Not to detract from your point, which I think has value).
I think that the middle way is key. I've met people who think work for the sake of work is valuable. Others who wouldn't touch hard work with a barge pole. If you cherish success, both are required.
Having met virtuoso pianists, I'd say the context which Rubinstein talks from is open to misinterpretation:
Reaching the level of mastery where one can sightread any of the Beethoven concerti or a Liszt etude requires a lifetime of years/decades of dedicated practice, but it is true that once you're at that level, you can find diminishing returns on hard work which encroach upon your creativity.
>> Reaching the level of mastery where one can sightread any of the Beethoven concerti or a Liszt etude requires a lifetime of years/decades of dedicated practice, but it is true that once you're at that level, you can find diminishing returns on hard work which encroach upon your creativity.
I would argue that looking at sheet music and playing it requires very little creativity, if any at all. It is in that arena that practice is important. Being able to play anything put down in front of you is only possible with mastery of your instrument. However - if you are creating music mastery can get in the way. Often the best ideas come from stumbling upon things. If you know everything or know how things 'should' be done coming up with original ideas is difficult. Personally I've seen this in guitarists. There are some who are clearly masters of their instrument. They can play anything, at any speed, with a wide array of techniques at their disposal. Most of the time they don't write anything interesting.
"requires" is an interesting word. i think you can get away with being a robot, but you are basically saying that no classical musicians are creative, which is laughable. you can improvise dynamics, tone, articulation, phrasing, tempo... its not just the pitches man!
as a lifelong, professional classical and jazz musician, I can tell you that the current state of both very closely mirrors the current state for swe, it is just that swe's seem to have to go through what we have been through, just faster. There was a time in classical music and jazz, and even pop, when creativity was sought after. this time is no more. Classical/jazz has become a robotic craft in search of technical perfection. Back in the day, pianist-performers like Cortot or Grainger were appreciated for their personal contributions to style and art. Now, this kind of thing is shoved under to elevate technical perfection. It is robots all the way forward there for performers, and that is what they teach us in conservatories. They then pretend this is a form of artistry when it is simply reproduction of printed direction--- we are asked to be human compilers. This is what is understood by many to be musical art. Cortot makes too many errors for the kids as we say in the biz. We are also asked to do it all because we just love it so much-- who needs jobs or money? All we need to eat is love. Don't forget passion. So yeah, we have been asked to be as robotic as possible, as self erasing as possible if we want to get paid. Take heed swes! Btw, pretty much any first year music student at a conservatory can do what Lady GaGa does musically. Her "improv" isn't much of a strain for anyone who studies music at that level. The thing they can't do is see beyond to pop and understand that they need to find themselves a meat dress and a stylist plus a wealthy investor to pay for promo and these items. It isn't what we are inculcated to value-- nothing against that btw, and good for her, but she is no Rubenstein or even Streisand. She's a great performer and showperson though. Nothing wrong with that-- it is its own thing, but please. It is so not the same as being on the level of a Monk or Charlie Haden or Sun Ra or even Mostly Other People Do The Killing. I can tell you that Rubenstein and Any member of MOPDTK practiced a ridiculously stupid number of hours per day for years before they realized it doesn't make sense.
I play harmonica for fun. I tried to learn sheet music, and gave up in two weeks.
It felt wrong to even begin with. Music is mostly about hearing and feeling. I saw no point in turning myself into sight to music converting meat robot.
After several weeks of tinkering, I was finally able to learn how to play by ear, and I've never enjoyed music more than then.
good post. its funny, im a musician too. i decided the conservatory could fuck off after 1 year. ive found gypsy jazz a breath of fresh air personally... wonderful people and spirit, tons of gigs, technical virtuosity to the extreme, AND even some truly creative players. i do agree the paralells are strong esp between jazz people and swe. i dont know, you probably are further on your musical journey, but, i feel like complaining that creativity isnt present in music just means your hanging with the wrong people. in any case, a fun read, thanks
I agree, the conservatory really should fuck off. Creativity is definitely present in music, but unless you are a composer, you won't get paid for it. --not much anyway. Unfortunately, creativity doesn't really exist in classical performance anymore. When it exists in jazz, it is happening very rarely. There are exceptions, but no one knows these folks outside of jazz. - as you probably already know. The gypsy jazzers are a fun group of people, but again, it isn't creative, unless some nutball takes a really cool solo (once in a blue moon) which is such a wonderful moment when it happens. They are usually not asked to jump in much, as you probably also know. But nice to say heyto a fellow musician/engineer.
you average jam, sure, its a bunch of licks mostly. but like... bireli? angelo debarre? sebastien giniaux? the list goes on... there are lots of people who come up with crazy shit on the fly. though you will find lots of licks in everyones playing
with all respect to the great players of gypsy jazz (many of whom I like) gypsy jazz and solos over changes in that style is not really creative. It is a formula that has been invented. People like it;I like it too. But it's what I mean--- not innovative. It has nothing to do with our time. It is retro like BeBop. Recreating BeBop and Gypsy jazz is not creative- it is like really cool Civil War Reenactment. This is what I mean by music lacking creativity for the most part. I mean we don't support innovators- we support technically excellent practitioners of a well-known style. This is a craft, not an art. Nothing against great craft at all-- I love it. But we are in desperate need of art. Ditto in computer programming. It is important that it notice these pitfalls.
interesting. craft is central to the style sure, but its not the only thing! but in any case, im curious how you are drawing the line... surely youd call django an artist? what about antoine boyer now? he sound so new! isnt that newness an artistic vision, not just an expression of mastery of craft? maybe you think the ratio is too heavy towards craft, or that requiring such a high degree of craft to be heard in the first place is whats keeping us from hearing artists? who are the artists you know?
of course django was an artist. he innovated the style we now immitate. we don't have a ton of innovators in jazz anymore. I mentioned Mostly Other People Do The Killing. There ate many in the downtown NY scene I could mention--- I'd say Christian Marclay. Shelley Hersh. But- that is getting away from the point. the point is--- we need to put the practice of innovation and diversity of perspective to the fore in computer programming or it dies the same unknown death of monoculture.
> i decided the conservatory could fuck off after 1 year.
Yes and no. Remember Picasso: "It took me four years to paint like Rafael, but a lifetime to paint like a child". Being patient enough to acquire the mountains of knowledge, the sound bases achieved by generations before yours, pays great dividends later in life, no matter the field. It's truer for some fields than others, of course.
There are some surprising examples: Mika used to be a classically trained lieder singer, and won a scholarship (if I recall) to the Royal College of Music, which he promptly used to "learn to sing like a pop star" with the results we know today.
Now this is not to say you should do hours of figured bass if you want to be a blues singer (and FWIW, Arnold Schoenberg says in Harmonielehre that he thinks this is a silly way to learn harmony). But there is value in learning common practice harmony and understanding both Beethoven and Richter even if you are going to do blues.
> complaining that creativity isnt present in music just means your hanging with the wrong people
Yes and further, in order to have something interesting to say you must have lived, which is why high school concerts can be so tedious even with very talented students (mine had note-perfect Rachmaninov Paganini variations! what hope have we mere mortals... yet the pianist is now a doctor). Globalisation is also reducing the variance between artists, both because concert halls are standardising star power cross-border, and because people are becoming more alike all over the world. On the demand side, I'd whine about the Instagram generation falling short on the pathos side of things but I'd start sounding like an old man; really variance is the problem, not depth.
The only exception I can think of is of Amy Kobayashi as a tiny child doing Mozart's 26th concerto [1] in a really fresh and interesting manner (this lent truth to something a pianist who had lived through WWII told me, that Mozart could be understood only by children and those on their death beds).
also to the "you must have lived" to have anything artistic to say... depends on your defenition of artistic. Certainly, in order to reproduce the piano compositions of middle aged European men, it might help to have lived, especially to the age of the composer. Maybe that gets in the way of your only children and the near-dead understand how to play Mozart. Martha Argerich and Pollini say hi, but when they were middle aged. This whole dusty notion of music is the basis of this completely un-artistic, elitist notion of classical music. Elitism is the good pal if monoculture. It promotes the homogenization and dumbing down of the arts and I fear it will do the same for computer programming if we aren't careful to look out for it and push back with diversity measures.
who is Mika? As to knowing Richter and Beethoven to play the blues...I think it would be difficult for someone who has the money for piano lessons and a conservatory style education with hours to practice on a Steinway in a climate controlled practice room at Juilliard ... i really think it's hard for those people to play rhe blues properly. Not to get all snobby about the blues (joking here) but I do think the player who understands how to do that might come from a different background. Also, they tend to be black, for obvious reasons. Not to say that people from other races don't experience hardships on that level, it is just that the blues is really a particular language and pathos from a group of tragically oppressed people in a particular time in the United States, who didn't get to attend Juilliard or the like, or eat most days. You know, it's part of the Afro-Cuban tradition that created jazz, which has its roots in the African-American community in the United States. Old European and Euro-descent men only wish they knew something about it, which is why they tried to imitate it (Ravel a conservatory drop-out btw, Stravinsky, Bernstein, Gershwin...)The only one who kinda succeeded in reaching back into that ethos from his Juillard practice room was Miles Davis-- and he dropped out too, btw) rich kidz at Juilliard, eastman, the New Scool, and other conservatory jazz programs spend their life trying to understand what it means to be that oppressed. I know, I've heard hours of blues, or should I say "blues" played by the white children of the rich. Beethoven and Richter don't get it. And schoenberg doesn't either. Frankly, very few educators at conservatory have any idea how to teach musicians. That is because they are supposed to get out of the way and help them teach themselves. This rarely happens, because artistry doesn't have a path. It finds its own- conservatory pretends there is a path, which brings us to where we are now with homogenized music. is there something that can be gained here with respect to programming artistic development? I think so, it just seems that the field is so insular and mono culture (just like classical music and jazz) that it can't learn from other pedagogical and culture mistakes the arts have already made. Namely, there is no "path". Thatmight help. but definitely check out Brushy One String. He is a modern blues guy who gets it-- again, hes from an impoverished island background not unlike the Mississippi Delta back in the day-- no Beethoven and Richter for him-- just poverty, drugs, crime, and oppression.
If what you're saying was true then any two good classical musicians would sound exactly the same... but they don't, right? The difference between a good pianist and the great pianist is in the expression of those same notes they're playing - call it as you wish: articulation, energy, dynamics, emotions...
these days, they sound pretty much the same-- no one is really scadalized or blown away by a classical artits' choices. Sure, we can "tell the diff" btw Hillary Hahn and Midori. But honestly, I can live without both of their dutiful takes on Standard Violin Concerto X. But if you know of some truly inspiring, artistic choice making, innovative classical player, I'd love to know so I can buy their record. I mean that sincerely.
Try post-stroke Stephen Kovacevich. He was already a maverick before, the loss of much of his physical ability forced him to review his approach and the result has, at least, forced me to reconsider my view of many pieces I thought I had done and dusted (e.g. Brahms 4th Ballade). Hearing him live was both terrifying and awakening. His Beethoven cycle is unique and changing over time.
I also think that if you can abstract from the visual, Yuja Wang's playing has a ferocity and hunger for life that reminds me of the Russian School at its peak without the tragedy, and the technique to back it. I've not heard it in anybody else of her generation. It is a bit of a shame that her repertoire choices are so conservative, but to be expected given how she is marketed; I am very keen to hear what she will sound like in 40 years.
Stephen Hough has a sensitivity and big picture awareness rare since the death of Richter. Sitting in a 4 hour masterclass on Franck, I learnt a dozen new things, almost as if new dimensions unfolded about the art (I got the same impression from reading Neuhaus' book - ideas clicked into place seeming so obvious ex post, unreachable ex ante).
Finally Zhu Xiao-Mei has had an incredibly full life (from risking her life smuggling a piano and sheet music into Mao's reeducation camps and playing that piano in a meat freezer, to cleaning houses in LA before becoming a Parisian ghost wonder after accidentally playing a friend's piano and getting standing ovations in German concert halls that had greeted her with audible disdain) and it comes through in her playing. As a bonus you can "rediscover" a fair amount of Schumann this way.
> Didn't Rubinstein humbly then revisit technique and practise religiously in his 40s? (Not to detract from your point, which I think has value).
He did but I think the reason he did so was not because he felt it was better for the music but because he had children and he didn't want them to be lazy. I wish I could find the source but I suspect it was from a video interview so I'm finding it difficult to find.
I see the point you're making, but I have to disagree. I think a part of mastering any area of expertise is being so good at what it is you do that it becomes second-nature to you. This allows you to use your skills on demand when you need it, whenever and wherever. No prep required. And since it's second nature, you can tweak it as needed to make it fresh and interesting to yourself and other people.
A good example of this musically is Lady Gaga. She has performed the same set of songs so many times, but she has mastered her musical ability and skills so well that she uses it to her advantage (and the audience's) in a performance.
She improvises on the spot, harmonizing lyrics with herself and backup singers, changing lyrics to make them relevant to the crowd or show she's doing, and if she's on a piano sometimes changes up an entire song and adds parts to it which never existed, and may never exist again.
The result is an engaging performance that is never the same a second time around, and it leaves a lasting impression on the audience.
This is because Lady Gaga is actually an artist, with practiced skills and true talent, vs. a performer that has to be auto-tuned when on stage because they were picked due to their looks or marketability and not due to any inherent talent.
That's what we still SELL as the ideal of art and music, but very rarely deliver. LG is a refreshing presence in modern music.
I listened to an interview with guitar Richard Lloyd (Television, Matthew Sweet) with a very similar sentiment that stuck with me.
(While discussing talented guitarists like Satriani who exhibit perfection in their performances)
"There's got to be a little danger. Some of the greatest bands, you feel as if they aren't going to make it through the song... It's captivating in a way that perfection isn't."
It adds drama to a performance. When a performer is a little shaky the audience empathise with them more. With perfection, people just sit back and let it wash over them.
A performance I'll always remember was a community night, free entry, amateur performers. Some guy and his sister got up. The guy said 'Hey, this is my sister's first time singing in public, say Hi everyone.' And the sister looked like she was going to die. Then she sang like an angel, still looking like she was going to die all the way through. Audience went bananas.
For a different take on it from Heinrich Neuhaus who taught Richter, Gilels and Lupu:
"Godowsky, my incomparable teacher and one of the great virtuoso pianists of the post-Rubinstein era once told us in class that he never practised scales (and, of course, that was so) . Yet, he played them with a brilliance, evenness, speed and beauty of tone which I believe I have never heard excelled. He played the scales he encountered in musical compositions in the best possible manner and in this way learned to play ideally "scales as such".
[...] What was Godowsky's method of teaching? As everybody knows, he was reported to be "a wizard of technique" [...]. For this reason numerous young pianists from all over the world flocked to him, mainly in the hope of getting his recipe for attaining "virtuoso technique".
Alas for them! Godowsky hardly ever said a word about technique in the sense in which these youngsters understood it; all his comments during a lesson were aimed exclusively at music, at correcting musical defects in a performance, at achieving maximum logic, accurate hearing, clarity, plasticity, through a scrupulous observance and a broad interpretation of the written score. In his class, he valued above all the real musician and approached with obvious irony those pianists whose fingers were fast and agile while their brains were slow and dull"
I feel the same way about karaoke. Do a little bit of practice so you don't look like a fool. But, if you over-practice you'll take the fun out of having your best performance live.
I feel like karoake has a bathtub distribution. My favorites are the people who are outrageously good or outrageously bad. As long as they are outliers, it's fun. The ones in the middle who sing well enough to not embarrass themselves but not good enough to be an exciting performance are boring.
Humm, if you get everything right I would probably assume you already read about something similar which means that it is evaluating nothing or rather it is just evaluating your ability to remember things which is not that useful when you can just google it.
Pro tip for non-singers like me: Buy one of those karaoke games. Now find out the songs your voice naturally sings reasonably well. Stick to those songs forevermore.
I love the idea of the drop of blood and I value that in live music. In all fairness, though, it probably helps to be so fantastically talented that you can get farther with 1 hour of practice than other musicians get in 10 hours. I wonder if Rubenstein ever lost a gig or missed a meal because the risk went really poorly.
i think the key here is the risk, not necessarily not practicing. its always good to boost you technique. its always good to know more rather than less. but, if you practice in such a way that you are trying to eliminate risk when performing, thats i think where you run into trouble. far be it from me to think i know more about this subject than rubenstein... but just my 2c. risk kind of seems like the empathic gateway with the audience, they can see that you are vulnerable, which makes the whole thing infinitely more interesting. its almost unfair that playing things perfectly makes them worse, because most people wont even know its hard or could have fallen apart.
don't underestimate your own wisdom here. Rubenstein was just a guy who played piano a lot. You are right about vulnerability. But anyone at any technical level can reach for new stuff. Rubenstein was trying to romaticize something in an old fashioned, deep aubergine velvet sounding way. Of course he had his rep practiced to the point of row row row yer boat facility-- all musicians do who get paid to do it. The point is to have the courage to reach beyond what you have already mastered. Anyone can do this. He just says it in that old school arrogant classical master way-- like "i like to hold myself back from complete mastery so there is a little blood in it". My response to this is: oh Rubenstein! You nutty old master. It surely is ok to admit to everyone that you could not get to perfection if your life depended on it. None of us can, and it is totally cool to admit that. Back then, there was this "the Great Danton" mystique to the magical magical art of classical performership. It was the Harry Potter of then. Even his statements ate supposed to evoke the air of smoky mystery and genuis. Watch the Prestige for an explainer on this era of showmanship and life-altering commitment to this "performance". It is an anachronism. But just like in that movie-- people want to believe its magic. Dig?
There's also a lot of research that suggests it's not just how much you practice but how you practice. A recent book, "Peak", covers research into expertise and how deliberate practice is essential rather than just blindly spending lots of time.
I would guess that managers who blindly mandate 70 hour weeks are more likely to be blind to the actual work habits as well.
You need to get really good at something to arrive at this level. This is the equivalent of saying somebody who scales a Mt Everest regularly, can scale Mt Everest regularly without excessive practice.
Conveniently forgetting all the previous effort that went into it.
In addition to differences in recommended calorie intake, is there a good, scientific, international comparison that puts dietary guidelines side-by-side, nutrient guidelines, balanced meal?
It's amazingly difficult to find clear information anywhere. For instance, CDC Nutrition guidelines?! It's an example of something that, in trying to be comprehensive, results in a mess of awkwardly qualified terms and difficult to digest (couldn't help it) high-level recommendation.
Nobel prize winner Czesław Miłosz writes brilliantly in The Captive Mind how intellectuals, elites and creatives alike, essentially the intelligentsia of Krakow, Poland, were easily conscripted into the communist propeganda machine by various mechanisms which were essentially human weakness towards conformity.
There is at least one other distinction of French books, especially in the anthropology domain: They are almost ALWAYS WHITE!
Spines schmines. A friend of mine is a French anthropology buff and his library is white, shelf on shelf of whiteness, titles all in this wild direction. It's madness!!
