3 ms·
Yes, but the case is wildly overstated. You don't get to be Bukowski or Palahniuk by reciting Shakespeare over and over. EDIT: Or to put it in the article's o
by bjt 7y ago
Yes, but the case is wildly overstated. You don't get to be Bukowski or Palahniuk by reciting Shakespeare over and over.
EDIT: Or to put it in the article's own terms, is there any reason to believe the top piano student at the university is doing better creative work than those other students who were playing their songs start to finish? For all we know they were composition majors, and they'd already achieved the technical proficiency they needed to express themselves creatively. The kind of practice advocated in the post is very narrowly focused on very specific technical excellence that's way past the minimum you need for creative expression.
- moron4hire 7y agoHunter S. Thompson wrote of "writing Faulkner" and other authors he admired. He'd sit at his typewriter and copy entire passages from books. He felt it helped him understand the writer's thinking, their rhythm and creation process. If you want to be a great improvisational musician, you still (especially) need to be studied in music theory and common works, to know how good music is constructed, and what people expect to hear. If ever there is a great musician or other type of creator who says they are not familiar with and have not studied the works of their contemporaries and lineage, they are lying.
- ryacko 7y agoDid he figure out the most difficult passages for them to write, and the accompanying pause and stare into the uncompleted page?