What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
124 Comments
- Berkana, on 01/24/2009, -0/+57Having read the chapters of his book "Outliers," I contend that it isn't the existence of musical prodigies that he's questioning, it's the definition and understanding of where their talent comes from. It comes from practice, but their gift is the tenacity to keep practicing.
- TheVoxHumanus, on 01/24/2009, -3/+33Prodigies or no, they are damn fun to listen to.
- GuitarDood, on 01/24/2009, -4/+32Never heard that about The Beatles before.
- inactive, on 01/24/2009, -0/+21It is easy to understand why folks that did not go through their youth with the Beatles and the times, would not care about them. But, if you did, you really have an appreciation for what they did..They were always experimenting and I feel that they had a steady progression and just kept getting better.
What I liked about the Beatles, aside that they built their own band and paid their hard knocks in nightclubs, is that they are a perfect example of how synergy and of contrasts can work. Together, as a band, along with the VERY critical input and guidance of Sir George Martin, the Beatles were capable of churning out some great music. Especialy when McCartney and Lennon bounced ideas off each other.
But apart- they were just "normal" musicians it seems. For instance, McCartney needed the contrast of John Lennon in order to make his music palatable. Alone- he is too sickening sweet. I like to think of it as almost a painting, in that without darkness there is no light. Example:
(paraphrasing - too lazy to look up the lyric)
McCartney wrote - "I have to admit it getting better, so much better, all the time"
Lennon wrote the next line: "It couldn't get much worse"
McCartney loved it when Lennon did that. He knew what a great talent he was and I think they had fun for a while... He even wrote a lyric years later after the breakup that seems to point to the fact he knew they were weaker apart. He said something like: "You took your lucky break and you broke it in two- now what can be done for you?" - msaleem, on 01/24/2009, -1/+20That contention goes to the very definition of prodigies, i.e. the unusually gifted. What he says is that they are not unusually gifted but because of circumstances, have had an unusual amount of time to practice, develop, and hone their skills, meaning, under similar circumstances anyone else could replicate the same talent (he talks about this more when discussing a multitude of Bill Gates).
- JoeVet, on 01/24/2009, -22/+40No one every thought the beatles were prodigies. They were a bunch of hard working lower class kids from Liverpool who practiced their trade and struck it big. Besides who the f@ck is Malcolm Gladwell and why should I care what he says?
- kibitzer788, on 01/24/2009, -3/+20i think the beatles are underrated. theyre that good.
- courtjester555, on 01/24/2009, -0/+15Gladwell is the author of "The Tipping Point", "Blink", and "Outliers". He is perhaps the face of popular and applied psychology/sociology. I would highly, HIGHLY recommend Outliers (haven't read the other two myself).
- pnmoore, on 01/24/2009, -0/+12People seem to have the need to think of extremely talented people as "overnight successes" or "prodigies" because it destroys their dreams of one day waking up in that same position if they acknowledge the years of work that go into becoming an "overnight success"
- OSXpert, on 01/24/2009, -0/+11I would say most avid Beatles fans are aware of their stint of playing in Germany. Anyone who watched the Anthology documentary certainly is. I don't know anyone who calls the Beatles prodigies though. Geniuses maybe, but not prodigies.
- mmilton, on 01/24/2009, -1/+11Read the book. It requires talent, desire to success, 10,000 hours of work and LUCK. I found the luck part of the book to be the most interesting theory. And, he has plenty of examples.
- kanojo1969, on 01/24/2009, -2/+12If you can't be ***** spending 30 seconds with google to find out, I guess you shouldn't care what he says. He certainly doesn't give a rat's ass what you think.
I was surprised to hear them talk about the Beatles as prodigies; i.e. super-skilled writers and musicians. I had never thought of them like that. Right-place-right-time, backed up with the work ethic and skills they acquired in Hamburg, accounted for their success as much as anything.
Either way, the book they are discussing is pretty much right on the money. It's incredible when you talk to successful people, how few of them will admit that they don't really know what they did right. Most success is dumb luck followed by the ability to seize an opportunity once it's been given to you.
So many people manage to succeed at something and then fail at every subsequent attempt, yet they never consider that perhaps that first time they just got lucky. Instead, they see success as vindication of every single idea and strategy they ever had, and will have in the future. - gibson85, on 01/24/2009, -0/+9"we were just a band.. that made it very, very big"
-john lennon - aelias, on 01/24/2009, -0/+8The Beatles are not prodigies. They weren't even terribly good at their instruments. Paul and John (mostly) wrote ***** amazing tunes. I posit that any band could have played those tunes and been as popular as the Beatles. Genius songwriters, yes. Prodigies? No.
Victor Wooten? Prodigy. Stevie Wonder? Prodigy. Prince? Prodigy.
That said, the Beatles, in all their technical mediocrity, are, IMO, the best band ever. Given the paradigm shift currently going on in the industry, I doubt any band will ever have the popularity that the Beatles still enjoy. People will continue to fall in love with their music for generations to come. - cstathis15, on 01/24/2009, -0/+8The Beatles weren't prodigies, at least in terms of technical prowess on their instruments - the key to their success was their compositional innovations. In terms of writing they became some of the most ingenious and creative people around, but as performers there were many more talented people at the time.
- JakeBC, on 01/24/2009, -0/+8I used to work with a woman who grew up in Liverpool and used to see The Beatles perform at The Cavern. She said they were nothing special at the time. Just another band to see on a Saturday night. Nobody could have predicted what they would become.
- DubYaSee, on 01/24/2009, -1/+8I think Yoko Ono tried just that.
- mille716, on 01/24/2009, -0/+7"They were a bunch of hard working lower class kids from Liverpool who practiced their trade and struck it big."
That was the whole point of his talk. You just disagreed with him then stated the exact same thing Gladwell says.
Gladwell is actually one of the best selling and widely known non-fiction authors today. In addition to reading his books that courtjester pointed out, I'd recommend reading his New Yorker articles. They'll blow your ***** mind.
http://www.gladwell.com/archive.html - ferndave, on 01/24/2009, -1/+8You're right. You don't understand his Outliers concept.
- ethon, on 01/24/2009, -0/+7All of your comments in the past 5 or so articles are completely incoherent.
- jmpeagle, on 01/24/2009, -1/+8in terms of sucess and impact on culture that's true. The Beatles for example are the only band in history to control all of the top 5 spots on the billboards top 100.
While they may be in the same league in talent, they are nowhere near each other in cultural effect. - AManWithNoName, on 01/24/2009, -0/+5While it is certainly true that they had time to practice, I'd say the prodigy term is meant to apply more to their creativity and originality than the actual skill at playing (Honestly, they were far from great when it came to outright technical skills). This is an ability that is more of an actual inherent talent in the members of the band rather than a practicable skillset.
That in mind, I find it incredibly hard to believe that people could ever truly replicate the Beatles. I agree that they could probably play the instruments as well, but to come up with as wide a variety of songs as they did, crank them out as quickly as they did, and have them all as original as the next, that seems like a bit of a high task to ask of 'anyone', regardless of preparation time.
As a former music/art major (Switched to journalism), I can tell you that no matter how well you've honed the practicable technical skills, if you don't have some level of originality, you don't have jack *****. - CptBuck, on 01/24/2009, -0/+5Yes, that's how we know what those big words mean. You on the other hand...
- Independentsam, on 01/24/2009, -0/+5"But nobody ever hears him
Or the sound he appears to make
And he never seems to notice
But the fool on the hill
sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning round" - WiretapStudios, on 01/24/2009, -0/+4Someone revoke this kids internet card s.t.a.t.
- kenhatesemos, on 01/24/2009, -0/+4i've heard immense amount of praise in my lifetime toward the Beatles. everyone loves thier work and thinks they are the greatest rock band ever to exist. but i have never heard anyone refer to them as musical prodigies. he should've stuck to mozart.
- ElNeenyo, on 01/24/2009, -1/+5Wait. Did you just compare the Beatles to Yes?
The internet never ceases to amaze... - tonmil, on 01/24/2009, -1/+5Outliers - great book and theories. For example, he explains why most Canadian professional hockey players are born in the months Jan to April.
- JamesBondJr, on 01/24/2009, -1/+5that makes two of us
- jawshoeuh, on 01/24/2009, -0/+4So why did you open this article?
- jackzombie, on 01/24/2009, -0/+4along the same lines: "Hard work will get you a professorship or a BMW. You need both work and luck for a Booker, a Nobel or a Private Jet." --Nassim Taleb
- truebeliever83, on 01/24/2009, -1/+5There are a thousands of artists are as prolific and fast at writing a wide variety of original songs but never became as popular or as influential as the Beatles. There are plenty of artists much more original than the Beatles; truly, it was the Beatles ability to repackage black blues music for a white audience that got the ball rolling for them.
Gladwell, in another chapter of the same book, talks about the rise to prominence of Jewish lawyers from New York; who handled the dirty business of corporations suing and hostilely acquiring one another in the 50's and 60's, when corporations hardly ever did that and the white WASPy law firms wouldn't touch it. By the 80's an 90's, corporations were suing and taking each other over all the time and the Jewish lawyers were in prime position to take advantage.
My argument is that the Beatles had a similar fortunate break. The came out at the exact right time. Demographically, the massive baby boom generation was getting to the age where music is vital. Bands in that time had the largest potential market than before or since.
From a business perspective, getting signed and recorded in those days was an even bigger challenge than it is today; because of this the Beatles only had maybe 2 or 3 dozen rock bands to compete with. Also, Rock & Roll music was still in it's infancy, meaning there were very few historical artists the Beatles could be compared too. The Beatles are like your first love, in reality no better than any one you've been with since, but they set the bar upon which all upcoming acts will be judged.
Technologically, advances in recording made their later material possible when it wasn't before (admittedly the Beatles helped pioneer many of the advances).
I'm sure there's a ton more if you want go looking for them and do a Gladwellian analysis.
I'm not saying the Beatles are great, just that we have to consider the whole of their circumstances before we attribute too much "super human" quality to them. - quisph, on 01/24/2009, -0/+3@AManWithNoName
Creativity can be learned, practiced, and improved just like any technical skill. Lennon & McCartney wrote dozens, maybe hundreds of songs early in their career which never saw the light of day. They were learning their craft. They did not suddenly spring into existence as great songwriters; they worked at it for years. - Scarper07, on 01/24/2009, -1/+4Proving once again that success in life comes from perseverance and not chance.
- 3Den, on 01/24/2009, -0/+3He had more experience with computers.. which helps him to make that decision.
- avrygoodfrnd, on 01/25/2009, -0/+3I think the Beatles are underrated as musicians, but you're right, Harrison definitely was no Hendrix, Bozzio, or Peart. See, the Beatles didn't need to use all these intricate solos and what not to make their music sound good, and honestly, it wouldn't sound better any other way then the way they did it- that's their "genius". Many of their songs were simple, yet people still latched onto them and continue to even today.
But for the record I'd say Paul McCartney is one of the most underrated musicians instrumentally in all of popular music. - keegangrayson, on 01/24/2009, -0/+3@tmcal maybe this will help, the reason the white album is considered a masterpiece has a lot to do with context, the reason it is so well received by musicians is because every song was produced seemingly independently from one another. the arrangements were determined based on what the songs called for instead of making the album seem like one coherent sound like on their earlier records. it's great for people learning how to record. but I believe most musicians consider rubber soul/revolver to be their musical masterpiece. sgt. peppers was more of a cultural thing.
- apollomurga, on 01/24/2009, -0/+3I'm reading his book Outliers right now and i think it's pretty interesting. it's a nice easy read, not too complicated. i like how straightforward and simple his points are.
one story which i liked covered the success of bill gates, who was born into a wealthy family, went to a really nice school that had it's own computer room, even when most colleges and universities didn't even have computers. so even in 8th grade, he'd spend hours and hours messing around with the computer. same later on when he'd walk over to the nearby washington state university and use their computer for free in the wee hours of the night. by the time he was an adult, he'd had thousands of hours of more experience than others in the same field. not only was he a bright guy i give him that, but he was very fortunate and lucky to have all these special opportunities for himself. - aquafire, on 01/24/2009, -0/+3Hey frunch, why don't you go back to watching Napoleon Dynamite and leave Digg to people who can use those "big words."
- quandrum, on 01/24/2009, -0/+3Well, I think in this case they are using prodigy to mean someone who was born or had some natural inherent talent to do the things they do.
Gladwell contends there's basically no such thing, and that the only way to become what people would consider a genius is through ALOT of hard work. (Approx 10,000 hours) - truebeliever83, on 01/24/2009, -0/+3AManWithNoName, there are a thousands of artists are as prolific and fast at writing a wide variety of original songs but never became as popular or as influential as the Beatles. There are plenty of artists much more original than the Beatles; truly, it was the Beatles ability to repackage black blues music for a white audience that got the ball rolling for them.
Gladwell, in another chapter of the same book, talks about the rise to prominence of Jewish lawyers from New York; who handled the dirty business of corporations suing and hostilely acquiring one another in the 50's and 60's, when corporations hardly ever did that and the white WASPy law firms wouldn't touch it. By the 80's an 90's, corporations were suing and taking each other over all the time and the Jewish lawyers were in prime position to take advantage.
My argument is that the Beatles had a similar fortunate break. The came out at the exact right time. Demographically, the massive baby boom generation was getting to the age where music is vital. Bands in that time had the largest potential market than before or since.
From a business perspective, getting signed and recorded in those days was an even bigger challenge than it is today; because of this the Beatles only had maybe 2 or 3 dozen rock bands to compete with. Also, Rock & Roll music was still in it's infancy, meaning there were very few historical artists the Beatles could be compared too. The Beatles are like your first love, in reality no better than any one you've been with since, but they set the bar upon which all upcoming acts will be judged.
Technologically, advances in recording made their later material possible when it wasn't before (admittedly the Beatles helped pioneer many of the advances).
I'm sure there's a ton more if you want go looking for them and do a Gladwellian analysis.
I'm not saying the Beatles are great, just that we have to consider the whole of their circumstances before we attribute too much "super human" quality to them. - 3Den, on 01/24/2009, -0/+3Yes - what he was arguing against is the myth that somehow bill gates, the beatles, etc... are just overnight instant hits, geniuses, prodigies.
He's not saying it's up to fate, or that prodigies don't exist -
They ARE good at their field, absolutely - but other circumstances are at play at well. Bill Gates and the Beatles both had THOUSANDS of hours of practice at their respective fields before they hit the real workforce, just due to circumstances and their own choices. - idigidug, on 01/24/2009, -0/+2Man, you're entitled to your own opinion of course, but I don't understand how people cannot like the beatles. It boggles the mind.
- WiretapStudios, on 01/24/2009, -0/+2The other two are awesome. They are highly famous and influential novels that cover those topics through a variety of different examples. If you've ever wondered about how something small can turn into an epidemic or a fad, read The Tipping Point. If you wonder how a human mind can sum up someone in less than a second, read Blink.
- gibson85, on 01/24/2009, -0/+2am i the only one that got that reference?
- MillionsLivio, on 01/24/2009, -0/+2I'm not sure what you exactly said about NIN, but ***** off nonetheless.
- 3Den, on 01/24/2009, -0/+2His point is not that prodigies don't exist - it's that commonly, we think of the beatles as super gifted.
They were not - they were excellent musicians, sure ,but so were many other people.
What the beatles had was circumestances, and a LOT of practice, thousands of hours more than their counterparts. By the time they started getting popular, they had VASTLY above average stage time, and knew how to perform better than just about everyone. - sambapati87, on 01/24/2009, -10/+12The Beatles helped pioneer an entire new genre of music, but I just don't like listening to them.
- waluum, on 01/24/2009, -0/+2Prodigies or not, he said it himself: they were the "greatest rock band in the world."
- Winstonsodyssey, on 01/25/2009, -0/+2Dude, Yes FORMED in 1968, after the Beatles had already revolutionized modern music. Sure, by today's standards, The Beatles' songs seem like safe pop songs, but from the way they arranged their chord structures to the recording tricks they invented to the way they changed the entire idea of what an ALBUM is to what we see it as today (and what Yes no doubt saw it as by the time they started, which was, as said before, in the twilight of the Beatles' career). An enormous amount of stuff that can be done in a studio today by pressing a button was invented and done manually by George Martin and The Beatles. Yes is not better by default simply because they masturbated with their guitars. Their music was grandiose and more than a bit too self-absorbed, like all the "best" prog rock (and yeah, the Beatles' personalities could be described the same way, but their music couldn't).
Not to mention that a lot of their music wasn't "safe" songs about girls. They breached subjects you didn't sing about back then. They, along with The Who, refined and popularized the concept of a concept album before Yes was even a band.
If you honestly believe that Yes would've been able to achieve what they achieved or even been inspired to the heights you claim they reached without the Beatles laying the groundwork for the way most western music would be written forever after them, then you can be wrong. -
Show 51 - 100 of 130 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is