Malcolm Gladwell on the Beatles - Prodigies or Not?

[ChristopherDowning]

Go back to the original research by Anders Ericson and think about what he was saying and its implications. You need a supportive environment, you need a huge amount of fucused, struggling practice, you need the breaks, you need role models and coaching, and you need a long term vision that motivates you - an initiating moment that gets you fired up. Millions don't have those in place, so they fail. The original work also recognises that there are physical and intellectual limits that will e

[drbayoms]

@johnnieconcrete

Are you seriously so stupid that you believe that there is nobody in the world who may have worked as hard as those labeled "successful"...............and still failed? Not possible? The hard work and practice quotient of "success" is a wonderful little anecdote for a CNBC original special. But people like Bill Gates (who Gladwell referenced in his book) had a corporate lawyer father and a well connected mother who sat on various boards. It takes MORE than simply practice.

[mateo3470]

People like Malcolm Gladwell are convincing too many mediocre people that they aren't. Life is too short to listen to these false promises. He doesn't do his math homework. He doesn't tell you about the million failures for each success.

[tremontirocks]

@mateo3470 You're missing the point. If you read his book, he doesn't deny that each success story has its own breaks. He's isolating success stories and breaking them down. One of the key points he makes in the book that opportunity and timing – both of which are often out of the seeker's hands – are among the most important factors to outlier success.

[KingHenryXI]

I wouldn't agree with either until I saw Coyle's sourcing. But I'm more inclined to side with Coyle on this one.

[conboy11]

Pop psychologist spouting pseudoscience - his ideas about success and talent largely belittle those who have achieved anything. No one seems to strongly object to the idea that chance plays into success, but he takes it to such an extreme to appeal to the egalitarian left-wing populace. His books are filled with anecdotal evidence backed by cherry-picked studies and the like. Great reads for the most part, but the ideas aren't well-thought out. He has an eye for interesting stories I'll say that

[Secrectus]

@conboy11 To define such a subjective topic is not easy and we are often left with anecdotal evidence. Gladwell went through the trouble of documenting his sources, which I would hope to be legitimate. If you think his points are biased or illegitimate, what, in your opinion, would you add to the list of points or proof?

[KingHenryXI]

@Secrectus To assume his sources are in any way shape or form credible because he used them is non-sense. Conboy's argument that he takes nothing but anecdotal evidence and cherry-picked studies is a lot more valid a statement and justifiable than hoping his sources be legitimate.

Although Gladwell's, along with Daniel Coyle's findings (his a lot more scientifically objective ie) neuroscience is better than pseudo-psychology) reveal the same truth....

[Secrectus]

@KingHenryXI I have to pick up Coyle's books and read it when I have time. Some of the evidence in the book wasn't complete hearsay (there was some) and from what I read, he never did commit post-hoc fallacy. I may have missed some so let me know if I missed anything.

[drbayoms]

@conboy11

That damn left wing at it again, huh? Please, shut up.

[beradification]

silly pop culture author

[TheFDrScAnLoN]

Yeah, I read that Lil Kim actually worked harder than The Beatles did. she worked on performing since she was in the womb. She had mastered the art of performing sexual favors by the time she was born, and form the age of 1 second until she was signed, she had sucked random cox for the 10,000 hrs. needed for success. I worked out the melody for 14,000,000 rap songs in 16 seconds today.If anyone needs chord charts,shit on some music paper, and mold a lot of 1/4 notes in straight lines-fuck rap

[TheFDrScAnLoN]

Yeah, I read that Lil Kim actually worked harder than The Beatles did. she worked on performing since she was in the womb. She had mastered the art of performing sexual favors by the time she was born, and form the age of 1 second until she was signed, she had sucked random cox for the 10,000 hrs. needed for success. I worked out the melody for 14,000,000 rap songs in 16 seconds today.If anyone needs chord charts,shit on some music paper, and mold a lot of 1/4 notes in straight lines-fuck rap

[winstono75]

A lot of bands have played under conditions like the Beatles did in Hamburg.

[ShelterDogs]

@winstono75 Are you implying that Gladwell thinks that it was only because of Hamburg that The Beatles became as great as they did? You'd really need to read the book. This video isn't even two minutes long.

[TheMslara26]

they worked hard of course, but they also all had a lot of talent. and the timing was right.

[waspy89]

Interesting observation but that's always been part of the game when it came to pop bands. They might have toured for 5 years barely making enough money to buy food or gas with but once they make it, the image they project is "I was goofing off and next thing you know I'm a rock star". It's part of the appeal because it lets some teenage dream it can happen to them too.

[angela1894]

The fact that the beatles practiced playing music for 10000 hours is not why they were so successful. The reason is that they were good at composing music. .Songwriting is very different from playing music. Just because you play music live on stage for a long time doesn't mean you will be able to compose music as good as the beatles' music. What this dummy is implying is that if any bunch of talentless hacks were to spend as much time playing as the beatles did, they'd be the next beatles.

[TheLadygrl]

the beatles don't count. they were not children. does anyone think of them as prodigies or merely prodigious?

[tayloreh]

Paul was right when he said they were just a 'pretty good group from Liverpool'. Nothing more.

As you play more music, you get a better intrinsic sense of what is something beyond you that is carrying you, and what is your own hard work. And they worked hard, but other bands have worked harder and gotten much less far. Someone shouldn't be congratulated too much upon what they were born with. The Beatles 'wow factor' is terribly distorted. This says something big about public insecurity.

[godwhatcanihave]

@tayloreh excuse me?

Whats distorted about the beatles history.

Have you heard they're full catalog?

They're mind blowing - revolutionary , the first and last of their kind.

They basically invented pop music.

[tayloreh]

The Beatles were awesome, no doubt about it, but they're exaggerated. And no, they didn't invent pop music, they made certain ideas more visible. No one can invent, but they can make it seem as if they have, which is also pretty impressive.

I just think the world can use its time better by not exaggerating bands. They'd probably end up happier and feel a bit more reality in their day to day life.

[lifeform111]

No one can invent? I'm not speaking about music but no one can invent ? Really?What about the screen you're staring at right now? WAs that simply a discovery? No it is an invention, your cell phone is an invention thus The Beatles REinvented music)

[tayloreh]

This screen was based on the screens and screen-like things that came before it. Nothing is made in a vaccum, something inspired this screen. In that way, to me anyway, its not 'invented', its simply based upon something else. Not to demean it or anything, I just want people to put things in perspective. I still think The Beatles, while a damn cool band, are still overrated. Its an inflation effect that happens as people get lazier and less imaginative, and I don't want to be a part of it.

[PWitness]

What I find hilarious is that Sir Paul McCartney recently said exactly what Mr. Gladwell does in this video.

[RYNBNNYMN]

people do talk about the hamburg era...hes talking shite

[lcozzarelli]

I wonder if Gladwell put 10,000 hours into developing this oversimplified theory? ...or is he just really good at bullsh*tting people into believing he knows what he's talking about?

[vinnyhernia]

You can continue to believe that the Beatles blessed with the a level of musical talent unseen before or you can look at the fact that they put an enormous amount of time into their music before they were really good. The oversimplified theory of success is that certain individuals are just blessed with some incredible talent or work ethic and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, this is the theory we hear all the time that completely ignores the opportunities that allow for success

[lcozzarelli]

"The oversimplified theory of success is that certain individuals are just blessed with some incredible....work ethic..."

The above seems to sum up Gladwell's theory, making your 'oversimplified' theory of success actually more comprehensive than his. And the Beatles did not put in 10,000 hours in Hamburg; Gladwell is pulling these facts out of his rectal vault.

[mrfester42]

@lcozzarelli Well, they did put in some grueling time in Hamburg. It was something akin to a longterm Olympic athletic workout program BUT, I don't think that alone is the answer to their success. That gave them the mental stamina above all else to endure the incredible demands that their enormous fame put on them but they still needed the musical genius to keep that train running an on the tracks.

[mrfester42]

@lcozzarelli Well, they did put in some grueling time in Hamburg. It was something akin to a longterm Olympic athletic workout program BUT, I don't think that alone is the answer to their success. That gave them the mental stamina above all else to endure the incredible demands that their enormous fame put on them but they still needed the musical genius to keep that train running on the tracks for as long as it di... and in a way still does.

[FCKWDedektiv]

@lcozzarelli

or is he just really good at bullsh*tting people into believing he knows what he's talking about?

---> one is for sure, you´re good into doing like that...really.

you don´t understand ANYTHING about what he´s saying... so I think you aren´t competent to discuss about this subject. instead of writing useless stuff, sit down and read some books...especially of Malcom Gladwell and other scientists of this field.

[lcozzarelli]

@FCKWDedektiv I have read his books. I liked "Tipping Point", Blink was OK, this one sucked. Can you tell me of any other 'scientists' specializing in this field? I'd be curious to read their work.

[drbayoms]

for the idiots on this site who keep bring up names like Britney, J-Lo and Keanu, please stop typing. success is not measured by dollars. i don't think anyone would declare HONESTLY that Britney and J-lo could sing, or that Keanu could act. But just for the hell of it do some research on the elapse time between J-Lo going from dancing on '"In Living Color" and her first hit. What about Keanu's failed modeling career and "Speed". i still think they are bad examples!!!

[lcozzarelli]

Well, come on...those early failures were just part of the 10,000 hours they had to put in before they hit the big time, no? Unless you, like Gladwell, are prone to cherry-picking examples of 'outliers' that fit his theory and ignoring those who don't....confirmation bias at its most pernicious.

[eamonncake]

You need lots of talent and even more work and a lot of luck.

Unless you win American Idol.

[bmgleaso]

I think he makes a good point... hard work and practice were much more to thank for their ability that "talent." Timing, open mindedness and exposure to the right creative minds gave them the impetus for innovation.

"talent" is a word used by people who aren't willing to study and sacrifice to become something... you can train yourself to do anything, you just have to be willing to put in the hours and devote yourself endlessly to your craft.

[lcozzarelli]

Bullsh*t. Gladwell is getting just a little too smug, inventing his pop-psych theories without doing his homework. First of all, they did not play in Hamburg for nearly the 'requisite 10K hours'. Secondly, Ringo did not play with them; he played with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes (who, incidentally, were over there slaving away in Hamburg as well...but who's heard of them?)  Third of all, the technical skills they honed over there has nothing to do with their *creative* genius.

[lcozzarelli]

Any fool can mimic a great songwriter's song with enough practice (and even Beatles fans will concede that they were not necessarily technical virtuosos on their instruments), but the Beatles pushed so many creative boundaries in such a short time, it's unparalleled in rock history. Plus, most people with no talent tend to give up and go back to their day job before 10,000 hours, so he may be putting the cart before the horse.

[AnywayJosh]

@lcozzarelli Do dont just pick up a instrument and your either talented or not talented, you have to practice and have the determination. If you dont have patience then you will give up and not get good/talented.

[number1trumpet]

@AnywayJosh I disagree. You don't have to waste your time practicing boring scales and exercises to get good. Just play it the way you hear it in your head and people will appreciate your authenticity. It's called playing soulfully. Check out a few of my videos for examples.

We don't fuss about technique or theory and we still get thousands of views!

[GHOSTakaOzz]

@number1trumpet I hate to break it to you but your music sucks. Practice makes perfect,scales are equally as important as spending seperate time playing without,and anyone who posts a video on youtube gets anywhere from 100s to a few thousand views usually. why doesn't your trumpet player pick up a 6 string and start singing. We have such a lack of good rock music out right now. I'm in a band. I play n sing

[number1trumpet]

@GoTakaShitzz Some people here are just jealous of the fact that I'm in a kick-ass band. I advise you guys stop leaving comments on youtube and use that time to study my band's videos. Then some day you might sound as good as we do.

[BrooklynRagtag]

@number1trumpet Listen man. I'm going to be honest. I live in New York, play music professionally, and hold a masters degree in Jazz Performance. I've played plenty of free jazz and plenty of modern jazz with heavy people. You need to practice. Shed some rhythmic groupings, practice on your instrument, practice interacting as a band, listen to other people's music, transcribe, train your ears. The stuff you are playing isn't soulful. Your ego is getting in the way of actually getting better.

[number1trumpet]

@Brokesaggybag "Shed some rhythmic groupings", "transcribe"?? Does anybody know what this guy is going on about? Sounds like some East-coast, smarty pants, liberal talk. Hey man, I have hundreds of fans here are on youtube. What's all your fancy book learnin' got you?

Also, it's not ego if you know you are good and all your friends and family say so too.

[BrooklynRagtag]

@number1trumpet The fact that you don't know what I'm talking about just illustrates my point. There isn't a single well-known jazz musician who doesn't understand these concepts.

Most of my "learnin" happened outside of school and it's gotten me a career in music and a chance to play with musical heroes of mine. From a life spent playing music, I should tell you something. Your family and friends will always tell you its good. I'm trying to help you. You need to practice. Take it or leave it.

[GHOSTakaOzz]

@AnywayJosh your 100% right man

[lcozzarelli]

@AnywayJosh And this is a bestselling revelation?

[lcozzarelli]

On the flip side, Did Keanu Reeves put in 10,000 hours of acting practice before he hit the big time? I highly doubt it.

He also fails to take into account their looks, their style, their wit, and their charm. Looking at some of today's 'stars' (Britney, JLo, etc), it'd be hard to convince me that looks/sex appeal does not account for a lot of their popularity.

[lcozzarelli]

Additionally, he does not take into account that the zeitgeist in 1964 was ripe for such a phenomenon. America was sad following Kennedy's assassination, and the younger generation was finding a voice in rock-n-roll...

Bad science...Gladwell is no more a Beatles expert than those he mocks. Apparently his ego is so big after 'The Tipping Point' and 'Blink" that he'sgetting sloppy...

[Gugguggug]

You make good points, but the fact remains; they would not be the band they were without the '10,000 hours' in Hamburg. The point being do the 10,000 hours, then see where you stand, don't put it all down to talent.

[lcozzarelli]

Oh, brilliant, Mr. Gladwell. Practice, practice, practice....1% inspiration, 99% perspiration, as Thomas Edison used to say. How revolutionary. "...and then see where you stand"?! What the hell kind of pop-crap theory is that? So if you put your 10k hours in, and then you still aren't good enough, then you are discounted from Mr. Gladewell's theory because you didn't fit in with his blinkered notion? Anyway, they played fewer than 10k hours in Hamburg. Check it out.

Smug pseudoscientist.

[howardstadt]

Keanu Reeves sucks, though. Its because of our fervor for a handsome man on screen that hes popular. There is such a thing as a super-talented actor, Keanu Reeves is not that.

[howardstadt]

i think hes just pointing to something most of us didn't know, and that should account for our perception of the beatles said creative genius. Perhaps without this period intense practice, the beatles wouldn't have had the chops to show the world their talent.

[lcozzarelli]

well, dUhhh....of course you have to practice, practice, practice to get into Carnegie Hall! But how many bands with years worth of practice just wind up playing at weddings and bar mitzvahs (or in Merseybeat revivals, like Rory Storme and the Hurricanes, who worked just as hard but had no creative genius)? And the Keanu Reeves comment above just proves my point more.

The Beatles were handsome, witty, charming, *and* fashion-forward...how many hours of practice did that take, Malcolm?

[boliboy2299]

he is absolute right. The fab four living in the same room and playing that time of hours even my band would have result in success.

[StevePass77]

The Beatles weren't good until the played in Hamburg for 10,000 hours? But the drummer was Pete Best not Ringo, so why isn't Pete Best the worlds best drummer and why did the Beatles succeed with out him?

[dinsfog]

Ringo was never considered the world's best drummer, and his drum beats were not what gave the beatles success. Take John, Paul, or George (the core when it comes to song writing, instruments, or vocal harmony) and the band changes signifiicantly, take out Ringo, the band would sound for the most part the same.

[jo7dan118]

so einstien could talk aged 3

[JesuitFarmer]

Beatles were creative genius,' as was Mozart. No doubt Mozart was precocious. The Beatles took the unspoken revolt within their generation (as lies in every generation) and put it in a culturally relevant context. People could relate to something new, to something unbearably present and invisible inside themselves. In this way, they are the same.

[skint0n0minted]

mozart a prodigy? most deffinately yes, he could read and write music by age 3, he was writting symphonys by age 5 he was incredible.

the beatles a prodigy?

hahaahah i don't think so, no fucking way, they were boring

[theScytheofGod]

the Beatles were not prodigies, they've never made that claim, but Mozart, yes, he was. that's all.

[Plutonwolf]

These post clip advertisements suck so hugely it is beyond my capabilities to describe. And I love how it just so happens that the volume of them is always three or four times greater than the vid you are watching.

[planetdarwin]

Every megabyte you download burns a handful of coal. That's gotta be paid for somehow. You can't have your YouTube and eat it too.

[revjimbob]

"Every megabyte you download burns a handful of coal"

Where do you get that nugget from?

[planetdarwin]

On the internet of course! :P

Jay Walker claims it at 6:10 of this video:

watch?v=GQDQ9rUx-6g

Who knows if it's accurate or not, but I do know Google spends a lot of money on energy and heat dissapation simply by running their search engine, so the assertion that our internet usage has unseen and significant energy impact is a fair one.

[revjimbob]

I watched it, but I am not convinced. Maybe if you take into account the energy required to create the structure of the internet (servers, connections etc), and keep it running, but that energy is expended whether or not I decide to download a particular megabyte of information at a particular time, or not.

[planetdarwin]

Thumbs up for questioning the claims of others, by the way. :)

[billybobby800]

he sounds like JD from Scrubs =D