On /lit/ they said you should read more than you write. Is this true for music...

On /lit/ they said you should read more than you write. Is this true for music? should you listen to music more than you make music?

Other urls found in this thread:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/internalize
twitter.com/AnonBabble

/lit/ are a bunch of homos

fucking obviously. are you retarded?

how do you have time? if I devote a 9 hour day to making music I can't possibly devote another 9 to listening.

Its actually the opposite. Once you've digested most styles of music should write much much more than you listen.

Same with writing. You dont get novels written by reading. You get them done by working your ass off 8 hours a day. Same with music. If you dont put in at least 4 -5 hours a day, dont expect to improve or make anything good.

viva colombia

sounds like someone who would write a shit novel.

you should be listening to new music at all times. getting the start to your day, exercising, commuting, cooking and wind down, sleeping.

>Same with writing. You dont get novels written by reading. You get them done by working your ass off 8 hours a day.

/lit/ lad here. This simply isn't true.

You will still need to be reading ludicrous amounts even when you are writing. You will be reading through all your notes as you aggregate them and get them ready. You will be reading through massive amounts of new sources that you discover along the way as the project moves along. You will be re-reading massive amounts of old sources that you started the project off with.

If you are writing decent literature then your reading habits don't severely diminish; if anything they'll probably need to increase further still.

>This simply isn't true.
Its true with music, its true with writing. Once you have internalized a great deal of art, then you start creating your own. You only get this done by doing it for hours and hours each day.

Reading over your work is still part of the writing process, as is listening to what you've written in music. The more time you spend reading other peoples work, the less time you have to make your own. Its simple time management. Large projects take a lot of time, if you're inspired and dont need sources (ie. fiction writing), you dont need to read shit, you just write. Obviously if you're writing non fiction you're going to need to be doing research, and thats a different story.

honestly this. i don't believe that people who consume other people's work all day manage to produce anything other than derivative rehashed frankenstein bullshit made out of their influences

Thank you.

The less you consume of other peoples work, the more original you will be. Its fine to get a good grounding of your chosen art form, learn everything there is to know, every technique etc. But then you just have to work work work on your art every day, and try to ignore what everyone else makes. You have to satisfy yourself first and foremost. If you create something you like, others will like it too, even if not during your lifetime.

implying that there is a special, unique truth inside you. you are an amalgamation of influences, and the less you take from the world, and other literature or art, the more facile and derivative and uninteresting your work will be.

i mean, consuming shouldn't be an excuse not to get working, but i know, pulling from film, scorsese and anderson and kubrick and soderberg (and really, et al.) watch all the films, and think about how other people attack the craft.

if you think you have enough inspiration stored away in your creative inventory, you're making shit work.

>The less you consume of other peoples work, the more original you will be.

i can't disagree more strongly.

eh you probably just dont have an original thought in your body.

Real artists work in their studios all day every day, they dont spend their time in art galleries. The same is true of all art forms.

Hah.

consuming art inspires me, and it doesn't have to be music or even art but just doing stuff in general you know. Hanging out with friends, taking walks, girls, anything. You can't just sit in your room and write music 8 hours a day for years, you'd go insane. I can do that a coupe days in a row max and that's when i'm feeling really inspired. When you go to the studio it's generally for recording your stuff, not writing it and you're usually on very limited time so yeah you sit for a shit ton of hours a day just working, but it's different from the initial writing process where you just have to find inspiration.

Not him but technically everything is derivative of something else. There is no "originality" in the sense of a pure, first-ever thought. All art is basically artists arranging their influences and inspiration in a creative way. Time spent making art should be spent trying to be creative, not original.

it´s hard to think of what i wanna do next after already shitting out 20 mp3´s or more so im listening and taking courses to get inspiration. you might have multiple weeks with no feels like you wanna do music so yeah learn and steal

>You can't just sit in your room and write music 8 hours a day for years
Yes you can. Many artists and composers work on their own their whole lives. Of course you need some balance, some socializing, etc. But essentially you work on your art most of the day, every day. Thats what artists do. You use your life to make art. The more quality art you can complete before you die, the better. Everything else is just wasting time.

>There is no "originality"
for you. There's plenty of originality. Its just a matter of doing it. Some people are original, some aren't.

Ideally you're going to want a balance of consumption vs production in your life. I would hazard 1% consumption to 99% production as a successful ratio

there's a difference between being inspired to make art and making artistic consumption a part of your creative process. the latter is what is being argued against

If you're thinking whether to read or write more, or whether to listen or play more, it means you're not doing enough of either. If you want to be good in either field, you should be constantly doing both parts. Absorb what you're exposed to and build on it. If you listen to tons of music, but never get around to playing, you'll just have a long list of bands you like and nothing original. If you just play, it's honestly better than just listening, but by being exposed to lots of music you'll have more to draw on, and have more material to use in finding your own voice.

Same principle with writing.

this

>1% consumption, 99% production
a ridiculous and arrogant statement. if you don't think there's a huge amount to learn from others' creations (more than can be absorbed through 1% of your time), then you're simply vastly overestimating your own intelligence and knowledge. no one knows everything, and everyone can learn from one another.

>>You can't just sit in your room and write music 8 hours a day for years
>Yes you can. Many artists and composers work on their own their whole lives. Of course you need some balance, some socializing, etc. But essentially you work on your art most of the day, every day. Thats what artists do. You use your life to make art. The more quality art you can complete before you die, the better. Everything else is just wasting time.

I'm not saying you can't work on your own, and if you're a creative person you should know what i'm talking about, sitting down and forcing yourself to write something on a day when everything sounds like shit, let alone for 8 hours a day, will make you go insane. But yeah, you constantly think about your music, something i wish i could take a break from occasionally though, but actually sitting down and just writing, writing, writing, 8 hours a day, day in and day out, don't expect it to work like that. The way to get around writers block is to do something else for a while, until you figure shit out.

Unless you started writing songs out of the womb, you've been exposed to more music than you could possibly create

We're listening

>if you're inspired and dont need sources (ie. fiction writing), you dont need to read shit, you just write.

Stop posting about literature, please.
You're not a discerning reader. It's obvious.

Just stick to music.

Exactly, you shouldn't have to waste time consuming more music. By the time you're 20 or 25 you should have internalized all genres or at least the ones you want to work in, from then on its all work.

i think you should do whatever works the best for you. Everyone has their own creative processes and there's no right or wrong way to do it. But yeah you're gonna have to put in a lot of hours in order to get good.

>By the time you're 20 or 25 you should have internalized all genres or at least the ones you want to work in, from then on its all work.
lol are you for real? You seriously think you should consume a life time of music during your first 20-25 years? And then stop listening to music altogether? I guarantee you, no successful musician ever has done this

From age 20 you should be 1% consumption, 99% production

Not really sure why we're discussing this. None of you guys are ever going to be great artists or writers or musicians. Especially not with the kind of attitudes you're displaying ITT

I just got a deal with a semi-famous label and my average day is more like 60% consumption, 40% work. Your 1% thing is simply untenable unless you're an outsider musician deliberately shutting off external influences

Only beatmakers, edms and rockists think that you dont need to listen to music and even less when you get in your 20s.Really subtle YLYL thread.Almost obliterated my sides.

>From age 20 you should be 1% consumption, 99% production

we're discussing it because it's a ridiculous statement. I mean if thats the way you work, fine, but it's not the way successful artists work.

>Your 1% thing is simply untenable

He's just a clown in denial mode.

That self-righteous type who needs to hypocritically proclaim his disapproval of bad attitudes whilst simultaneously displaying a bad attitude. He's the type of conflicted clown who loves shitposting but needs to shitpost under the guise of some important point or cause educate people on so he can convince himself that he's a cut above.

No one just wants to be a cunt or a shitposter anymore. Even when that is what they are doing. For example I am being a cunt and a shitposter right now. It is what it is. He can't seem to accept that.

I bet the dip doesn't even see it, either.

>From age 20 you should be 1% consumption, 99% production
lel, make it at least 40/60

Colombians are so fucking hot

When Outkast were making Stankonia they didn't listen to any music for 1 year i know bad example but no one really talks about this stuff

>By the time you're 20 or 25 you should have internalized all genres
>internalized

these are the kind of buzzwords idiots use when they want to sound smart. what does "internalized" even mean in this context. this is aimless rambling.

I thing theres a wider cycle. A month listening a month writing.

if people are equating reading with listening to music. then you are listening to music constantly whilst you are making, just like you are reading constantly when you are writing

... I agree?

I didn't say otherwise.

...

ITT: BUNCH OF NEETS theorycraft shit they have no clue about since they never hade made anything of worth

classic Sup Forums. there is no right way for anybody see what works for you.

Its no buzzword

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/internalize

To absorb ideas and make them part of yourself, so you can express them without thinking about it too much.

yes