Dubstepforum.com

i will remember a lot of the guys off here for their tunes. But they will not have been pop stars. they are normal people with jobs who make great music.

this is definitely true or I would have had several number one singles by now tbh

But srsly, this is off topic but the best thing about daws w/e is that you actually don't need any "musical talent" to make high quality songs. I have a friend who has had no piano lessons but can just listen to a tune and replicate it, jam along with anyone like it's as easy as breathing. On the other hand I spent 5 years learning an instrument and tbh was still pretty shit.

With music on computers/hardware though, it gives you infinite amount of time to mess about getting the sound you really want in your head, and short of having absolutely NO talent, with enough work you'll eventually get something which sounds good (or at least sounds good to you).

hutyluty wrote:With music on computers/hardware though, it gives you infinite amount of time to mess about getting the sound you really want in your head, and short of having absolutely NO talent, with enough work you'll eventually get something which sounds good (or at least sounds good to you).

Something about all that time is a curse though too. With all that time, you can drain the lifeblood out of the song.

Undoubtedly there really is musical talent. Some people just can hear music, and know it. I am the opposite. I literally have some type of musical deficiency. Like that part of my brain that processes music just doesn't work up to speed. It's my thing though. A lot of those people that do have musical talent, it is kind of boring cause it is usually right.

Anyway, back to work.

nowaysj wrote:

hutyluty wrote:With music on computers/hardware though, it gives you infinite amount of time to mess about getting the sound you really want in your head, and short of having absolutely NO talent, with enough work you'll eventually get something which sounds good (or at least sounds good to you).

Something about all that time is a curse though too. With all that time, you can drain the lifeblood out of the song.

Undoubtedly there really is musical talent. Some people just can hear music, and know it. I am the opposite. I literally have some type of musical deficiency. Like that part of my brain that processes music just doesn't work up to speed. It's my thing though. A lot of those people that do have musical talent, it is kind of boring cause it is usually right.

Anyway, back to work.

Yeah that's what I was trying to get at- my friend who is mega good at everything music related, he makes kind of boring music- having natural talent is no substitute for having an imagination when making stuff

tru dat

Yeah, no. You're that kind of talented person. You have different issues.

soronery wrote:

_Agu_ wrote:I'd like to add to this: what is good music?.

subjective based on the listener

_Agu_ wrote:How long has Burial been making music for example?

hes said that when he started producing one of his favourite tunes* was let go by teebee. this was released in 2000 so at least 6 years before he released his first album

(*source - wire interview)

_Agu_ wrote:I don't think he is exactly rolling in a big pile of cash..

what has that to do with what is being discussed unless you only think success can be measured monetarily?]

he was nominated for a mercury prize

id chalk that one down in the column marked success

Burial most definitely makes a living off his music. Getting nominated for a Mercury is a pretty huge deal and if he wanted to, he could get his tunes in commercials and get royalty checks every time it airs. If he played out more, he'd be rolling in filthy money. I have a friend who isn't even as big as burial and he makes 3000 dollars a show. Imagine what his guarantee would be

soronery wrote:

Pulsedream3 wrote:Do you really want money or success? Enough to spend your time on getting it? Then you'll get it.

no necessarily

spending time does not guarantee anything

Actually it does. It takes someone 10,000 hours to become a master at their craft. 10,000 hours of practice and playing. After that, you have a pretty high chance of success (as long as you have the resources at your disposal, ie gear, a good computer etc)

U will only succeed if u are trying 100%. I will never. cos I don't want to. no matter how good I get I will never "make it" cos I don't want to make this more than a hobby.

Pulsedream3 wrote:

soronery wrote:

Pulsedream3 wrote:Do you really want money or success? Enough to spend your time on getting it? Then you'll get it.

no necessarily

spending time does not guarantee anything

Actually it does. It takes someone 10,000 hours to become a master at their craft. 10,000 hours of practice and playing. After that, you have a pretty high chance of success (as long as you have the resources at your disposal, ie gear, a good computer etc)

nope

i could spend 10000 hours in the best studio in the world

but that still wouldnt mean id write an amazing tune

tehcnically it might be clean as a whistle

but it still might be shit

do you see this point yet?

This 10k hours to become a master of X is the most annoying urban myth/internet myth of late. There are way more factors than raw hours. I've got a couple friends who've fiddled/jammed on their guitar since their early teens and we are all in our 30's now. They've easily got 10K hours in and though I love them, they are not master guitar players lol.

fragments wrote:This 10k hours to become a master of X is the most annoying urban myth/internet myth of late.

fragments wrote:This 10k hours to become a master of X is the most annoying urban myth/internet myth of late. There are way more factors than raw hours. I've got a couple friends who've fiddled/jammed on their guitar since their early teens and we are all in our 30's now. They've easily got 10K hours in and though I love them, they are not master guitar players lol.

Yeah you can't just fiddle with sometjing for 10,000 hours and be great. But if you're playing out on your, recording heavily, and really dedicating yourself to something for 10,000 hours, it'll happen for you

Pulsedream3 wrote:

fragments wrote:This 10k hours to become a master of X is the most annoying urban myth/internet myth of late. There are way more factors than raw hours. I've got a couple friends who've fiddled/jammed on their guitar since their early teens and we are all in our 30's now. They've easily got 10K hours in and though I love them, they are not master guitar players lol.

Yeah you can't just fiddle with sometjing for 10,000 hours and be great. But if you're playing out on your, recording heavily, and really dedicating yourself to something for 10,000 hours, it'll happen for you

Please define "happen for you". That makes it sound like if you put in 10k hours you'll automatically become famous/rich/etc...which is fucking ridiculous...

Pulsedream3 wrote:

fragments wrote:This 10k hours to become a master of X is the most annoying urban myth/internet myth of late. There are way more factors than raw hours. I've got a couple friends who've fiddled/jammed on their guitar since their early teens and we are all in our 30's now. They've easily got 10K hours in and though I love them, they are not master guitar players lol.

Yeah you can't just fiddle with sometjing for 10,000 hours and be great. But if you're playing out on your, recording heavily, and really dedicating yourself to something for 10,000 hours, it'll happen for you

nope

there is no guarantee that anything will happen

Other than you've spent 10000hrs doing it

Music like most things is a very deep and wide rabbithole. What is it that you are mastering in 10000 hours? Creating music is thousands of techniques or skills or ideas or nuances/subtleties in many many areas. Decide where you want to go deep and where you want to go wide, you will never reach the end. Work out what you want to say and what you need in order to speak clearly and work towards that.

fragments wrote:This 10k hours to become a master of X is the most annoying urban myth/internet myth of late. There are way more factors than raw hours. I've got a couple friends who've fiddled/jammed on their guitar since their early teens and we are all in our 30's now. They've easily got 10K hours in and though I love them, they are not master guitar players lol.

An hour a day x 365 days a year x 20 years = 7,300 hours. They'd be close. BUT only if that practice was actually hard work, improving their skill set. The problem with jamming, and jamming with guitarists in particular, is that they often revert to what they know in the heat of the moment. The metaphor of fighting is apt. Almost everyone who studies a martial art, or a fighting art wants to fight, it is the THING, but if you don't train, ie learn techniques, drill drill drill those techniques, when you go to fight, you'll just use the same shit you've always used. Only once you've actually developed new skills through intensive practice can they be employed in an actual fight.

It is not that you merely do something for 10k hrs, it is that you very actively and vigorously advance your skill set for 10khrs. Then you will have skills/a way that likely sets you apart from the punters.

And now onto the topic of weed. Lez say you do your 10k hours, but you do em while smoking weed, which fucks with your brain/memory so heavily, those skills just inch along because most of the learning is not being cemented into actual usable memory, it is being lost (whether not stored or not indexed, I don't know, but I wish some cunty white lab coat could figure it out).

^Yea. I totally agree. That is why I dislike this...whatever you want to call it..."the vague idea"? that 10k hours spent automatically makes one a master at something. I did all kinds of maths to figure out how many hours a day/week for how many years and I admit that yea...one will probably get good at something when you look at the math.

That being said. I've spent the better part of my life studying, practicing and now teaching (for almost a decade) the written word. I've met a lot of folks who: will never grasp more than the fundamentals of it, they can write a coherent email at work, but that is it; who will understand it pretty damn well, technically, but they'll never write anything remotely creative; then those with varying amounts/kinds of creative proficiency. All kinds of factors effect how far various students will be able to pursue the art of writing, so many factors that saying if one spends 10k hours practicing writing fiction they'll be the next great American novelist is totally ridiculous.

For me it plays into some kind of dangerous fantasy and smacks of something a motivational speaker would say at a pyramid scheme seminar.

Is that why stoners squint, because they can see tiny things?

Okay, I say 20khrs you'd be so burnt out, you couldn't do the thing anymore.

Mastery has a 10khr buy in, with a 10khr lifespan. Raw deal, this living.