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.
As an aside, trying to get to the bottom of their genius is much less an exercise when you serious don;t like their music.
Just saying is all… 🙂
I find them neither genius nor even tolerable.
I am much more a Bowie, Zepplin, Stones, T-Rex, Queen type of fan thank you very much!
serious(ly) that is
Wow, anon. Considering how influential they were to the bands you like, that's kind of like hating the English language but loving Shakespeare!
My brother often talks of a friend of his who hopes to write the next Harry Potter. Said person has written a chapter or two thus far. When my bro and I visited my mom this summer, he watched me laying out my piles of notecards and reams of notes on one of my completed first drafts. Though my work is only being published by a small press right now, he said, "I think you'll be successful, because what you're doing looks really tedious."
Easy reading is darn hard writing. And that's the facts, Jack.
Oh, and the reason I had such an "easy" time starting to write fiction? Because I'd done tech writing for 7 years. Not only did I learn grammar and composition, but I also learned I wouldn't get paid unless I created content. There's no substitute for words in paper.
Nathan, truer words have never been spoken!
That has to be one of the best quotes I've ever read:
"I think you'll be successful, because what you're doing looks really tedious."
So, so true.
You might be romanticizing this a bit. The Beatles also used a lot of drugs and messed around quite a bit. Paul McCartney actually said in an interview that drugs "informed" much of the Beatles' music: Sir Paul reveals Beatles drug use. I don't doubt that the Beatles worked hard, but work schedules today are much more intense than work schedules back then which left a great deal of time for "playing". Today, the Beatles would also need a dance routine, and I'm not sure that any of them were gymnasts or dancers.
anon-
Not sure I follow that. They worked less hard because they had drug habits? I don't see how drugs change the workload.
I think the Beatles are a perfect example of how passion outweighs the pain of 'practice'. All those hours in Hamburg, the Beatles were living out their dream. For them, the dream just kept getting better and better.
BTW, LOVED Outliers.
I don't have a link, but there is an hysterically funny short black and white video of Peter Sellers, dressed as the hunchbacked King Henry V, reciting the lyrics of the song HARD DAY'S NIGHT like a Shakespearian soliloquy. It's worth Googling.
All the Beatles, individually and collectively, combined both genius and hard work. I agree with Nathan and Daisy Harris that it takes a lot of hard work and time to make something look spontaneous and effortless.
One of the BEST exhibitions I ever saw was of Picasso's early work where he was still learning and awkward. It broke through the illusion that even a genius doesn't have to hone his skills.
Here's what I meant … Experimenting with drugs, the Beatles probably did not work quite as hard as you're implying they did. Many people today probably work much harder than they did with much less opportunity for success. Times are different. I assumed you were extrapolating from the Beatles' time to today – not quite comparable. The way in which people behaved under the influence of drugs in the sixties isn't even considered acceptable behavior by the corporations that fund artists today. Chances are the Beatles wouldn't even be that successful today. Case in point: Paul McCartney is nowhere near as revered today as the Beatles were back then, and he's still a performing artist.
Hehehe.
This fits well with a mini-rant I had on my blog at the end of last week when I got fed up with a particular annoyance's constant demands for "the secret" to writing success. They refused to believe that hard work or dedication entered into it at all. It had to be a matter of luck or knowing the write people (or using the secret word of the Stonecutters in the query!).
While being lucky enough to know people can't hurt, all the connections in the world can't give you talent, nor can talent put words on a page when the talented's butt isn't in their chair with their hands on their keyboard.
Writing, music, etc, etc, etc. It's usually all the same – it takes years to become an overnight success.
It's true that we all love to fantasize about typing out that brilliant first draft, but it's just not true. A year is much closer to the reality, but the hard work & effort are worth it.
I happen to be a HUGE Beatles fan and I have to ask Anon…do you not think that the bands you listed – Bowie, Zepplin, Stones, Queen – used drugs? I dare say they are at the top of the abusers list as well. Just sayin'.
anon-
I still don't agree – I'm not saying they worked 24/7, but if you read up on what they were doing in their early years, they were playing shows for hours on end seven days a week. They were already really good by the time they were teenagers. They worked an insane amount of time, drugs or no drugs.
And let's not play the "wouldn't be successful today" game.
Lol, I love movie montages because of how easy it makes everything seem. I learned from Rocky that all I need is a few clips of me hitting the heavy bag and wham I'm a professional fighter.
But really, what you wrote is important and important for people, not just writers to keep in mind.
J.K. Rowling is one author who admitted to revising one of her chapters thirteen times because of the blaring plot-hole she saw, but non of us will ever see that. And I'd rather not. Sometimes it's nice to let yourself believe some things weren't hard. That way it doesn't destroy the magic around you.
Ok, we agree to disagree. I think you're romanticizing the past.
I'm romanticizing the past to say they worked really really really hard?
Yes, agree to disagree. Also very confused.
The only problem with working hard is that you might work harder than anyone, and you might have more talent than most, but all of that STILL won't guarantee success!
Yes, it's hard work. But when it's something you love to do, it doesn't seem like much work at all, really. You look back and then you think, 'I really did all that?'
And you realize that it was fun. Sure, it was painful. But so is horseback riding, gardening, skiing, and other recreational activities. They can beat the heck out of you, but it feels great to do it. 🙂
To whomever it was that asked if I thought Queen etc used drugs – prolly, but I didn't bring up the drug thing – someone else is debating it w/ Nathan.
As far as I must be nuts to like Zepplin and not Beatles because the fab 4 influenced Zepplin is hardly a English to Shakespeare comparison.
Everyone and everything draws influences. But they are influences. IF Zepplin had ripped the Beatles off, that would be one thing.
Queen also influenced Metallica. You can certainly like one without the other.
Being a homer for your team is fine. Trying to paint people who don;t agree with you as ignorant or tasteless is just pathetic.
anon@3:28-
Yeah, I agree. I was just being hyperbolic.
When it comes to the subject of work, I defer to my contemporary Maynard G. Krebbs. Work??? (Always said in a strained croak.)
Heck, it might be a lot longer than a year.
But, luckily, I must be getting near my ten thousand hours.
Probably the best indirect advise I've gotten in a long time. It's stuff like this that slips your mind when you're struggling. Great post (so great it's the first time I've ever felt the need to comment)
Hard work alone does not guarantee success, but you can't be successful without it.
If you look at any famous person- Prince, Elvis, Nora Roberts, Malcolm Gladwell- they all worked their behinds off.
I'm the first to admit that I am less hard working than Michael Jackson, and hence will achieve lesser success in life.
But to claim that anyone became famous without hard work seems ludicrous to me.
Anon @ 328: "To whomever it was that asked if I thought Queen etc used drugs – prolly, but I didn't bring up the drug thing – someone else is debating it w/ Nathan."
Then:
Anon @ 242: "You might be romanticizing this a bit. The Beatles also used a lot of drugs and messed around quite a bit. Paul McCartney actually said in an interview that drugs "informed" much of the Beatles' music…"
And then again Anon @ 259: "Here's what I meant … Experimenting with drugs, the Beatles probably did not work quite as hard as you're implying they did. Many people today probably work much harder than they did with much less opportunity for success. Times are different. I assumed you were extrapolating from the Beatles' time to today – not quite comparable."
That's not the same person who began the comments today dismissing the Beatles? I'm trying to understand the argument but either the original commenter is pulling a switcheroo or a 2nd anon is creating confusion, on purpose or not.
There are at least two anons here. I'm just one of them. I'm going to drop out of the discussion now because it's getting too confusing.
I mean, it's not much of an argument, the original poster's, and it doesn't really address the post at all and seeks to invalidate it and an entire canon of musical history without going into any detailed reason for the opinion but I'm still trying to understand it.
This is Anon @ 338, btw.
Here is synchronization for you. This weekend I dug out my "portable stereo" from the attic and listened to The Beatles' White Album on vinyl.
The music seemed to drag and crackle a little–like we all do with age– but the nostalgia was irreplaceable. Helter Skelter is coming down fast. Yes…she…is, yes…she…is. Too bad Charlie Manson didn't realize it was a song about a British roller coaster.
"Eurkea"
Is that a Norwegian furniture company trying to capitalize on name recognition?
I have to admit that I was never a Beatles fan. A few of Lennon's songs (Imagine, Yesterday) catch my ear from time to time, but I've never really been able to connect to them. I recognize them for the geniuses that they were, though.
It's important to recognize, though, that the amount of work that goes into a countless number of art forms shouldn't discourage an artist from the pursuit of professional acclaim. It's about passion and dedication, and realizing that this is more than a hobby that we use to fill our idle time.
Woah!There at at least three anons here. Mine was just a comment on Picasso. So I will change my anon name to Picasso-anon. Yikes! Now, is where being an "anon" can be confusing and troubling to the conversation. dear-dear-dear,where o where is Mira when we need mediation?
BTW, Bryan, your prose is showing your ten-thousand hours too. Very nice way with words, you have. (sayeth Yoda).
Anon @ 338 and 347:
Sorry, my comment @ 347 reads more harshly than I mean it to. Still must have my teacher hat on.
By the way, a lot of people had a "drug habit" in the 60's and 70's, though it would have been referred to a using drugs, not a habit. In the era before the piss test, this was not uncommon. Drug use did not stop people from working hard. The Beatles were ruled the 60's, drugs or no drugs, and no one can achieve the level of success that they did without hard work.
Typo were, please ignore. I have ADD
That's funny, I rewatched "The Rutles" over the weekend. Best Beatlemania parody ever, and takes nothing away from the power of the Beatles.
And yes, I had read about the Beatles' stint in Hamburg, and how they played an insane number of hours. Which in turn reminds me of that 10,000 hours theory we learned about in my cognitive psych class (which I see at least one other commenter here has referenced)–that what experts in any field have most in common, more than any inborn talent, is that they put in their practice time. At least 10,000 hours' worth.
Typo were, please ignore. I have ADD
I adored this post and believe in your point wholeheartedly. I think Gladwell says it takes a million hours to really master something.
Reminds me of the story of a Chinese artist who charged a pretty penny penny for a drawing of a cat. The buyer balked because it took the artist less than a minute to dash it off.
The artist said, "You're paying for the years it took me to learn to do such a clever drawing in such a short time.
It takes many hours and dedication to be an artist. As others have noted, it's no guarantee of success. True, but when you go that deeply into the art form the success is in the doing, not the results.
We worked hard. We used to have to battle sometimes with the engineers and sometimes with George Martin, to make them stay beyond six or seven in the evening. We’d start at one or two in the afternoon and work right through ‘til one or two in the morning.
– George Harrison
The main thing was never to accept the obvious, never to accept second-best, and always to look beyond what’s there.
– George Martin
And remember, right through Sgt. Pepper's they were working with just four tracks. Which meant getting the tracks right before bouncing them 'cause there'd be no going back and fixing a flaw the next day without doing everything over again.
To the first Anon that got all upset because Nathan used a band he/she didn't care for as an example: Either you are being deliberately obtuse or you didn't read the post.
Mr. Bransford was not saying that "The Beatles" are the greatest band ever and we must all listen to them. He was making a comparison between the portrayal that their music was effortless with the similarities in our views of authors.
Moral of the story: Hard Work pays off. NOT: You suck if you don't like The Beatles.
I often use Stephen King as an example of effort = accomplishment, but I'm not saying everyone has to love his work.
I was never a Beatles fan either, but I enjoyed your post, Nathan.
Why, thankee kindly, Picasso-Yoda-Anon. You just brightened my day.
And maybe I should start marketing a writing chronometer? A nice bell will go off every thousand hours of writing, and at 10,000 hours little streams of confetti will pop out and Queen's We Are the Champions will start playing.
I read a Danielle Steel interview this week in Time Magazine where she made all her work look effortless. And I'm sure it wasn't that way at all…especially with nine kids.
I had the nicest compliment from a friend about my writing: "It seems so easy and effortless."
I laughed. A lot.
One time I smoked pot while at my Chinese restaurant job (sooooooo long ago) and boy did I work hard! I was a working fool. Scrubbing tables, bring people their orders, working the register….
Hee Hee.
Actually, this is a true story. I was in college once. Don't consider myself having had a drug habit, though.
Also, just don't get how one can NOT like the Beatles. At least some of their music. Blackbird? All You Need is Love? Hey Jude?
What does Malcolm Gladwell say? To be great at something you need to put in 10,000 hours of practice/work? Am I right? I'm way behind, I think. Waaaaay behind.
Non writers ask me about writing all the time. And my most frequent answer is "it's often boring and it's a lot of work."
abc: Ironically enough I don't really like The Beatles or Aerosmith but I ADORE Aerosmith's cover of "Come Together."
I have no idea why. 🙂
Recently, Abbott recalled a large amount of baby formula because there were beetles in it…
Help! Everything's gone Helter Skelter. Imagine, a Beatle in the formula. Yesterday was just A Day in the Life for Abbott, but now the have to Carry That Weight, the media just won't Let It Be. Infants can't quit formula Cold Turkey, you know, we would see babies detoxing Here, There, and Everywhere. We need to Come Together and find a solution, not start a Revolution. We Can Work it Out.
The End.
The drug talk cracks me up. Stephen King admits to extensive addiction. He also admits to an incredible hours writing. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, or maybe a hard few years!
I love love love the Beatles, especially loved Lennon. True genius songwriter. Not too many come close… maybe Eddie Vedder, Scot Weiland, um Alanis Morisette?
For the love of God, it's ZeppElin, and mentioning them in the same sentence as T-Rex is an abomination.
The Beatles are J.K. Rowling…really amazing popular stuff.
Led Zeppelin is Cormac McCarthy…really amazing heavy stuff.
Let the masses decide who is better, or if they're each untouchable in their own way.
Either way, no slackers here.