I rewatched the classic Beatles movie A Hard Day’s Night over the weekend, and aside from making me crave nearly every coat and suit worn in the movie and somehow making me love the Beatles even more than I already did, this third time around I was struck by something the movie left out. Basically: that whole “Hard Day’s Night” part.
The Beatles have been endlessly analyzed and discussed and written about, and even today the Lennon/McCartney partnership is one we are still pondering. But the element of their greatness that Malcolm Gladwell touches on in Outliers, and the one that I’m most interested in, is the extent to which the Beatles were, well, also fanatical workaholics.
Early in their career they played over 1,200 times in four years in Hamburg, Germany, all the while writing songs and practicing. Their greatness didn’t just spring forth: they worked and worked and worked and worked some more. The sheer body of work they produced is staggering, particularly when you consider they broke up before John Lennon had even turned 30.
And yet you never see a hint of the incredible and tedious hard work behind the music and fun in A Hard Day’s Night, nor, really, any work about creative geniuses (save perhaps for the great “Barton Fink,” that great ode to writer’s block, and a few other exceptions). The songs and novels and plays always seem to spring out from the great artist fully formed. Maybe we see that classic Eurkea moment, but then the artist scurries off to craft their work in a quick montage, or we cut straight to the book coming out.
What’s funny about this is that artists themselves participate in the illusion of effortlessness, probably because artists and storytellers recognize that the truth is boring: working very very hard and practicing a very very long time is not the stuff that great stories are made of.
In the case of A Hard Day’s Night, the truth is that the title song was mainly written in a single night by John Lennon, which is amazing enough on its own. But to watch the movie it seems the Beatles spend all of their time having adventures, flirting with girls, and spontaneously playing their fully-formed music. I can’t help but think of the time they spent off the screen to make the illusion possible.
And with these stories and movies in our heads, when we read the magic on the page in a book and it flows so smoothly and effortlessly, it’s easy to forget the hard day’s year that went into it.
I've seen documentaries over the years that say how much and how hard they worked. I've also heard people say that they don't get why the Beatles were so big. I say you had to have lived in those times or to know the history of music to understand. I lived through it and it's my memory that their (later) lyrics were the first to have a voice of their own.
They had a great exhibit of Michelangelo sketches in Seattle a while back. Apparently his sketches are rare since he burned most of them. He wanted to foster the idea that his monumetal works sprung fully formed from him, and was pretty successful at this by only leaving behind his finished work.
Not true though, he worked indredibly hard to get there, genius notwithstanding. If Michelangelo had to work so dang hard, I got no excuse.
Here's a post about Danielle Steel's obsessive work habits:
https://daniellesteel.net/blog/2009/02/writing/
And Dean Koontz supposedly never takes a vacation.
Brooklyn Ann said: "Moral of the story: Hard Work pays off."
I am the Anon @2:42 PM. That's how I interpreted the meaning of Nathan's original post. And I disagree. SOMETIMES hard work pays off; sometimes it doesn't. In this economy, it often does not. In this same economy, there are a few best-selling authors who have bragged online about how they wrote their novels in only three weeks or how they write popular genres and don't ever plan to emulate great literary writing. Lots of people who work very, very hard – sometimes holding down three jobs just to get by – don't succeed. Sometimes people who work MUCH less hard but accomplish something very popular, succeed big-time. It might make us feel better to believe that "Hard work pays off," but that isn't how reality always works. Reality is much more complicated than that.
And, for the record, I love the Beatles' music.
The fact that one anonymous crank doesn't like the Beatles is no reason to let him/her screw up a perfectly fine blog post and comments thread.
A short list: Musicians often talk about how difficult Beatles songs are to play, because some of the chord progressions are so uncommon.
Sgt. Peppers incorporated roots influences, Indian music, avant-garde electronics, classical, music hall, and more.
George Harrison introduced the Indian sitar to the song "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)."
In 1965 — less than ten years after Bill Haley's "Rock Around the Clock" — the Beatles incorporated a string quartet on 1965's "Yesterday," and many other bands of the time followed suit.
"Penny Lane" contains a prominent piccolo trumpet inspired by a performance of Bach's second Brandenburg Concerto
They used "text painting," which goes back to the Renaissance but is relatively uncommon in rock music.
White Album included everything from blues-rock to vaudeville.
It's facile to say you don't like them. But let's hear it from a more objective source, like the All Music Guide, which is basically synthesizing of 40+ years of Beatles' critical reception:
"… they were the greatest and most influential act of the rock era, and introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century."
My favorite movie writing scene is in Amadeus. Mozart is has his papers spread out on the pool table, and he's bouncing a ball around the sides without looking up from the manuscript he's writing. Then his dad comes to his apartment, and gets in a big fight with his wife–situation hopeless. Mozart just leaves, goes into the room with the pool table, shuts the door, and goes right back to sending the ball around the table and writing. It's not about effort so much as concentration.
What a great post, Nathan! I'll show my age and tell you that I saw that movie when it was first released in the early sixties. I was fourteen or fifteen at the time, and I played in a band. The music the Beatles were writing was so different from everything else that was out there: minor seventh chords, progressions different from the typical 1-4-5 with a 2-minor. It was fresh and different and wonderful, and they certainly changed the music industry with their innovative writing.
Was it hard work? I'm sure it was. But I highly doubt that they complained about it, since it was something they loved and something they were obviously quite good at. Genius has a tendency of making the difficult appear effortless.
As I grew older I developed an interest in art and became, finally, a nationally distributed wildlife artist. I was a painter. When invited to the National Wildlife Art Show as an exhibitor, I saw another artist who specialized in woodcarving. His ducks were the most realistic I had ever seen. I told him I was absolutely amazed at his talent. He told me it was actually quite easy to do. When I questioned this he said, "You just start with a big piece of wood and carve off everything that doesn't look like a duck."
So there you have my two cents worth. I'll end this by saying that I did have one of those collarless jackets that the Beatles wore in that film. I was going to put it on Ebay and see what I could get for it. My wife informed me that she had taken it to Goodwill a long, long time ago.
Drat the luck. Another investment down the drain.
Keep up the great posts. I enjoy reading you.
Very much agreed. I think this can lead us to be much harder on ourselves, especially if we look at our first drafts and think they're crap. We read a good book and just imagine the words pouring out of the author, maybe knowing but not really believing that rounds of revisions went into them.
As for the Beatles/drugs argument: Yes, they used drugs. A lot of them. A LOT of them. Yes, this probably informed a good portion of their creativity. The point about them playing a lot of shows still stands, though. That is a lot of work, even if they enjoyed it and/or were stoned out of their minds.
Wow! The B's used drugs! Who knew? Like people who do/did/will don't work hard too? Not condoning abuse, but guys, really! Besides, I think the point of Nathan's story was creativity ain't easy. On or off drugs. Anybody who argues against that, isn't. Working creatively that is.
You had me at "Beatles." 🙂
Amen on the hard work bottom line and I second the "concentration" comment someone made a few above mine.
I grew up listening to the Beatles, so they definitely massaged my neurons into some interesting configurations. On a related, but different topic, does anyone know why you can't find any Beatles in the iTunes Store? Or any other "older" music for that matter. I don't get it.
FYI – John Lennon's 70th birthday is this Saturday and there are all sorts of celebrations/memorials happening on radio, TV, online.
RE ; Cathy at 6:25. I too LOVE the film Amadeus .
Remembering the scene where Salieri is reading through Amadeus' music with the comment that it appeared written entirely without mistake or correction- " as if he were merely taking dictation !"
A heavenly movie .
Nathan
Point well made and taken.
Aside from amphetamines and alcohol, I think the Beatles "fun" drug use came much late than "Hard Days Night". Anyone who reads about the Hamburg years would not envy them this trial by fire.
Ringo had a Yogi Berra-esque talent for coining off-handedly brilliant non-sequitors. The phrase "A Hard Days Night" was one of his, spoken just as the film was being wrapped-up, and Lennon wrote the title song based on it.
"Eight Days A Week" was another.
dylan
The Beatles used Prellies (stimulants) in Hamburg–so that they could play hours on end.
Their success was due to a combination of factors, but I'm sure their hard work learning their craft played a part.
"Rock on, George, for Ringo one time!"
Workaholic is not the best noun to describe the trait of The Beatles compassion. It suggests their success can be achieved by anyone subscribing to an earnest devotion to discipline, which is not the case.
The reason the movie was seen as a portrayal of a so called illusion of frivolous behavior is because it existed. Lennon had convinced the other lads that they had a voice to exercise; a craft to hone; a statement to be made.
They spent time wanting to perfect a cultural stimulant which was instinctively apparent in the quartet's persona. It was a euphoria aspired by this accomplishment that drove them. They then celebrated the achievement as an extension of that goal.
The end result was repelled by the mediocrity of conformed thinking, and accepted by the consciousness of progressive thought.
Where does that energy exist today?
Thanks for this interesting post, Nathan! I, too, have read heaps written by them and about them. And one thing shines out: Lennon, especially, was aufait with the power of the mind. He would get the boys chanting: 'Where are we going? To the toppermost of the poppermost!' And he was quoted as saying they were the best band in the world because they thought they were. Or something similiar to that. Another quote from Lennon I like is one sometimes mentioned by Yoko: 'We all want to save the world. It's just the people we can't stand.' Yoko cited this as an example of John's ability to say what everyone else was thinking but didn't dare say.
And, yes, the hours worked while they were in Hamburg at the beginning of their career was phenomenal. John often mentioned he was married to the Beatles, more so than to his first wife, Cynthia.
It always amazes me to hear someone diss the Beatles. They managed to change the music from simpering canned studio songs which were prevalent in the early sixties to songs that actually showed incredible musical proficiency and imagination.
As Nathan said, they worked hard for their success, something some of the less-talented bands that followed tried to emulate. These four musicians had a tremendous impact on the youth of that time.
There's no comparison between the Beatles and some of the groups the original 'anon' mentioned. As always, it's easy to be a critic when you hide behind the anonymous moniker.
Different choices for different tastes, but don't knock what you don't really understand.
"I think you'll be successful, because what you're doing looks really tedious."
LOL!
That bodes well for me, then!
LOL, Anon, you weren't the one I was referring to, it was the first one who said they didn't like the Beatles. "finding them neither genius nor tolerable."
I see that you were the one going off on the drug use.
On that, drugs don't necessarily incapacitate one from working/ functioning.
And as for your recent argument, sure there are such things as "one hit wonders" but how many of these so-called "I wrote this in 3 weeks" people actually STAY successful?
Actually, the book OUTLIERS by Malcolm Gladwell supports many of the Anon comments. Here's the official Editorial Reviews on Amazon:
AMAZON.COM REVIEW:
Now that he's gotten us talking about the viral life of ideas and the power of gut reactions, Malcolm Gladwell poses a more provocative question in Outliers: why do some people succeed, living remarkably productive and impactful lives, while so many more never reach their potential? Challenging our cherished belief of the "self-made man," he makes the democratic assertion that superstars don't arise out of nowhere, propelled by genius and talent: "they are invariably the beneficiaries of hidden advantages and extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies that allow them to learn and work hard and make sense of the world in ways others cannot." Examining the lives of outliers from Mozart to Bill Gates, he builds a convincing case for how successful people rise on a tide of advantages, "some deserved, some not, some earned, some just plain lucky.
Outliers can be enjoyed for its bits of trivia, like why most pro hockey players were born in January, how many hours of practice it takes to master a skill, why the descendents of Jewish immigrant garment workers became the most powerful lawyers in New York, how a pilots' culture impacts their crash record, how a centuries-old culture of rice farming helps Asian kids master math. But there's more to it than that. Throughout all of these examples–and in more that delve into the social benefits of lighter skin color, and the reasons for school achievement gaps–Gladwell invites conversations about the complex ways privilege manifests in our culture. He leaves us pondering the gifts of our own history, and how the world could benefit if more of our kids were granted the opportunities to fulfill their remarkable potential. –Mari Malcolm
From the PUBLISHERS WEEKLY REVIEW:
In the end it is the seemingly airtight nature of Gladwell's arguments that works against him. His conclusions are built almost exclusively on the findings of others—sociologists, psychologists, economists, historians—yet he rarely delves into the methodology behind those studies. And he is free to cherry-pick those cases that best illustrate his points; one is always left wondering about the data he evaluated and rejected because it did not support his argument, or perhaps contradicted it altogether. Real life is seldom as neat as it appears in a Malcolm Gladwell book.
Actually, the book OUTLIERS by Malcolm Gladwell supports many of the Anon comments. Here's the official Editorial Reviews on Amazon:
AMAZON.COM REVIEW:
Now that he's gotten us talking about the viral life of ideas and the power of gut reactions, Malcolm Gladwell poses a more provocative question in Outliers: why do some people succeed, living remarkably productive and impactful lives, while so many more never reach their potential? Challenging our cherished belief of the "self-made man," he makes the democratic assertion that superstars don't arise out of nowhere, propelled by genius and talent: "they are invariably the beneficiaries of hidden advantages and extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies that allow them to learn and work hard and make sense of the world in ways others cannot." Examining the lives of outliers from Mozart to Bill Gates, he builds a convincing case for how successful people rise on a tide of advantages, "some deserved, some not, some earned, some just plain lucky.
Outliers can be enjoyed for its bits of trivia, like why most pro hockey players were born in January, how many hours of practice it takes to master a skill, why the descendents of Jewish immigrant garment workers became the most powerful lawyers in New York, how a pilots' culture impacts their crash record, how a centuries-old culture of rice farming helps Asian kids master math. But there's more to it than that. Throughout all of these examples–and in more that delve into the social benefits of lighter skin color, and the reasons for school achievement gaps–Gladwell invites conversations about the complex ways privilege manifests in our culture. He leaves us pondering the gifts of our own history, and how the world could benefit if more of our kids were granted the opportunities to fulfill their remarkable potential. –Mari Malcolm
From the PUBLISHERS WEEKLY REVIEW:
In the end it is the seemingly airtight nature of Gladwell's arguments that works against him. His conclusions are built almost exclusively on the findings of others—sociologists, psychologists, economists, historians—yet he rarely delves into the methodology behind those studies. And he is free to cherry-pick those cases that best illustrate his points; one is always left wondering about the data he evaluated and rejected because it did not support his argument, or perhaps contradicted it altogether. Real life is seldom as neat as it appears in a Malcolm Gladwell book.
Brooklyn Ann –
A number of those writers currently have future book deals and movie deals. We want to believe that those who work the hardest are the ones who succeed. But that's not always the case, as Malcolm Gladwell suggests in OUTLIERS.
Okay, first off, I'm taking a stand here. Excessive drug use: not good for you. Also, getting alot of work done because you are hopped up on stimulants – also not that good for you.
In case anyone wanted some clarification on my postion vis-a-vis excessive drug use and stimulant induced work.
That said, in addition to finding the various anon commentary fairly amusing, I really liked this post. I think it's inspiring. I also agree that master craftsmanship seems effortless. I've realized that whenever I think to myself, "that looks easy, I could do that," there's not a chance in a million that I actually could, and I'm probably gazing at the work of a master.
I agree about working hard, too. I think if you're going to accomplish something truly wonderful, you have to work hard to do that. Hard work, dedication, commitment, discipline – these are all essential.
On the other hand, people really can wear themselves out, and so I think balance is very important, too. When I'm exhausted or worn down or stressed, I find it's really hard to write anything of any quality. So, it's a balance. There's a time to work, and a time to rest. I think they tend to go hand in hand.
Picasso-Anon – thanks for the vote of confidence. 🙂
Okay, it's been a long, hard day, and I'm off to rest now! Nathan, thank you for the great post.
In the following interview – https://www.gladwell.com/outliers/index.html – Malcolm Gladwell, the author of OUTLIERS, talks about how much the time in history within which a person lives affects the chance that he or she will be successful. To not look at the particular historical time period in which an artist lived is, in my opinion, to ignore a huge part of their true path to success. I'm not sure this is a "wouldn't be successful GAME" – I think, as Gladwell points out, that achieving success is often a very complex event which defies our common beliefs about how it really comes about. Just my two cents.
I agree with Nathan about the hard work and the time it takes, and it's really difficult to explain this to people who keep saying 'haven't you finished it/got it published yet?'
Anonymous discusses (referring to a Malcolm Gladwell interview): 'how much the time in history within which a person lives affects the chance that he or she will be successful.' There's a lot of truth in that, becoming successful is not usually straightforward. Many factors are at work.
If we limit our respect for musicians to only those who were sober, we lose many of the greats. Even Mozart was renowned for his substance abuse, primarily alcohol and opiates, which were most readily available to him.
Pink Floyd ranks as my all-time favorite band. I think Roger Waters has a gift for lyrics. One of my favorite lines is from Echoes:
And through the window in the hall
Comes streaming in on sunlight wings
A million bright ambassadors of morning
WORD VERIFICATION: mingu. A school of higher learning for sci-fi villains, headed by Flash Gordon's nemisis, Ming the Merciless.
This is a really interesting post. I have to laugh often at myself because even though I'm a writer and I KNOW how much work goes into a novel, when I read a great novel, one that tells a great story and feels effortless, I forget what I know and am all but convinced the book flowed from the writer almost directly how I'm reading it. When it feels effortless, it feels effortless, which I think is one of the signs of good writing/storytelling. But I always think, if I, as a writer and knowing what I know about the process, can forget, the average reader must truly have no idea what goes into it.
I love this thought. I think what stops so many people from creating is this mistaken idea that genius just flows, and if it doesn't you have no talent. I know that my writing needs lots of hard work and editing to seem effortless. (or kinda sorta effortless). Thank you for this reminder!
Julie
Hrm, if I had known where the comment conversation was headed, I would have posted this question yesterday before all that kerfluffle. Here's a question I've had for awhile but didn't know how to bring it up without sounding boastful.
Can a prospective writer produce too much? For those agents that invest time to improve the manuscript before submitting to publishers, would a novice author with a high output be less attractive? (This assumes the quality of the work would otherwise incline the agent to offer representation.)
I write two novels a year and hope that's a good thing, but worry maybe it's not.
Hey anon, you're forgetting that a lot of bands used drugs. Just because Kurt Cobain used heroin does that make him any less a musician. His music might have been better had he not used drugs. The Beatles are cool, not the best but certainly not the worst, but they influenced a lot of people. If you're going to be stupid at least refer to people that came out before them, like Jimi Hendrix and Buddy Holly.
joseph-
Quality is the most important thing, but some people are able to turn out multiple quality novels a year. Some take longer. It's really about the end result.
Outliers really shows the importance of work. I was floored by how many hours the Beatles spent playing in that "night club." They had plenty of time to be bad and work out their sound and try new stuff. Being a pro at something does take that time working, practicing, failing, falling down, getting back up and working with even more determination.
I have to shake my head at anon saying that Paul McCartney isn't talented because he's not selling tons of records today. Seriously? He had a very successful solo (and group) career after the Beatles. He's 68. I'd say he's semi-retired. He still packs 'em in for his concerts.
Genius=talent + instruction + tons and tons of work. Think of Mozart. Would he have been the phenomenon that he was if his father had never taught him to play the piano and made him practice endlessly?
There is no substitute for hard work. Wow. I got up on my soapbox a little bit.
Perhaps the mistake I'm making is the presumption of an equal distribution of time among submitted mss. If x number of clients turn in a completed manuscript each year and one of those clients turns in two, then the total time distributed per client's manuscript reduces for all but the two-mss producer, whose total time increases.
I worry about infringing on other people's time. It may be silly, but I worry about that kind of thing.
Love it.
Nathan, I'd bet you're a workaholic. That's okay, experiencing this, it's better than being an alcoholic.
Peter Sellers is dressed as the hunchbacked King Richard III, not Henry V, reciting the lyrics of the song HARD DAY'S NIGHT like a Shakespearian soliloquy in the funny short black and white video. Apologies to all, particularly King Henry V, who might have asked, like Marty Feldman in YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, 'Hump? What hump?'.
Anonymous 2:59 pm, the Beatles ARE still successful today, two generations after starting out, even though many of their original fans are dead. The Beatles have stood the proverbial test of time.
BTW, if Anons used names, even invented names, like Picasso-Anon, we'd be able to distinguish them easier. Who wants to be just a number?
I'm not a fanatical Beatles fan, but my favorite song they've ever done is, "Blackbird."
Just last night, I was singing the melody while I was cleaning the living room. My two-year-old, who sings a bunch of absolutely adorable, but mostly unintelligible songs, was dancing while I sang.
I started again on the line, "Black bird singing in the dead of night, take these broken wings and learn to fly…" Before I could move on to the next phrase, I heard Elliot sing, "Fly!"
AWWWWW!
Oh Please! the idea of this post is that hard work lies behind any art that looks effortless. The Beatles are just an analogy, replace the beatles with any group that works for you.
lotusgirl –
I never said Paul McCartney isn't talented. Quite the opposite – he's just as talented as he was at the height of his career. My point is that times change, physical appearances change, a nation's interests change. Lots of things other than hard work help create a huge success. Right now, Justin Bieber's name comes up in discussions about popular rock music much more often than Paul McCartney's name does. His talent hasn't changed, but his popularity has. No matter how hard he works right now, he won't be able to capture teenagers' attention the way that Justin Bieber has.
In regard to drugs and rebellion, back in the sixties era, the Beatles' rebellion and drug use actually helped add to their appeal because they spoke to a generation searching for meaning through those avenues. That definitely wouldn't be mainstream today.
Fuzzy Math?
If I add in all the hours I study the craft of writing every day (subtracting the hours I procrastinate)plus the hours I spend reading about the industry (i.e. blogs like this one) to the hours I spend actually writing a book, (including the research and the plotting) does it count towards my 10,000 hours?
(oh no… if an apple is in a bushel on a train, moving at a speed of 34.5 miles an hour and a hungry passenger is in Toledo, when, on Monday, will there be pie for dessert??? or something??? I was never that good at math questions like this! never!)
Here's what I want to know: How hard does Snooki work? That girl is really successful – reality TV show, an MTV spinoff show in the works, AND a book deal for a novel.
Loved the film; loved the band; loved the work ethic; loved the point.
"Genius: one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration." Einstein, Edison, or more likely somebody's mother.
Cheers.
If I remember correctly, it didn't take a long time to make "A Hard Day's Night" either. Something like six weeks, which is record fast for a full length film.
Nathan, one day, when God was sitting around wanting something great to listen to, something a little different from Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and Gershwin, He reached out his hand and the Beatles were created.
And that's all I have to say about that. (Except that Hard Days Night is a great film. The jumping scene is my favorite.)
Dedication Meets Opportunity.
A good tagline for the overall theme.
Or… "Bob Bling 4 Apples." Nyuck Nyuck Nyuck.