The 10,000 Hour Rule and Sonar X1

From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book) :
 
Outliers: The Story of Success is a non-fiction book written by Malcolm Gladwell and published by Little, Brown and Company on November 18, 2008. In Outliers, Gladwell examines the factors that contribute to high levels of success...and how The Beatles became one of the most successful musical acts in human history...and  he repeatedly mentions the "10,000-Hour Rule", claiming that the key to success in any field is, to a large extent, a matter of practicing a specific task for a total of around 10,000 hours.
 
Which basically means to master ANYTHING you need to spend EXACTLY 8 hours a day, five days a week, 50 weeks a year (with a two week vacation), For Five Years Straight!  
 
I've been with Cakewalk since Pro Audio 9 and I bet I don't have that many hours using the software. I guess maybe if you count the time trouble shooting it...j/k :-) Holy Moly.
 
So much to learn and so little time to learn it...
 
Focus, Focus, Focus, on what's most important.
 
  p.s. I didn't read the book, just came across the quote.

I wonder if that's how you become an alcoholic?

Practicing means hard work and lots of rests inbetween. When learning how to play an instrument I have to throw myself in it until it scrambles my little brain. Then when I take a well deserved break (couple days or maybe even a week) I go back to it and I have learned and improved.

SO I do understand about throwing yourself into a creative spot. But when it starts getting tedious, well...just rest and don't stress.

A good work ethic is always needed for success.

Lyric writing (write every day and finish each song) even if you think it sounds rubbish.

production: produce and finish it!

Sing and use your ranges and use the elements in a song!

How often should you do this? I think atleast an hour on each one!

Long and short!

Produce a track in less than an hour.

Produce a track in less than two weeks. (makes sure you complete it)

How often...as often as you can.

treat it like your 9 - 5.

I think the idea is just to give it a go, then you will be surprised what you may achieve. As you say, it may not be exactly how you want it to be but atleast you will be getting there!

Outliers: The Story of Success is a wonderful book.

best regards,
mike

The most powerful theme to emerge from that book is that society has a notion that it can recognize talent in individuals. This wholesale practice has distracted us from the idea that "talent" is to a large extent nurtured.


The book analyzes how groups of people are routinely subdivided into individuals with greater or lesser experience. The book highlights the idea that within any pool of candidates the individuals with the most experience are recognized as having the most "talent". The people who are identified for some particluar talent find themselves in yet another pool that is once again subdivided. In each case, the effect of selection and nurturing resonates and amplifies the talent of those with the greatest experience.

The book points out how arbitrary systems and schedules can serve to divide pools of candidates into groupings that become inefficient at nurturing talent.

For example; The annual periods that we observe for many activities creates a very wide range of experience amongst groups defined by age. Some activities place comparisons on constituents whose level of experience may vary by a whole years duration. These systems are so large that they produce more losers than winners.

The author points out and suggests that many of these activities can be scheduled with shorter periods so as to narrow the range of experience amongst user groups.

The simple act of narrowing the range of experience will alter the balance of successful to marginal outcome with an emphasis on success.

The idea is that this knowledge may be used to alter the balance of society at large. The idea is that with encouragement, more people can recognize and celebrate their "talent".

The idea is that a change in infrastructure can encourage more people to work towards the 10,000 hours that makes it all happen.


It's a wonderful book in that it spotlights a problem and offers an incredibly effective solution.


best regards,
mike

Hmmm? Hard to master anything when you are not moving (or breathing) nice one!

Though he mayb rich of the book he may have been writing for years. Surpassing the 10,000 hour mark before he wrote this book.

I am sure that very very talented people can get to that level in less hours. I wish I had enough time in the day to be practicing 5hours a day.

I tell you what I have done took it from a guy named Klassic (see you tube) Mike Kolombo. He says that when he has producers block, he produces one song per day for a month! This he says gets him through the block. So I decided to practice on the keyboard everyday for a month. At the end of the month I found no improvement. So I did not go back to it for a while. When I did I was like wow improved ten fold.

So now I know how I learn and how my little brain works lots of endeavour rest and progress.

I think I should write a book!

brundlefly

The idea is that a change in infrastructure can encourage more people to work towards the 10,000 hours that makes it all happen.

Interesting hypothesis, but I don't like his nice, even, base-10-influenced number. If we as a species had six fingers on each hand, the magic number would have to be  E0000=20736. 

I have not checked your math so I'm taking on faith that you are right.

For a curmudgeonly orthogonal point of view: Kurt Vonnegut, the short story "Harrison Bergeron" in "Welcome to the Monkey House".

jerrypettit


+1 for the book.  One of my favorite books of the last decade or so.

My kids and most of my friends have read it and agree.

(Sorry if this went a little off-topic--I just really think the book was fantastic).

Completely ON TOPIC.
 
You just convinced me to buy the book, thanks!

It really is a good book but it is common sense. Preparation meets opportunity = success.

Only thing is, I am not sure I have 10,000 hours left. At least 10,000 hours that I can devote to any one thing. When I was young I had boundless energy and nothing much to do but sit on a tailgate and have another beer. Now I am older, I have little energy and more responsibilities than any one person should have. It is a true saying, "Strength and beauty is wasted on the young".

I'm not complaining though, I do what I can, am happy with that, and life is good.

Gladwell hit a homerun with Outliers, it is a very good read, IMO.

J

mike_mccue


The idea is that with encouragement, more people can recognize and celebrate their "talent".

This just in: Honey Boo Boo has her own show!   http://www.cnn.com/video/...oint-honey-boo-boo.cnn


Personally, I think people could use a little less encouragement to explore their "talents" these days, and maybe invest a bit in personal reflection. Plant a flower garden. Grow some tomatoes and corn. Write a poem even if you "aren't a writer" and think you have nothing to write about anyway. 

It's hard to generalize about success when societies definitions for success and achievement are so utterly skewed. Does Gladwell suggest that because the Beatles have been so globally successful that Ringo Starr is some sort of accomplished musician or songwriter? Does Bill Gates' success stem from 1000's of hours sitting at a computer... or from being an absolute pitbull salesperson, licenser, negotiator, manager, etc? Sure, being a technogeek certainly helped, but only insofar as it defined his niche -- his technical l smarts put him in the right place at the right time with the right people, but it didn't provide a framework for his overall success. 

I'd say "success" comes from the following:

1.) Luck

2.) Professional and personal connections
3.) Initiative, drive, leadership, motivation 
4.) Skill, talent, expertise, experience, etc.

All the practicing in the world can't replace or prepare you for the first 3. You either have those or you don't.

Now, when you've gotten past the notion that "success" and "achievement" are inextricably linked to financial gain, fame, power, and the like... I think you'd have to agree that Ringo Starr is by no means a "successful" artist. Another one at the right place, right time, and... erm... certainly with the right people... at least two of them... or three... if you count George Martin. :)

keith

mike_mccue


The idea is that with encouragement, more people can recognize and celebrate their "talent".

This just in: Honey Boo Boo has her own show!   http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/bestoftv/2012/08/07/exp-point-honey-boo-boo.cnn


Personally, I think people could use a little less encouragement to explore their "talents" these days, and maybe invest a bit in personal reflection. Plant a flower garden. Grow some tomatoes and corn. Write a poem even if you "aren't a writer" and think you have nothing to write about anyway. 

It's hard to generalize about success when societies definitions for success and achievement are so utterly skewed. Does Gladwell suggest that because the Beatles have been so globally successful that Ringo Starr is some sort of accomplished musician or songwriter? Does Bill Gates' success stem from 1000's of hours sitting at a computer... or from being an absolute pitbull salesperson, licenser, negotiator, manager, etc? Sure, being a technogeek certainly helped, but only insofar as it defined his niche -- his technical l smarts put him in the right place at the right time with the right people, but it didn't provide a framework for his overall success. 

I'd say "success" comes from the following:

1.) Luck

2.) Professional and personal connections
3.) Initiative, drive, leadership, motivation 
4.) Skill, talent, expertise, experience, etc.

All the practicing in the world can't replace or prepare you for the first 3. You either have those or you don't.

Now, when you've gotten past the notion that "success" and "achievement" are inextricably linked to financial gain, fame, power, and the like... I think you'd have to agree that Ringo Starr is by no means a "successful" artist. Another one at the right place, right time, and... erm... certainly with the right people... at least two of them... or three... if you count George Martin. :)

Want to make a living while waiting to get famous:
1. punctuality
2. a car
3. a good suit or wardrobe
4. personal hygiene
5. always smile
 
Then comes talent, preparation and all the good stuff.
 
I bet Ringo is happy and enjoyed his career. And he's a fine drummer and musician to boot. I'd say that makes him "successful" so, no, I don't agree. As Marcus Miller and Kim Mitchell say, success is still loving to make music long after the audience cares or pays.

SToons


Want to make a living while waiting to get famous:
1. punctuality
2. a car
3. a good suit or wardrobe
4. personal hygiene
5. always smile

Cell phone. Don't wanna miss that important call...

 

I bet Ringo is happy and enjoyed his career. And he's a fine drummer and musician to boot. I'd say that makes him "successful" so, no, I don't agree. As Marcus Miller and Kim Mitchell say, success is still loving to make music long after the audience cares or pays.

According to the discussion above, Gladwell uses the Beatles as an archetype of sorts for "success"... according to him, because they apparently practiced a lot as a band. Whatever you feel about Ringo, his contributions to music, his personal abilities, whatever, I find it difficult to accept that without Paul M., John L., and subsequently George M. that Ringo wouldn't be just another guy who plays music. And yet in the music world Ringo Starr today is very very successful.... because of his association with the Beatles. The point is: measuring or predicting success is much more complex than just applying broad generalizations -- like the Beatles as a band practiced a whole bunch, therefore they were destined to succeed. No... Ringo Starr, was individually successful as part of the Beatles because he was with the right people at the right time. Paul, John, and George M. were all individually successful as part of the Beatles because of their overall songwriting and production talents, but also because they were all lucky enough to be together in the same studio at the right time. George H. was probably somewhere in the middle. The success of the Beatles as a band is the result of a complex web of circumstances, dependencies, happenstances, relationships, etc. 

strange world...