IK and Gavin Lurssen set to unveil revolutionary mastering product at NAMM 2016

[bmanic]

It is possible to be good, brilliant even, at more than one thing.

It's suggested that it would take around 10,000 hours to be brilliant at any one thing. That's around 5 years working full time on something, 10 years part time. Even then, this the extreme example.

If you have 50 years at your disposal, that's 5 things you could effectively become a master at. Again this is an extreme example.

It's certainly possible to become a master of many crafts.

You're just not thinking big enough.

The kind of person you are talking about here with your amazingly optimistic and a bit naive description is very rare. I'd say most people are way better off financially (plugins end up costing a lot!!) taking their time perfecting the song writing/production process and then investing in mixing/mastering/publication instead of doing it themselves. All truly "successful" people that I know of (except perhaps one dude who is just a bizarre exception) have one thing in common and it is that they rarely do everything themselves. On the contrary, they are experts at surrounding themselves with people who do various tasks better than they could have.. and they usually pay for a variety of services that enhanced their rate for success.

Sure, you CAN theoretically do everything yourself, at an exceptional quality but lets be honest here.. how many multi-talented, "old-experienced-young" freaks of nature like this do you actually know? Most of us are lazy gits that are good at a few select things and then spend the rest of our time either getting drunk, play computer games or look after kids & family.. or all three of those things combined.

I see what you are trying to say and I've said it myself when I was young and naive.. but reality is not like this. On the contrary I'd say. The amount of patience young adults have today in the hectic world of instant gratification / instant everything / instant demands just doesn't fit the optimistic description you made. This kind of instant-want-it-now world is the very reason for the changing climate of one-plugin/click-of-the-button does it all. This is not necessarily a bad thing at all. Once the plugins truly get so good that you can just click a button and get perfect results I will be out of work but I'll also be very happy because then I can finally put all effort into creating music, which after all is the most important part of the process (in my opinion of course). Sadly, we aren't quite there yet (read: not even close).

[antithesist]

A lot of people are too busy trying to qualify and quantify what you can and can't do and how you should or shouldn't do said to ever be brilliant at anything, except maybe the espousal of the pseudo-wisdom of quantifying and/or qualifying what things one can and can't do and how one should or shouldn't do them.

Just do stuff and don't worry about it.

Be brilliant.

Oh, and who decided how many hours it takes to be brilliant at something?

Probably someone that lives in the first paragraph above.

Sorry… gotta get back to being brilliant at many things… and humble, like IK.

It's actually pretty easy if you don't get drunk and play video games, especially at the same time.

Unless, of course, that's something you're brilliant at.

[kbaccki]

Oh, and who decided how many hours it takes to be brilliant at something?

There's a formula. Can't remember it off the top of my head. It's really complicated, though, I remember that.

[Burillo]

skillset = talent * ass-hours

ass-hours being hours you spend sitting on your ass and learning the stuff. if you have more talent, you're capable of getting equally skilled while spending less time. if you have less talent, you need to compensate. and since there's finite amount of time, there's an upper limit on how good you can ever be, given certain amount of talent. not that anyone has ever hit that limit...

[do_androids_dream]

Oh, and who decided how many hours it takes to be brilliant at something?

Nobody decided. The 10,000 hour rule is an average time it takes to master a discipline.

[do_androids_dream]

@simon.a.billington

All your posts present theory - that just doesn't have any grounding in the reality I know. How many tracks have you mastered? Of your own and for other people? Do you actually have any experience or have your ideas just been formulated in your head?

[ghettosynth]

You're view seems to be very dismissive of the fact that people need to start from somewhere and there are all sorts of uses and varying needs for mastering. There is a much bigger picture.

If one is serious about their music then a much better investment is to go to professional. It will cost far, far less in the long run. If you're an artist then why waste years and years of effort trying to be a mastering engineer too? You'll spend loads of money to boot.

It is possible to be good, brilliant even, at more than one thing.

It's suggested that it would take around 10,000 hours to be brilliant at any one thing. That's around 5 years working full time on something, 10 years part time. Even then, this the extreme example.

If you have 50 years at your disposal, that's 5 things you could effectively become a master at. Again this is an extreme example.

It's certainly possible to become a master of many crafts.

You're just not thinking big enough.

All of this is interesting, but this whole 10 years thing neglects the fact that people don't need to be "masters" at things that they do. For many things, the pareto optimal point, i.e., the 80% solution for 20% of the effort, is good enough. So allowing the bad assumption of a linear relationship between time and skill, 10 years just became 2.

[antithesist]

Oh, and who decided how many hours it takes to be brilliant at something?

Nobody decided. The 10,000 hour rule is an average time it takes to master a discipline.

Ah, then who is the arbiter of mastery of discipline?

I'm mine, and I actually don't want to get there.

I've done my best work as artist, producer and engineer in the pursuit of mastery of each.

It stops when you don't care or die, not at 10K hrs.

Actually, though… I've done great work when I was completely preoccupied by something else or apathetic, made crap with great focus and intent, and everything in between.

Honestly, with burnout, lack of challenge, etc. as factors, you can actually get worse at something… especially by comparison to the young Turks nipping at your heels.

Come on people, don't think little.

[do_androids_dream]

Oh, and who decided how many hours it takes to be brilliant at something?

Nobody decided. The 10,000 hour rule is an average time it takes to master a discipline.

Ah, then who is the arbiter of mastery of discipline?

I'm mine, and I actually don't want to get there.

I've done my best work as artist, producer and engineer in the pursuit of mastery of each.

It stops when you don't care or die, not at 10K hrs.

Actually, though… I've done great work when I was completely preoccupied by something else or apathetic, made crap with great focus and intent, and everything in between.

Honestly, with burnout, lack of challenge, etc. as factors, you can actually get worse at something… especially by comparison to the young Turks nipping at your heels.

Come on people, don't think little.

I think the 10,000 hours thing comes more from academia - to obtain a PhD or MD for example

[Scotty]

The 10 000 hour rule was popularized by Malcom Gladwell in his book Outliers. It is a generalization that seems to hold up under some scrutiny when you examine well known masters of music, athletics, academia etc. Obviously there will variation.

Oh, and who decided how many hours it takes to be brilliant at something?

Nobody decided. The 10,000 hour rule is an average time it takes to master a discipline.

[antithesist]

The term outliers alone would seem indicate variation to me, but what do I know? (about that, at least)

I'm guessing this is an analysis of the extraordinary.

Fair enough.

Mastering isn't brain science or rocket surgery, though.

I'd contend that it's something that has more to do with talent than Burillo's ass-hours.

I'm very good at what I consider to be objective mastering, but by virtue of the fact you're also dealing with art and fashion, the subjective can easily outweigh that.

Then, there's dealing with "artists," like the guy that wants you to "unmaster" something, getting threatened with a beat down if they don't like it, etc.

I left with the credo of give 'em what they need and make them think that's what they want.

Thanks to ghettosynth for Pareto optimal point, Burrillo as above, kbaccki, Scotty, and "the bladerunner" for getting us to think, even if we don't agree.

[murnau]

Mastering your own music is often a bad idea since you was to much involved in the creating process.

Ask yourself why 99.9% of tracks worldwide (could be 99.8%) are mastered from another person.

The missing skills are not the only point to consider.

[antithesist]

True murnau, but what is a track these days… something you put up on soundcloud or beatport for free listening, itunes or bandcamp for pay download, spotify for streaming, etc.?

[djscorb]

Oh, and who decided how many hours it takes to be brilliant at something?

Nobody decided. The 10,000 hour rule is an average time it takes to master a discipline.

Ah, then who is the arbiter of mastery of discipline?

I'm mine, and I actually don't want to get there.

I've done my best work as artist, producer and engineer in the pursuit of mastery of each.

It stops when you don't care or die, not at 10K hrs.

Actually, though… I've done great work when I was completely preoccupied by something else or apathetic, made crap with great focus and intent, and everything in between.

Honestly, with burnout, lack of challenge, etc. as factors, you can actually get worse at something… especially by comparison to the young Turks nipping at your heels.

Come on people, don't think little.

This. Could also be describing myself here hehe!

Cheers

Scorb

[simon.a.billington]

You're view seems to be very dismissive of the fact that people need to start from somewhere and there are all sorts of uses and varying needs for mastering. There is a much bigger picture.

If one is serious about their music then a much better investment is to go to professional. It will cost far, far less in the long run. If you're an artist then why waste years and years of effort trying to be a mastering engineer too? You'll spend loads of money to boot.

It is possible to be good, brilliant even, at more than one thing.

It's suggested that it would take around 10,000 hours to be brilliant at any one thing. That's around 5 years working full time on something, 10 years part time. Even then, this the extreme example.

If you have 50 years at your disposal, that's 5 things you could effectively become a master at. Again this is an extreme example.

It's certainly possible to become a master of many crafts.

You're just not thinking big enough.

All of this is interesting, but this whole 10 years thing neglects the fact that people don't need to be "masters" at things that they do. For many things, the pareto optimal point, i.e., the 80% solution for 20% of the effort, is good enough. So allowing the bad assumption of a linear relationship between time and skill, 10 years just became 2.

No the 10 years is how long it takes to be a master. It doesn't neglect anything. Again its possible to be good at more than one thing.

Theink, everyone started from somewhere too. No pro mastering engineer was a master when they first started. There are now just new and alternative ways to learn other than paying lots of money for an education, or being mentored by a mastering engineer.

Of course having a mentor would be very desirable, but I challenge anyone to find one in this day in age, its very difficult if not, impossible.

This day and age we have to consider new ways to learn, to grow and develop.