Covers as a way of learning music and code(ntietz.com)
ntietz.com
Covers as a way of learning music and code
https://ntietz.com/blog/covers-as-a-way-of-learning/
91 comments
yeah theres a term for this folks. very validated over time https://kagi.com/search?q=copywork
FYI if you click the share icon on a Kagi search, then others can see the results without needing to have a Kagi subscription themselves, e.g. https://kagi.com/search?q=copywork&r=ae&sh=d9jIEVVKaHzifbixh...
(https://help.kagi.com/kagi/features/share-results.html)
(https://help.kagi.com/kagi/features/share-results.html)
Is that a wiki or something? That link just shows a login page with no other info.
Kagi is a paid search engine. Presumably it's a link to a search results page, except you can't see it without a paid account.
Here, try this: https://www.google.com/search?q=copywork
Here, try this: https://www.google.com/search?q=copywork
Worst people I think I met would criticize me for attempting to copy stuff saying "oh you're just copying, stuff someone else made" or "oh that's simple this sucks, this music is only loops not real music".
I was a teenager trying stuff out I was trying to just show what I am doing not sell them "a product".
If you are making a copy for yourself to try things out or learn and then just to share because you think is cool — do it copy stuff and don't listen to negative folks.
Usually those folks would not even attempt doing anything and I will skip all the bad words that I would like to tell them.
I was a teenager trying stuff out I was trying to just show what I am doing not sell them "a product".
If you are making a copy for yourself to try things out or learn and then just to share because you think is cool — do it copy stuff and don't listen to negative folks.
Usually those folks would not even attempt doing anything and I will skip all the bad words that I would like to tell them.
The Beatles spent YEARS only playing other people's music. Five/six hours a night performing covers. It seems self-evident that gaining such an intimate understanding of chord structures and melodies and harmonies from OTHERS helped them when they eventually created their own songs.
I think the same ideas can be applied to any hobby/job/industry. Picasso first learned how to paint a realistic apple... Wozniak spent years making calculators ... and I'm sure there are modern plumbing techniques created by someone who spent years learning the traditional techniques and decided to try something better. (Are there any famous, non-video game plumbers? There should be.)
Ignore the haters and copy other people's stuff.
I think the same ideas can be applied to any hobby/job/industry. Picasso first learned how to paint a realistic apple... Wozniak spent years making calculators ... and I'm sure there are modern plumbing techniques created by someone who spent years learning the traditional techniques and decided to try something better. (Are there any famous, non-video game plumbers? There should be.)
Ignore the haters and copy other people's stuff.
And classical musicians _very literally_ make a living 'covering' the work of other composers and likely get started learning through 'copying'.
Any differences around 'Oh, but it's their job to play other works' (ignoring that some trained classical musicians also count themselves as composers) is ignoring the fact that learning _anything_ is a process that involves mimicry.
Any differences around 'Oh, but it's their job to play other works' (ignoring that some trained classical musicians also count themselves as composers) is ignoring the fact that learning _anything_ is a process that involves mimicry.
Lots of people are stuck into believing genius ones that didn’t have to practice, they would go out and make all great things.
Where in reality they don’t see years of experience or time spent honing the skill.
As much as I am not fan of Gladwell those 10k hours somewhat opened up some people heads it is usually not „overnight success”.
Where in reality they don’t see years of experience or time spent honing the skill.
As much as I am not fan of Gladwell those 10k hours somewhat opened up some people heads it is usually not „overnight success”.
I've not read Gladwell's Outliers but I'm assuming it references the 1993 paper 'The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance'?
The original paper is very interesting and while I think it's good that ideas around deliberate practice has permeated into people's awareness I do find that some of the nuance from the paper has been lost, namely the _conditions_ of that practice that the paper describes (immediate informative feedback, practice at the current boundary of skill, etc.)
Of course 10000 hours is a lot to build up to, so I also like the 100/1000/10000 hour breakpoints idea I've seen elsewhere, that just 100 hours with a subject can yield some basic level of proficiency, 1000 hours for 'good' level of skill (subjective, of course), and 10000 is the sort-of-unattainable gold standard which it's nice to strive for without worrying too much about.
The original paper is very interesting and while I think it's good that ideas around deliberate practice has permeated into people's awareness I do find that some of the nuance from the paper has been lost, namely the _conditions_ of that practice that the paper describes (immediate informative feedback, practice at the current boundary of skill, etc.)
Of course 10000 hours is a lot to build up to, so I also like the 100/1000/10000 hour breakpoints idea I've seen elsewhere, that just 100 hours with a subject can yield some basic level of proficiency, 1000 hours for 'good' level of skill (subjective, of course), and 10000 is the sort-of-unattainable gold standard which it's nice to strive for without worrying too much about.
There's also the fact that most people don't want to hear new music. You go to the bar and there's a band, it's not the original or two they slip into the set that gets people listening - it's the covers of songs people already know.
The Beatles were one of the first British bands who had mostly original music on their first album. The Stones had only one original song on theirs. This was record company policy at the time - who would buy a record of songs they didn't know?
The Beatles were one of the first British bands who had mostly original music on their first album. The Stones had only one original song on theirs. This was record company policy at the time - who would buy a record of songs they didn't know?
It's unfortunate that the time we're most vulnerable to the scars of unreasonable criticism is also the age we're most likely to get it from our peers. Glad you kept going!
The best thing one can ever learn is to ignore the opinions of people who cannot do the thing you are doing better than you.
Something you hear often in the jazz community, especially from experienced pros is "everything you need to know about theory is in the songs".
It is usually in response to newcomers thinking they need to learn everything about every scale, every mode, every chord. They ask questions like "what scale should I play over this chord" or they get in really deep into some obscure theory thinking. I see it all the time with posts, even here on HN, where someone says "I figured out music!" and then you get some dry 1000 word essay on harmonic overtone series, and the maths of intervallic relationships.
But all of that intellectualization is replaceable and improved upon by learning a massive number of songs. Not just chord progressions, not just melodies in isolation, but beginning to end tunes. I was watching a live stream by industry veteran Jimmy Bruno and he was asked how many songs he knew and could play mostly from memory and he pondered for a minute and said "probably 2000".
It is usually in response to newcomers thinking they need to learn everything about every scale, every mode, every chord. They ask questions like "what scale should I play over this chord" or they get in really deep into some obscure theory thinking. I see it all the time with posts, even here on HN, where someone says "I figured out music!" and then you get some dry 1000 word essay on harmonic overtone series, and the maths of intervallic relationships.
But all of that intellectualization is replaceable and improved upon by learning a massive number of songs. Not just chord progressions, not just melodies in isolation, but beginning to end tunes. I was watching a live stream by industry veteran Jimmy Bruno and he was asked how many songs he knew and could play mostly from memory and he pondered for a minute and said "probably 2000".
I've struggled to teach this to jazz students, I know when I was a kid I read the same kind of advice in guitar magazines, and while I don't think that the theory-first advocates are malevolent, I think most of them were not serious jazz players and were getting paid to deliver a monthly column.
The analogy I've tried to use in teaching is that learning to play jazz is like being a comedian; when your skills are at their peak you're going to be inventing jokes regularly, but in the decades before you get there, you're going to be delivering other people's jokes putting a little of your own spin on them. The delivery matters a lot, and like good jazz playing it's pretty much impossible to write a book called "How to be Funny" that wouldn't just be an academic analysis rather than an instructional guide.
I struggled with jazz for the reasons I've alluded to above, and it wasn't until I started studying with a teacher who just had me memorize hundreds of standards that I got my playing together. We definitely talked about the technical bits of what was happening in the tunes, but those were really just interesting observations; repeatedly playing them in a group setting after woodshedding them at home between lessons, then taking a lot of solos was really what made it happen.
It really makes me happy to see up-and-coming killer players like Patrick Bartley espousing this same approach. Yeah it means you're going to spend thousands of hours memorizing tunes, but if that's not fun then playing jazz isn't going to be fun either.
The analogy I've tried to use in teaching is that learning to play jazz is like being a comedian; when your skills are at their peak you're going to be inventing jokes regularly, but in the decades before you get there, you're going to be delivering other people's jokes putting a little of your own spin on them. The delivery matters a lot, and like good jazz playing it's pretty much impossible to write a book called "How to be Funny" that wouldn't just be an academic analysis rather than an instructional guide.
I struggled with jazz for the reasons I've alluded to above, and it wasn't until I started studying with a teacher who just had me memorize hundreds of standards that I got my playing together. We definitely talked about the technical bits of what was happening in the tunes, but those were really just interesting observations; repeatedly playing them in a group setting after woodshedding them at home between lessons, then taking a lot of solos was really what made it happen.
It really makes me happy to see up-and-coming killer players like Patrick Bartley espousing this same approach. Yeah it means you're going to spend thousands of hours memorizing tunes, but if that's not fun then playing jazz isn't going to be fun either.
As I alluded to in another comment, you are fighting upstream against the dominant Western conception of learning. But any musician I have ever met worth their salt knows the importance of learning songs and transcribing their favorite artists.
I think one of the causes is that some people struggle for years with music and then one day they learn a bit of theory and they experience a moment of enlightenment. Suddenly, all of their confusion is dispelled and what was once difficult is clear as day. They then think "if I had only know this years ago I wouldn't have struggled!". But they are wrong. It was the years of struggle that helped them understand the theory, not the other way around.
It's the "wax on, wax off" of Karate Kid and the wise old Mr. Miyagi.
I read a music theory book from the 1800s and in the first chapter the author stated that while he endeavored to write useful theory to help students they must realize that if some composition they write follows all of his rules but sounds bad, it is bad. And if they write a composition that breaks his rules but it sounds good then it is good. These are old, old ideas that we re-learn over and over.
I think one of the causes is that some people struggle for years with music and then one day they learn a bit of theory and they experience a moment of enlightenment. Suddenly, all of their confusion is dispelled and what was once difficult is clear as day. They then think "if I had only know this years ago I wouldn't have struggled!". But they are wrong. It was the years of struggle that helped them understand the theory, not the other way around.
It's the "wax on, wax off" of Karate Kid and the wise old Mr. Miyagi.
I read a music theory book from the 1800s and in the first chapter the author stated that while he endeavored to write useful theory to help students they must realize that if some composition they write follows all of his rules but sounds bad, it is bad. And if they write a composition that breaks his rules but it sounds good then it is good. These are old, old ideas that we re-learn over and over.
I’ve played mostly hard rock and metal, and am often the only band member with actual music theory knowledge (as the drummer, no less!). I’ve watched a number of bandmates resist learning any music theory because, “I don’t want to have to play by the rules” - as if they were some 16th century court composer.
Inevitably, they end up reinventing the wheel, in order to understand music they learn or write and then share with other musicians.
I think one thing that gets lost is that beyond being rules (more like observations these days) about how to write music, music theory is also a language that allows you to communicate with other musicians.
Inevitably, they end up reinventing the wheel, in order to understand music they learn or write and then share with other musicians.
I think one thing that gets lost is that beyond being rules (more like observations these days) about how to write music, music theory is also a language that allows you to communicate with other musicians.
Good analogy. There's a flip side to it though. You can be a great comedian on the level of individual jokes, or short bits, but be unable to write a story. And you can be a great jazz musician when it comes to soloing, but be unable to write a song. Stan Getz was a famous example. So yeah, learning jazz by imitation and immersion (as one learns a language) is very cool: learning these hundreds of songs will most certainly teach you how to solo. But it won't teach you how to make a song. Not nearly as reliably. It needs something else, I don't know what.
I don't know quite what it is either, but I do know with certainty because it was my own experience that the act of inventing songs doesn't require any kind of experience at all, as some of my earliest memories as a child were riding in a car with a radio playing in the background, having some melody occur to me, and then being unable to get it out of my head. They weren't novel because they wouldn't have come to me had I not been idly listening to a lot of music, but neither were they just a slight variation on what I had been listening to.
I am by no means a prolific or genius songwriter, nobody would know any of my music, and I don't believe that any of it is particularly impressive. However I've always found the fact that it happened spontaneously way to be a source of wonder, and as I've aged as a musician its delightful to see the endless stream of new songs and that it doesn't seem to matter whether you're a prodigy when it comes to writing songs that impact listeners. It seems to be a fundamental aspect of the human experience.
I am by no means a prolific or genius songwriter, nobody would know any of my music, and I don't believe that any of it is particularly impressive. However I've always found the fact that it happened spontaneously way to be a source of wonder, and as I've aged as a musician its delightful to see the endless stream of new songs and that it doesn't seem to matter whether you're a prodigy when it comes to writing songs that impact listeners. It seems to be a fundamental aspect of the human experience.
The same applies to learning languages.
You can learn a lot from textbooks... or you can use textbooks to give you the absolute bare minimum, and then just use the language itself repeatedly.
You can learn a lot from textbooks... or you can use textbooks to give you the absolute bare minimum, and then just use the language itself repeatedly.
I think the idea is very deep and applicable to many aspects of life.
Learning grammar, vocabulary, semantics, etc. is definitely valuable. But immersing yourself in a culture where the language is spoken, listening how it is used in practice, speaking it yourself with a native, that is a truly powerful way to learn the language.
I'm not religious but I am reminded about a story where Jesus was challenged about his disciples picking some wheat on the Sabbath, breaking a law. The Pharisees demand an answer and Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. He was pointing out the inverted relationship and the corruption that results.
The same can happen with music, programming, language learning, etc.
Another analogy most people will recognize: the map vs. the territory. Music theory is the map, the songs are the territory. No matter how much you study the map you will benefit tremendously from walking the territory.
Learning grammar, vocabulary, semantics, etc. is definitely valuable. But immersing yourself in a culture where the language is spoken, listening how it is used in practice, speaking it yourself with a native, that is a truly powerful way to learn the language.
I'm not religious but I am reminded about a story where Jesus was challenged about his disciples picking some wheat on the Sabbath, breaking a law. The Pharisees demand an answer and Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. He was pointing out the inverted relationship and the corruption that results.
The same can happen with music, programming, language learning, etc.
Another analogy most people will recognize: the map vs. the territory. Music theory is the map, the songs are the territory. No matter how much you study the map you will benefit tremendously from walking the territory.
This is an interesting thought. I've been learning how to paint some things and there are a lot of youtube tutorials where someone paints a thing and tells you how to do each step, but my issue is always "what if I want to change something?".
I feel like if I don't know why they chose to do a specific thing, I won't know how to properly alter it.
I feel like if I don't know why they chose to do a specific thing, I won't know how to properly alter it.
This is a common feeling, and it is in some respect related to western culture. We prize "knowledge" very highly because it is demonstrably effective.
My comment isn't meant to devalue knowledge but to put it in relation to "something else". That something else is the thing you have knowledge about. The thing to appreciate is that you can become an expert on knowledge itself, without ever becoming expert in the thing the knowledge is about.
Consider some painting theory topics: color theory, contrast, perspective, proportion, etc. Imagine someone who attains expert level knowledge of any one (or combination) of these subjects but they are still unable to draw a picture that is a pleasing representation of their subject. You can easily study all of these topics for a lifetime without every picking up a pencil or a brush.
My other comment mentions the map vs. territory distinction. So let's deeply consider this. You are in unfamiliar territory and you feel lost. You think to yourself: "If I only had a map then I wouldn't feel so lost". But does that mean you should spend the rest of your life studying map making? An alternative is to survey the territory with your own eyes and learn to pick out the trails that many others have cut into the wild. And then follow some of those trails. You might end up at a dead end and have to turn back to a previous fork in the road. You may find yourself scratched up as you try to get through dense thickets, or bogged down up to your shins in a swamp. Those are the kinds of experiences that teach you the land in a way no map could ever. And they are experiences you can't get by sitting in a tent studying a map. If your goal is to find a new trail through the territory - no map will even show it. That will only come from the hard won experience of trekking relentlessly through the wild.
As the philosopher Mike Tyson once said: "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face". It sucks getting punched in the face by other people, by learning a new language, learning to paint, learning music. Some people avoid it at all costs, thinking that studying the theory is the same thing.
Just remember that all of the scratches and bruises you are getting as you fail at painting are scratches on your ego. It can take it. You will get better, as long as you keep trying it is inevitable you will learn. And it is very useful to glance at a map now and again. Just don't get too reliant on it.
My comment isn't meant to devalue knowledge but to put it in relation to "something else". That something else is the thing you have knowledge about. The thing to appreciate is that you can become an expert on knowledge itself, without ever becoming expert in the thing the knowledge is about.
Consider some painting theory topics: color theory, contrast, perspective, proportion, etc. Imagine someone who attains expert level knowledge of any one (or combination) of these subjects but they are still unable to draw a picture that is a pleasing representation of their subject. You can easily study all of these topics for a lifetime without every picking up a pencil or a brush.
My other comment mentions the map vs. territory distinction. So let's deeply consider this. You are in unfamiliar territory and you feel lost. You think to yourself: "If I only had a map then I wouldn't feel so lost". But does that mean you should spend the rest of your life studying map making? An alternative is to survey the territory with your own eyes and learn to pick out the trails that many others have cut into the wild. And then follow some of those trails. You might end up at a dead end and have to turn back to a previous fork in the road. You may find yourself scratched up as you try to get through dense thickets, or bogged down up to your shins in a swamp. Those are the kinds of experiences that teach you the land in a way no map could ever. And they are experiences you can't get by sitting in a tent studying a map. If your goal is to find a new trail through the territory - no map will even show it. That will only come from the hard won experience of trekking relentlessly through the wild.
As the philosopher Mike Tyson once said: "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face". It sucks getting punched in the face by other people, by learning a new language, learning to paint, learning music. Some people avoid it at all costs, thinking that studying the theory is the same thing.
Just remember that all of the scratches and bruises you are getting as you fail at painting are scratches on your ego. It can take it. You will get better, as long as you keep trying it is inevitable you will learn. And it is very useful to glance at a map now and again. Just don't get too reliant on it.
It's because you aim for a false objective!
There is no a 'proper' way to do it! It goes like this, you change it, if it looks good, well, good job, if not, ask yourself why, and try your best to take that into account next time.
It's by doing millions of small mistakes that you improve. The teacher teaches one way that is kinda easy to grasp, it's not the only way and far from unique.
The further you go, the further you will see the same mistakes, and you will start to think in terms of volumes, shapes, shadows, perspective, even anatomy if you still struggle on some human body parts
There is no a 'proper' way to do it! It goes like this, you change it, if it looks good, well, good job, if not, ask yourself why, and try your best to take that into account next time.
It's by doing millions of small mistakes that you improve. The teacher teaches one way that is kinda easy to grasp, it's not the only way and far from unique.
The further you go, the further you will see the same mistakes, and you will start to think in terms of volumes, shapes, shadows, perspective, even anatomy if you still struggle on some human body parts
If there is no why it's not a theory but a recipe. The why can be as simple as most people like/dislike it, but it needs to exist and it needs to be testable.
Note that recipes are actually useful, it's just that they are not theory.
> "what if I want to change something?" It's indeed an essential step of learning and creating
Note that recipes are actually useful, it's just that they are not theory.
> "what if I want to change something?" It's indeed an essential step of learning and creating
I've been trying to learn to draw since basically forever. I've only gotten any real traction the last three weeks or so. Difference is this time I've been doing some copy-work. Basically pull up a finished drawing someone did, and draw the exact same thing. It's sort of staggering how quickly that levels you up. I'll combine that with fairly focused studies, e.g. re-drawing a characters face shape a dozen times, just to get a good feel for it. In addition copy-work is nice because you get to an end-result that's presentable reasonably quickly.
I'm not slowly foraying into doing more original things which seems to be going loads better than before I did the copy-work. Currently I'm practicing drawing hands, and while it's not like I'm producing good sketches of hands, I can now totally see the path from where I am to good sketches of hands.
I'll share a sequence of sketches so you can see what a study looks like for me. This started off with trying to draw a specific characters hand in a specific pose, but turned into more of a "well how about figuring out hands in general first" thing:
0. I started with copy work, decent results, did a couple of these: https://i.imgur.com/3Fb3kDY.jpg
1. I moved on to trying to do a hand using no refs, somewhat predictable results, doesn't look like anything: https://i.imgur.com/wvgm1F3.jpg
2. After a bunch of repeating the same exact drawing it's starting to look like a thing: https://i.imgur.com/oMEVhOM.jpg
3. Took a break on hands, did a bunch more copy work of complete characters etc. Got slightly better at confident lines.
4. Returned to hands, switched to using my own hand for reference. Ignore the missing finger, I misjudged the spacing but pressed on regardless. You can clearly see the improvement from when I started: https://i.imgur.com/fZduLG1.jpg
5. Where I am today, probably going to need to practice different angles, but it'll be basically more of the same. Keep doing copy-work, Keep doing studies.
Important part of studies is to draw the same thing multiple times I feel. Do a sketch, try to avoid hating yourself for it being bad too much, pick one thing to improve. E.g. for the study sketches linked I've picked "try perspective" as improvement, but "get the right number of fingers" or "make the fingers the right length" are equally valid goals.
Notably absent from my workflow is tutorials or art-books. I'm sure those will come in handy once I've got the basics down, but for now they are just frustrating non-help. I'm making significant progress week-over-week still.
tl;dr: Copy work and studies is what works for me. Copy-work gets the strokes into your muscle memory. Studies helps you get a feel for how and why to place strokes.
I'm not slowly foraying into doing more original things which seems to be going loads better than before I did the copy-work. Currently I'm practicing drawing hands, and while it's not like I'm producing good sketches of hands, I can now totally see the path from where I am to good sketches of hands.
I'll share a sequence of sketches so you can see what a study looks like for me. This started off with trying to draw a specific characters hand in a specific pose, but turned into more of a "well how about figuring out hands in general first" thing:
0. I started with copy work, decent results, did a couple of these: https://i.imgur.com/3Fb3kDY.jpg
1. I moved on to trying to do a hand using no refs, somewhat predictable results, doesn't look like anything: https://i.imgur.com/wvgm1F3.jpg
2. After a bunch of repeating the same exact drawing it's starting to look like a thing: https://i.imgur.com/oMEVhOM.jpg
3. Took a break on hands, did a bunch more copy work of complete characters etc. Got slightly better at confident lines.
4. Returned to hands, switched to using my own hand for reference. Ignore the missing finger, I misjudged the spacing but pressed on regardless. You can clearly see the improvement from when I started: https://i.imgur.com/fZduLG1.jpg
5. Where I am today, probably going to need to practice different angles, but it'll be basically more of the same. Keep doing copy-work, Keep doing studies.
Important part of studies is to draw the same thing multiple times I feel. Do a sketch, try to avoid hating yourself for it being bad too much, pick one thing to improve. E.g. for the study sketches linked I've picked "try perspective" as improvement, but "get the right number of fingers" or "make the fingers the right length" are equally valid goals.
Notably absent from my workflow is tutorials or art-books. I'm sure those will come in handy once I've got the basics down, but for now they are just frustrating non-help. I'm making significant progress week-over-week still.
tl;dr: Copy work and studies is what works for me. Copy-work gets the strokes into your muscle memory. Studies helps you get a feel for how and why to place strokes.
There are Jazz Standards which people have tried to incorporate into various books and lists of what songs you should know to effectively play in a group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jazz_standards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jazz_standards
> Something you hear often in the jazz community, especially from experienced pros is "everything you need to know about theory is in the songs".
The advice of just listen/play music that I often read is imho a bad advice. You would not give people data about orbits and expect them to discover by themselves newton's law without never teaching the laws.
Of course music theory is not a scientific theory, and not only theory by itself is not enough (in both cases) but too much theory before practice is bad. And of course listening and practicing a lot of music is extremely important.
But who is going to progress faster: the student that knows what a chord is and how they are built or the student that is just listening to music ?
The advice of just listen/play music that I often read is imho a bad advice. You would not give people data about orbits and expect them to discover by themselves newton's law without never teaching the laws.
Of course music theory is not a scientific theory, and not only theory by itself is not enough (in both cases) but too much theory before practice is bad. And of course listening and practicing a lot of music is extremely important.
But who is going to progress faster: the student that knows what a chord is and how they are built or the student that is just listening to music ?
I've played jazz for about 45 years, and admittedly I'm not steeped in theory. I do know a massive number of tunes.
The people I've known who have made practical use of theory, mainly used it to help them streamline composition and arrangement. This I appreciate because I enjoy playing original material. Of course theory isn't telling them what to write, but perhaps it helps them come up with more coherent ideas more quickly.
The people I've known who have made practical use of theory, mainly used it to help them streamline composition and arrangement. This I appreciate because I enjoy playing original material. Of course theory isn't telling them what to write, but perhaps it helps them come up with more coherent ideas more quickly.
You do need some theory in there though, no? I mean guitarrists paying no attention to theory only to have eureka moments with sort of basic stuff is pretty much a meme at this point.
It's about not putting the cart before the horse. Theory is a guide to the songs, not a set of rules to be mastered in isolation.
In philosophy there is a test of necessity and sufficiency. Theory is definitely not sufficient to become a proficient musician (let alone a composer). I think it is arguable whether or not it is necessary (I would argue not and handwave towards the list of musicians who are literal legends despite 0 theory). So as a strict answer to your question: maybe not.
However, practically, learning some theory is obviously beneficial to many learners and can speed up the process of acquiring the skill. But again, beware of cart before horse.
Take one famous legend who is infamous for his insistence he know no theory: B.B. King. I mean, anyone who analyses his music can point out a laundry list of complicated theoretical things he is doing in his playing. He just doesn't know the "book names" for it since he learned those things in a different way. He definitely know what a "6" chord is, when to use it, what scales to use with it, etc. But if you asked him to explain it to you he'd probably show you 4 or 5 songs instead of writing you an essay.
In philosophy there is a test of necessity and sufficiency. Theory is definitely not sufficient to become a proficient musician (let alone a composer). I think it is arguable whether or not it is necessary (I would argue not and handwave towards the list of musicians who are literal legends despite 0 theory). So as a strict answer to your question: maybe not.
However, practically, learning some theory is obviously beneficial to many learners and can speed up the process of acquiring the skill. But again, beware of cart before horse.
Take one famous legend who is infamous for his insistence he know no theory: B.B. King. I mean, anyone who analyses his music can point out a laundry list of complicated theoretical things he is doing in his playing. He just doesn't know the "book names" for it since he learned those things in a different way. He definitely know what a "6" chord is, when to use it, what scales to use with it, etc. But if you asked him to explain it to you he'd probably show you 4 or 5 songs instead of writing you an essay.
Even if it may be a meme, those eureka moments are exactly the thing these threads are describing; learning knowledge about a thing. I’d rather have a thousand hours of eureka moments than a 1000 hours with a textbook of theory
That isn’t the choice. You only need maybe 20-50 hours of theory and anyone learning music will accumulate at least a few thousand hours of playtime if they stick with it. The order in which you do those matters a lot though. It differs depending on the age you start playing. Most adults should learn theory early, but not before they’ve done enough beginner to be able to practice theory as they learn it.
(Obviously you can study music more than 50 hours. I’m just talking about the applied theory most expert musicians know.)
(Obviously you can study music more than 50 hours. I’m just talking about the applied theory most expert musicians know.)
Why not both? I often write code covers of music
E.g. Aphex Twin - Avril 14: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdSiv7unrx8
E.g. Aphex Twin - Avril 14: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdSiv7unrx8
Your video is so pedagogically beautiful. The subtext of what you’re doing in those two minutes hints deeply at the cyclical, iterative process practiced by most engineers and many other creatives. Concise, illustrative, memorable. I’ll be showing this to students regularly. Well done.
What programming language is this?
I saw in the title of another video by the same author, they're using TidalCycles.
> Live coding music with algorithmic patterns
https://tidalcycles.org/
> Live coding music with algorithmic patterns
https://tidalcycles.org/
nice job
try turning down the attack
This seems to have been mostly lost as it isn't a popular technique anymore, but copywork used to be commonly used in learning how to write. Basically, learners copy out high-quality material word-for-word. The goal isn't just rote repetition, but to internalize structure, style, and rhythm, observe expert-level decisions, and build muscle memory for good habits.
Yes, it works, and it's a great way to approach learning to code as well.
Yes, it works, and it's a great way to approach learning to code as well.
Drawing too. ...take pains and pleasure in constantly copying the best things which you can find done by the hand of great masters. [...] take care to select the best one [...] If you follow the course of one man through constant practice, your intelligence would have to be crude indeed for you not to get some nourishment from it. Then you will find, if nature has granted you any imagination at all, that you will eventually acquire a style individual to yourself, and it cannot help being good; because your hand and your mind, being always accustomed to gather flowers, would ill know how to pluck thorns. --Cennino Cennini, about 1400.
I really wish "learn to draw" resources would bother to mention this. I've been trying to learn to draw for years. A couple weeks ago I discovered doing copy work is actually pretty fun, and it's kind of wild how much I've improved in a short time since then.
Musicians are still trained this way. The tunes in the Suzuki violin books are the ultimate covers. You can go to a beginning violin recital anywhere in the world and hear exactly the same tunes.
Musicians still use transcriptions of past recordings for their own performances.
Jazz musicians learn "standards." Even jazz improvisation, which you'd think should be 100% original, is taught using virtually the same short list of tunes, such as "Autumn Leaves."
Many musicians don't bother with original material at all, until they're absolutely sick of the standards.
Musicians still use transcriptions of past recordings for their own performances.
Jazz musicians learn "standards." Even jazz improvisation, which you'd think should be 100% original, is taught using virtually the same short list of tunes, such as "Autumn Leaves."
Many musicians don't bother with original material at all, until they're absolutely sick of the standards.
I was hoping for more about music in the article. I have played electric bass and guitar for a long time. It did't take long to realize that you'll find a a few patterns:
- Players have tendencies that they repeat
- Genres have vernacular which you need to learn in order to sound right
- Often original sounding bands and artists "found" their sound by trying to emulate something else (another artist or band).
I don't read a lot of code these days, but I do remember some of this from back in the day - we all have style tendencies (e.g., tabs, spaces or where we start parens, etc.).
- Players have tendencies that they repeat
- Genres have vernacular which you need to learn in order to sound right
- Often original sounding bands and artists "found" their sound by trying to emulate something else (another artist or band).
I don't read a lot of code these days, but I do remember some of this from back in the day - we all have style tendencies (e.g., tabs, spaces or where we start parens, etc.).
It always amuses me when you look at what some bands were emulating and how far from it they ended up. A few notable cases include Yes (Simon & Garfunkel), Genesis (The Bee Gees) and Sheryl Crow (80s Genesis).
Or the opposite: you look at an artist's influences and discover that they didn't just emulate, they basically plagiariased:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuiZqjlZLyU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuiZqjlZLyU
if you like coding and music, there are many many languages like strudel, tidal cycle, sonic pi, sardine, renardo or glicol that could interest you (and many even lower level)
If anyone is interested in some other ways non-traditional learning anthologies have been applied to CS education, I will shameless promote my paper [1] on typing exercises as an interactive worked example. I'm drawing my influence from martial arts, but the same "show-mimic-modify" mechanic is there in my opinion. I even use music, dance, and cooking as additional examples on where this type of learning is very prominent.
[1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3373165.3373177
[1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3373165.3373177
As an example of this in the wild a few years ago I attended an online course teaching HTML, CSS and a sprinkle of JS where most attendees had their first encounter with a source code editor there. One person used to retype over and over work they've already done in a previous session, sort of like karate katas in a way. At the time it felt a bit silly to me but in hindsight it totally made sense.
For something in a similar vein but more short form there's HackerType:
https://www.hackertype.dev/
I'm really happy to see that there is something actually valid to this repetitive practice!
For something in a similar vein but more short form there's HackerType:
https://www.hackertype.dev/
I'm really happy to see that there is something actually valid to this repetitive practice!
Even re-typing code verbatim will teach you much more than copy-pasting.
There used to be a series of book called "Learn code the hard way". It was basically exactly this, you would have a bunch of code, and you were expected to retype it. The examples would progressively increase in complexity.
It helped me learn C 10 years ago when I was a student. Sadly, I doubt it's still relevant nowadays.
It helped me learn C 10 years ago when I was a student. Sadly, I doubt it's still relevant nowadays.
on the contrary it's probably more relevant than ever as LLMs rot the brains of half your peers
When I was tutoring freshman computer science, I used to do some live coding demos on their computer, but use swear words for pretty much every variable and string. They saw the code, they would have to attempt at least to understand the code, and then they would have to destroy the code so they wouldn't accidentally send the professor something laden with swear words. Good times
I was wondering about this because there is a part in the blogpost that specifically says his developer friend would not even do real-time copying from the other screen. Personally, I think that makes more sense to try to learn because I think if I am good enough at typing, I can get into a flow state where I’m just typing code that I’m not really making much sense of. There are moments where I realize that I don’t understand what I’m typing and that’s when I have to decide to keep transcribing or to slow down and read documentation.
It is also just a little bit tricky to do this if you are working with an LLM that is able to add additional code or do some other kind of refactoring.
It is also just a little bit tricky to do this if you are working with an LLM that is able to add additional code or do some other kind of refactoring.
I've always wondered how much is gained through the act of re-typing (in a positive sense). For example, does the process itself help embed the concepts?
I've always liked the idea that familiarity doesn't breed repetition, rather repetition breeds familiarity (I think this is a quote but can't find the source now) and it's always made me wonder how much is gained from some of the repetitive parts of re-typing, such as does this help embed concepts?
I've always liked the idea that familiarity doesn't breed repetition, rather repetition breeds familiarity (I think this is a quote but can't find the source now) and it's always made me wonder how much is gained from some of the repetitive parts of re-typing, such as does this help embed concepts?
There was a study somewhere that proved handwritten notes encoded into memory more effectively than typed notes, but both were still vastly superior to just reading.
So I think it depends on how much the person is thinking through what they are typing?
So I think it depends on how much the person is thinking through what they are typing?
In my creative writing practice, I retype a piece at least once in the process of revision¹ which forces me to consider every word along the way. I’ve heard of people doing this with other peoples’ writing, something I’ve never had the patience for, but I can imagine that again, the process of getting words (or code) from the page through the eyes→brain→fingers to the keyboard does require some mental consideration of what you’re doing.
⸻
1. This has its roots in my high school writing practice where I wrote using a manual typewriter (sitting on the floor of my bedroom in my parents’ basement) and the only way to revise my copy was to retype a clean version of it.
⸻
1. This has its roots in my high school writing practice where I wrote using a manual typewriter (sitting on the floor of my bedroom in my parents’ basement) and the only way to revise my copy was to retype a clean version of it.
> I've always wondered how much is gained through the act of re-typing
The obvious theory is it is better because you are going slower and are more focused.
Less obvious theory: I also think that the activation of the muscles stimulate the brain (that's why we have muscle memory)
The obvious theory is it is better because you are going slower and are more focused.
Less obvious theory: I also think that the activation of the muscles stimulate the brain (that's why we have muscle memory)
That was what we had to do back in the day: Most computer magazines would have pages of code listings that you were expected to type into your computer to get the software to work. When SoftTalk came out in the mid-80s, it was revolutionary in that it only talked about software, it didn’t include program listings.
100% - mixed with intellisense you get to explore a lib a lot more than just pasting a whole section
I grew up in the Amiga era when we would type code from magazines to write games. I learned a ton debugging those programs.
I think US culture overall frowns upon non-original works. From school there's some push against working on something that is a copy of someone else's work. In the meantime China has mastered copying and made it a big part of their culture and economy.
Nowadays I'm learning game engine techniques by reading Godot code and implementing the damn same thing in my engine... Also, nowadays I like tracing pretty anime drawings... I enjoy it more and end up with something I like better than if I were to draw something original.
Nowadays I'm learning game engine techniques by reading Godot code and implementing the damn same thing in my engine... Also, nowadays I like tracing pretty anime drawings... I enjoy it more and end up with something I like better than if I were to draw something original.
It's a real two-edged sword. On the one hand we claim to value originality. On the other, people will eschew originality if it hasn't been validated by some kind of gatekeeper.
Conventional wisdom among musicians is that the best way to attract an audience and make money is to play covers or familiar works. It's hard to get an audience to show up for "originals," whether it's in Classical or contemporary music.
It's hard to get people to visit a restaurant that's not part of a chain.
Disclosure: Musician in an "originals" band. ;-)
Conventional wisdom among musicians is that the best way to attract an audience and make money is to play covers or familiar works. It's hard to get an audience to show up for "originals," whether it's in Classical or contemporary music.
It's hard to get people to visit a restaurant that's not part of a chain.
Disclosure: Musician in an "originals" band. ;-)
Artists call this practise "master studies", which is a nice term for music, code and other disciplines too.
As an university level educator my experience is:
Copying is a good way to learn if there are no exact instructions. E.g. covering a song is learning to listen as much as it is learning to play. But if someone made you a "10 steps to cover this song" video those lessons won't really stick.
My experience is that most people will only start to deeply think about a topic once they encounter it practically themselves. I can tell people about different signal levels and impedance all I want, it seems only once they plug wrong things together and wonder why the result sounds bad the light bulb goes on.
Copying can be great if it is done on your own as you will encounter all kinds of questions that matter in practise.
Copying is a good way to learn if there are no exact instructions. E.g. covering a song is learning to listen as much as it is learning to play. But if someone made you a "10 steps to cover this song" video those lessons won't really stick.
My experience is that most people will only start to deeply think about a topic once they encounter it practically themselves. I can tell people about different signal levels and impedance all I want, it seems only once they plug wrong things together and wonder why the result sounds bad the light bulb goes on.
Copying can be great if it is done on your own as you will encounter all kinds of questions that matter in practise.
Another thing that comes to mind is reading Finding a Likeness: How I Got Somewhat Better at Art by Nicholson Baker (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1984881396/donhosek). Baker talks about tracing other artists’ work as part of his practice and cites an art teacher who initially recommended this, but then chose not to retract the advice when Baker wanted to mention her by name in his book, but Baker himself found that this practice of tracing did, in fact, help him become better at drawing freehand.
Non-referral link:
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1984881396/
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1984881396/
I'm a longtime fan of Nicholson Baker's work since I first read The Mezzanine. His close attention to detail and his careful choice of words really impressed me.
An interesting comparison.
Also in both cases people will be more than happy to tell you your version sucks.
Also in both cases people will be more than happy to tell you your version sucks.
If no one is telling you you suck, you're not doing anything interesting.
Covering music can be fun but is a bad way to learn. You spend a lot of time memorizing note sequences, a good amount of time nailing the exact timing of lines to make them sound right and usually some time working out the challenging technical aspects of a song you're not at the level to play yet. The problem is the memorization and song-specific timing practice have very low carry over to general musical skill. If you're trying to get as good at an instrument as possible, it's much faster to do a combination of scale/chord/arpeggio and technical challenge drills.
> You spend a lot of time memorizing note sequences, a good amount of time nailing the exact timing of lines to make them sound right and usually some time working out the challenging technical aspects of a song you're not at the level to play yet.
> it's much faster to do a combination of scale/chord/arpeggio and technical challenge drills.
Classical musicians that wasted their time training on existing note sequences learning pieces intentionally picked to be at the edge of their current skill level are going to _hate_ when they hear about this one weird trick ;)
> it's much faster to do a combination of scale/chord/arpeggio and technical challenge drills.
Classical musicians that wasted their time training on existing note sequences learning pieces intentionally picked to be at the edge of their current skill level are going to _hate_ when they hear about this one weird trick ;)
I mean, if the entire piece is "exactly" at your skill threshold across the board, that's great. But then you also had a teacher that knew your skill threshold very well and also had an exceptional repertoire to draw on to direct you towards that piece that was just as your skill level. That's not your average music teacher.
Looping arpeggios/chord tone sequences together at progressively higher BPM, while sprinkling in stuff like string skipping, dynamics control/accent patterning, etc lets you stay close to your edge of ability and really focus on specific techniques heavily. If you're trying to make it sound good to a backing track at the same time, it also develops improvisational abilities and musical originality in a way that playing existing music won't.
Looping arpeggios/chord tone sequences together at progressively higher BPM, while sprinkling in stuff like string skipping, dynamics control/accent patterning, etc lets you stay close to your edge of ability and really focus on specific techniques heavily. If you're trying to make it sound good to a backing track at the same time, it also develops improvisational abilities and musical originality in a way that playing existing music won't.
I agree with all of that and was thinking that I hadn't mentioned the role of etudes and exercises directed at specific techniques or dexterity, though I guess I had classical music in mind and wasn't thinking about genres or instruments that perhaps favour improvisation over the 'other side' of a highly refined performance of a well-known piece (which still have the performer's own personality in except in a way where the listener likely already 'knows' the piece).
> That's not your average music teacher
Tangentially (or perhaps not as every other topic in 2025 is 'AI'), I was always facinated by the episodes of Star Trek: TNG that showed the holodeck and crew members being able to use that environment to essentially learn skills from the greatest performers (or even a blend) in their area.
> That's not your average music teacher
Tangentially (or perhaps not as every other topic in 2025 is 'AI'), I was always facinated by the episodes of Star Trek: TNG that showed the holodeck and crew members being able to use that environment to essentially learn skills from the greatest performers (or even a blend) in their area.
It depends on your objective. The process you describe is excellent for achieving technical mastery. Less so for compositional mastery, but it can still be educational to see written parts up close.
What it wont prepare you for at all is impovisational mastery and just jamming over some chord changes.
Also, I don’t know many musicians who would completely ignore technical exercises like scales, chord voicings, and arpeggios.
So, it depends on what kind of musician you’re trying to be.
What it wont prepare you for at all is impovisational mastery and just jamming over some chord changes.
Also, I don’t know many musicians who would completely ignore technical exercises like scales, chord voicings, and arpeggios.
So, it depends on what kind of musician you’re trying to be.
Creative coding (still art and animations) combines these in a way, often people see something they like that someone else has done, and figure out how to recreate it in their language of choice, then put their own spin on it. Concepts range in technical complexity so it can be a great place to get started coding, there's no giant expectation of making a game or app.
On Dwitter (JS codegolfing/demoscene site) the philosophy is to make it as accessible as possible to remix someone's demo and post it. Even if not directly editing, one could reverse engineer the code to gain new understanding which can then be incorporated into the next effort
I've been working on learning Fusion 360 for 3d modeling recently. I made a little progress. Then I recently tried to recreate a model I've already downloaded, because I needed to make some changes to it. Recreating it 1:1 taught me more than all of the learning I've done.
> Recreating it 1:1 taught me more than all of the learning I've done.
Which nicely fits into the idea that repetition leads to familiarity, and that the act of re-creating those examples is a form of study and source of learning. I'm not sure what the name for the 3D modelling equivalent of a musical etude is but perhaps this seems like that.
Incidentally, I've also been trying to learn some amount of 3D modelling (with Blender) and in some cases have got to, say, half way through some structured courses before having to pause for a bit. After finding some more time to get back to it it seemed easier to just start over instead of pick up where I left off, and not only did the process seem a bit easier the second time around, being able to refresh and reinforce general concepts and specific techniques felt very valuable.
Incidentally, Mike Acton's talk 'Solving the Right Problems for Engine Programmers' [1] includes a part on deliberate practice with small focused examples.
Wax on, wax off...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B00hV3wmMY
Which nicely fits into the idea that repetition leads to familiarity, and that the act of re-creating those examples is a form of study and source of learning. I'm not sure what the name for the 3D modelling equivalent of a musical etude is but perhaps this seems like that.
Incidentally, I've also been trying to learn some amount of 3D modelling (with Blender) and in some cases have got to, say, half way through some structured courses before having to pause for a bit. After finding some more time to get back to it it seemed easier to just start over instead of pick up where I left off, and not only did the process seem a bit easier the second time around, being able to refresh and reinforce general concepts and specific techniques felt very valuable.
Incidentally, Mike Acton's talk 'Solving the Right Problems for Engine Programmers' [1] includes a part on deliberate practice with small focused examples.
Wax on, wax off...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B00hV3wmMY
In the spirit of the article, I invoke a bastardized version of Chesterton's Fence[1] when writing code. If something looks overly complex (especially code written before the advent of AI slop), I try and intuit why it was written this way before changing it. 9/10 it's been for a good reason. I go ahead and add a comment to the code if I don't change it.
1: From Wikipedia, '"Chesterton's fence" is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood.' In my own words, you don't rip out a seemingly-stupid thing without first figuring out why it's there.
1: From Wikipedia, '"Chesterton's fence" is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood.' In my own words, you don't rip out a seemingly-stupid thing without first figuring out why it's there.
> Sometimes, he'd run into things which didn't make sense. Why is this a doubly-linked list here, when it seems a singly-linked list would do just fine? And in those moments, if you can't find a reason? You get to go down that path, make it the singly-linked version, and then find out later: oh, ohhh. Ohhhh, they did that for a reason.
Everything is done for a reason. Unfortunately, often the reason is the author didn't know what they we were doing.
Everything is done for a reason. Unfortunately, often the reason is the author didn't know what they we were doing.
Nothing wrong with covers. Anything that gets you where you want to be. The issue I have is with musicians who just play covers and didn’t learn what went into making/writing the song. Like @Slow_Hand mentioned, being able to recreate a song is the epitome of a cover. You’ll be able to write a song then, given you had an idea of course.
I also like the idea of doing that for programming. There’s so much out there you can learn from. Just start building…
I also like the idea of doing that for programming. There’s so much out there you can learn from. Just start building…
Benjamin Franklin talks about this in his autobiography.
Yup, though he was also intentional about not copying word-for-word, but rather trying to predict the next token (or phrase).
https://muldoon.cloud/2025/05/17/frankin-llm.html
https://muldoon.cloud/2025/05/17/frankin-llm.html
This worked wonders for me as a kid, learning computer programming. There was so much knowledge to be gained by typing in 1000’s of lines of other peoples code, published in magazines.
I think I probably learned so much more in between the lines during that period, than if I’d just read the user manuals.
And the same is true even today - spending a few hours code-reading some wonderful open source project will enlighten you immensely.
Code is a social construct - just like music. It prospers in the space between minds, in my opinion.
I think I probably learned so much more in between the lines during that period, than if I’d just read the user manuals.
And the same is true even today - spending a few hours code-reading some wonderful open source project will enlighten you immensely.
Code is a social construct - just like music. It prospers in the space between minds, in my opinion.
Also Hunter S. Thompson:
> If you type out somebody's work, you learn a lot about it. Amazingly it's like music. And from typing out parts of Faulkner, Hemingway, Fitzgerald - these were writers that were very big in my life and the lives of the people around me - so yea I wanted to learn from the best I guess.
> If you type out somebody's work, you learn a lot about it. Amazingly it's like music. And from typing out parts of Faulkner, Hemingway, Fitzgerald - these were writers that were very big in my life and the lives of the people around me - so yea I wanted to learn from the best I guess.
This site can’t provide a secure connection
ntietz.com sent an invalid response.
ERR_SSL_PROTOCOL_ERROR
This turned out to be Comcast marking the site as malware. I reported to the co-working space to get it unblocked.
within my code kata, i always start blank
after debugging, i conpare to the working codes
between katas, i try to improvise by combining several ideas and reducing bugs
so katas are moving objects
after debugging, i conpare to the working codes
between katas, i try to improvise by combining several ideas and reducing bugs
so katas are moving objects
i start blank on my code kata
after debugging, i conpare to the worked examples
This is why someone should start a karaoke standup company.
Remake it from the ground up: the drums, the instrument parts, the mixing, the sonics, the loudness. Everything. Match everything perfectly to the best of your abilities.
You will learn a tremendous amount as you listen deeper and deeper into the record, as it will force you to ask questions about intent and process and balance that a casual listen does not challenge you on.
It’s just like art students with an easel and paint in the museum recreating an existing painting. You will experience every brush stroke and interaction of color, and in doing so learn far more about the masters then you ever could otherwise.