"When you are not practicing, someone else is. When you meet him, he will win".
I remember years ago when I was on the swim team I had missed two practices. My coach said I had missed 4 practices, and I tried to correct him but he said, "You missed 2 practices, but your competition did not. So now you are 4 practices behind your competition."
I want to believe that's insightful but I can't seem to interpret it any way other than a math fail. I could potentially have 10 practices, miss 2. Opponent has 10, misses 0. Opponent 10 - Me 8 = 2 missed practices...
If the competition did miss the practices, it'd be a wash, so we'd all have essentially missed 0.
I think this is the rationale: In sports (or anything that requires practice), going some time without practicing actually makes you lose some of the ability you once had. So in this case, it would take two practices just to get back what was lost during the break, at which point he would be 4 practices behind.
So the issue is regression. I can believe that, but the original story didn't get that across clearly. Though I imagine the concept was familiar to the players, so it was probably clear at the time.
> Each time you miss your training, you lose twice. One for being behind your schedule, and another for being behind your opponent.
But the reason why being behind schedule is bad is because you are behind your opponent. They don't count twice.
The only way this makes sense is if you actually regress during your missed practices. That way, not only do you miss 2 practices, but it takes you 2 more practices just to get back to where you were before. Then it's like 4 missed practices total.
I read it slightly differently. If you want to win, you need to do more than just practice the same amount as your opponent. If you missed 2 practices they didn't, you missed 4, the 2 you actually missed and the 2 you should be ahead of them. Sort of a "hard work generates luck" thing.
This sounds like it should only apply to something like basketball rebounds - if you miss 1 rebound, your opponent gets it, and thus you have the case where missing 2 rebounds is a -4.
This is a flawed analysis. It sounds like the "14 point turnaround" in football -- wherein the offensive team is about to score a touchdown, but instead turns the ball over to the defense who runs the ball back for a touchdown of their own -- but it is not analogous.
Your missing practice is merely failing to score a touchdown. It does not result in any extra touchdowns or practices for the competition. You really are only 2 practices behind.
I do not like that particular quote. I can offer you mine: "when you are not resting, someone else is. when you meet him, he will win."
Bruce Lee changed his "be as ready to fight as possible every day" attitude which didn't allowed him to be the best - he had to train less intensely than possible. So he introduced two one day rests and one two days rest into his training regimen.
Sayings like that (quoted by article author and one from your trainer) are manipulative and provoke sense of guilt without any good reason.
Seems like you are still just two practices behind them. Maybe in your coach's original example there was a limited amount of pool time available and your absences added 2 practices worth of pool time to the aggregate excluding you.
I have also thought this way when reprimanding myself for staying up late. If I go to sleep at 2 instead of midnight, I lose 4 hours of sleep--the two that I missed, and the extra two hours of being awake.
I like the "be valuable" advice. It's what all college students should keep in mind.
The point of education is not to get a "certificate" that proves to your future employers that you went through the motions of education.
The point is to make yourself valuable.
I'm surprised how many people are oblivious to this.
So many people view education as nothing more than "something boring you have to do so that you get a decent job". Where a decent job is "something boring that you to do to make a decent living".
There's a contradiction there somewhere: if everything you do is boring, how "decent" is your living? really.
What's their idea of a decent living? "Getting paid enough to pay the bills and send the kids to school and make them not have to worry about doing any work". In other words, a decent living is the ability to make your children's life just as boring as yours is.
I'm surprised how many people are oblivious to this.
There is little in one's formal educational experience to prepare one for the concept that one can do work that has real value. So much of what you work on is an exercise, a problem that has already been solved that you must solve again for a grade or a prize, after which your work will be thrown away.
how much does the world pay people to play video games?
Actually if you're good enough, plenty of money. It's not a matter of how many people do it, it's a matter of how much better you are than the many people that do it are. Amateur programmers shouldn't be making software for Bank of America, the same way an amateur musician shouldn't be playing for Dream Theater. The interesting thing is that one generally doesn't notice when you cross the line that makes you a professional, which is generally delimited by profitability.
If you can make money with your abilities it's because there are a bunch of people that can't, but never make the mistake of thinking that because a lot of people do something it means you can't make money off it. Oh and of course, the person with such abilities that doesn't take advantage of them to make money doesn't deserve them (with the exception of the multitalented who leverages a 'better' skill or the person leveraging those skills in a risk filled endeavor for larger profits).
Oh and of course, the person with such abilities
that doesn't take advantage of them to make money
doesn't deserve them (with the exception of the
multitalented who leverages a 'better' skill or
the person leveraging those skills in a risk
filled endeavor for larger profits).
I think I understand what you meant, but I can't completely agree with what you said - sometimes there are indeed worthy uses of skill for a purpose other than making money.
Re-reading the comment I see that I made a mess out of my thoughts. If you're a business man that knows music hell more power to you right? I meant the cases where you have people doing amazing things programming, or composing music, or whatever, but not making any money and having to work in a call center or a grocery store packing bags. I've seen many people I know make such retarded choices it's not even funny. Reminds me of Good Will Hunting. It would have been a complete waste to give the guy such a mind so he can go work at a construction site right?
Grigori Pereleman would be doing mathematics with or without the prize money.
I think sp4rki's point is that it's a waste if not taking/making the money means that you have less time to do whatever it is you're good at. E.g. the artist who could make money from it but chooses not to, and as a result has to work at the convenience store, and as a result produces less art. Though that last bit is a bit contentious - maybe working at the convenience store is a good source of inspiration for that artist.
No, taking prize money in no way equates making money by means of his work (as in a job) at the Steklov Mathematical Institute. If he would have worked at a call center, I'd say that yes it's a waste. I never said the point was to make MILLIONS of dollars, but to use your abilities to make money, i.e. work. If your life's work is math, carpentry, or the trombone, so be it. But coasting through life doing odd jobs to get by when you have a skill in which you're proficient is an insult to the rest of the people that don't share it.
If your life's work is math, carpentry, or the
trombone, so be it. But coasting through life
doing odd jobs to get by when you have a skill
in which you're proficient is an insult to the
rest of the people that don't share it.
I still disagree with you, but to each his own I guess.
I attended music school for a short time after college (not Berklee). After having done a very tough BS in physics, I found the slow pace of the music theory classes pretty frustrating. I worked ahead, but not at the pace I probably could have. I very much agree with his point about not letting others (i.e. courses) set the pace.
Also, having another degree I think I had a different perspective than many of the high school graduates that where there with the idea of becoming a rock star or whatever. Most of the instructors, etc, made their livings by teaching, playing random gigs, doing essentially anonymous studio work, and odd jobs. Music is a very hard business. This reality seemed mostly lost on the majority of the students. I decided that I was probably happier to have a "real" job and play music on the side.
I'm considering the same jump (real job -> music school for a bit). Where did you go? What'd you make of it? Did you switch out? The first sentence suggests that you did. I'm perfectly happy to play local venues for the rest of my life.
I had huge trouble understanding this, before Googling "Berklee" and realizing it's short for "Berklee College of Music".
That lead me to think that the author didn't in fact start Berklee, he started at it. That is not communicated in the title, and also the post itself contains sentences like this:
Luckily, when I was 17, a few months before starting Berklee, I met a man named Kimo Williams who used to teach at Berklee and convinced me that the standard pace is for chumps.
So; can we please have an "at" in the HN title, at least? :)
While I can respect what the author is saying, I don't think everyone should follow this advice. While I've definitely had my fair share of time spent in the "shed", working on projects for both school and my own side ideas, I don't think a true college experience can be had by being like this all the time. There is nothing wrong with occasionally being distracted by your peers; I've had lots of great nights going out for a couple drinks on a Wednesday night just because I can.
In the end, it all has to be about balance in my opinion. Definitely go (far) above the bare minimum, but I know I could never stay sane without the occasional break or fun night out.
He is right you need to shed a whole lot more than you might be motivated for.
But also, success in the field of music requires a level of social assertiveness and competence that is way beyond what it is in technology. Nobody cares about your cool grooves or whatever, you have to fight to stay on board. But oh you can build my ecommerce site for me ?
I got out of Berklee in '92 and basically dicked around trying to get non-shitty gigs for a few years, not going to enough jams and auditions, until an ocean of interest and money came at me to do anything related to computers, after I had sworn them off to be a musician. I was interested in eating and not living in a box. The market decided for me on that one - scratch and claw your way to get some real music gigs, or step into this plush world of "wow you can program ?". Wish I could play again.
Disagree strongly with #6. It's too easy to find counterexamples of brilliant artists who've created immeasurable value and died penniless. Market value != intrinsic value.
I think he is just trying to break the perceived reverse connection between artistic value and economic value for his impressionable audience who presumably strive for artistic value first.
The girls selected by the pretty sorority will likely be dumber than average but that's not because they are pretty, it's because of the selection criteria.
An attribute used in a selection requirement is easily misidentified as a causal factor. Pretty does not have to cause dumb. Popularity in and of itself does not have to cause bad music. Neither does starvation cause great art.
I must temper this conclusion with a joke: "I used to like the Chilean Miners when they were underground. Now they're too mainstream."
This is fairly fascinating to me - I'm a musician as well and love this stuff. What would have happened if John Coltrane, for example, had done what Miles Davis did and focused on the business side more?
I wonder, though, if perhaps you are nit-picking on a pithy title? "Be valuable" doesn't have to mean "learn business at the expense of creating value in your music", does it?
Your work may have value, but you won't know for sure; you might just be heading down the wrong path and producing crap. Getting paid gives you an axis to measure your efforts upon, which gives you a direction to hill-climb.
> Berklee is like a library. Everything you need to know is here for the taking. It's the best possible environment for you to master your music. But nobody will teach you anything. You have to teach yourself.
Sounds exactly like a library, except (I presume) extremely expensive. I only went to college because I assumed (correctly) that at least a few great minds would be there. What's the upside to Berklee?
I'm not sure about that. There are plenty of boring jobs to be had, and quite a few of them are to be had at Google. I suppose banality and life satisfaction aren't mutually exclusive, but it's the case for me. Doing computational database analysis whether at Facebook or at the local grocery store for me is a bitter kind of hell.
I think I agree with the point, but would refine it. Both talented and talentless people have the option of living boring lives. The more talent you have, and the more willing you are to focus and direct it, the more leverage you have to launch yourself into a fascinating and entertaining lifestyle.
The don't get stuck in the past bit is a fine line you have to walk.
Its dumb to spend your whole creative life simply reproducing ideas that seemed obvious decades ago. You can get a lot better if you know what other people did, and then consciously build on it.
Certainly one of these things should have been that the school was founded by Lee Berk, who thought the name "Berklee" was good in light of UC Berkeley!
"When you are not practicing, someone else is. When you meet him, he will win".
I remember years ago when I was on the swim team I had missed two practices. My coach said I had missed 4 practices, and I tried to correct him but he said, "You missed 2 practices, but your competition did not. So now you are 4 practices behind your competition."
I always remembered that.