[klyrs]

I've gotten good at a few things in life that required a "grind." The violin is the clearest example. Getting decent requires an hour or so a week -- you can generally fart around and play whatever's accessible to your skill level. Good requires an hour or two per day, of deliberate and focused practice. People don't play études for fun. Excellence requires several hours per day. Even Itzhak Perlman describes his practice regimen as tedious, and I once heard him say that he practices while watching TV, to alleviate the boredom. Paganini, on the other hand, played all day to forestall his father's physical abuse.

I was "good," for a time, but pursuit of excellence never met my cost benefit analysis

[bigbubba]

Surely the grind of learning to play a violin would be far worse if you disliked violins in the first place, right? If you force somebody who hates violins to practice playing one for hours a day, the grind would be intolerable and they'd probably hate their life. The people most likely to find the grind tolerable are the people who really want it.

[klyrs]

I was answering your question:

> It's only a 'grind' if you don't enjoy the process though, right?

I'd summarize my answer as "no, it's still a 'grind'." To answer your followup, "yes, it can be even worse if you hate the basic act."

On a meta level: life sucks and involves hardship. There's value in grinding on things you hate. If you've only succeeded at things that you love, your success is quite likely fragile. Resiliency is developed by accepting, and grinding, your way to success at something you hate.

[calf]

> People don't play études for fun.

I do. I wish I could play them well.

[klyrs]

> I do.

Wow, I'm happy for you and only a little jealous.

I wish I could play them well, too. The sound and feeling of butchering them is what makes me dislike the experience.