[yeeyeeyee]

The famous story about Charlie Parker:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Parker

>His attempt to improvise failed when he lost track of the chord changes. This prompted Jo Jones, the drummer for Count Basie's Orchestra, to contemptuously take a cymbal off of his drum set and throw it at his feet as a signal to leave the stage. However, rather than discouraging Parker, the incident caused him to vow to practice harder, and turned out to be a seminal moment in the young musician's career when he returned as a new man a year later.

On display in any jam session is thousands of hours of (solitary) practice, study, and reflection.

[bigmealbigmeal]

> On display in any jam session is thousands of hours of (solitary) practice, study, and reflection.

But not necessarily. Some musicians exclusively learn to play through being taught and jamming with others. I admit it's rare, and even as an extrovert it's not true for myself.

However, for a more damning condemnation of this "creativity requires solitude" viewpoint, we only need to venture into the world of improv theatre. Almost everyone in improv is unleashing non-stop creativity, but they've almost never practiced improv alone. It's the total counterpoint to this unnecessary association between artistry and isolation.

Highly extroverted artists exist. They rarely create alone. They rarely practice alone. I urge people to acknowledge that this is a worthy way to be a compelling artist, rather than acting like the preference of the introverted artist is the only worthy way of doing things.

[yeeyeeyee]

>Highly extroverted artists exist and do not create alone.

Find me one professional jazz musician that is "100% extroverted" and I can find you twenty places or quotations that clearly demonstrate that s/he has listened and studied the history of the music.

I'm not saying who is "worthy", whatever that means. I'm saying what needs to be done to be educated, to understand.

[bigmealbigmeal]

You've shifted the goalpost from "any jam session" to "professional jazz musician".

Yes, I'd agree that all professional jazz musicians have spent considerable time working on their craft alone. That doesn't detract from what I was saying. Professional jazz musicians aren't the only type of people who do jam sessions, and they're not the only type of compelling artist.

In fact, even if every single artist in the world had spent considerable time studying alone, that doesn't necessarily mean it's required. The fact is, every single piece of music theory, every single thing you can read from a book or hear from a record, every single practice session, can be done in a group. It may just be that people prefer not to do that, or don't have the resources to do that.

[yeeyeeyee]

I am very curious now, because you seem to be alluding to it: is there any real world example of any kind of artist who is both "compelling" and did most of their studying or work in a group? Or is this just all in theory, like "Johnny Thousand-Livers"? https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/organs

[bigmealbigmeal]

The vast majority of human beings throughout time lived in extremely communal situations without separate bedrooms, without sheet music, without books, and without records. Solitude in the home was rarely available. Virtually all folk music around the world was developed in these contexts. We barely know their names or their work, and that's simply because sheet music and historic record were limited to the interests of the rich.

The availability of prolonged solitude to practice an instrument is an aberration in human existence. Modern humans, and the historic rich, do not represent the wider experience of human existence. Unless you think compelling musicians are also an aberration in human existence, I personally believe a wider perspective is needed.

~

As an aside, here's an article with Dave Grohl and Ringo Starr talking about how they never practice alone: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/dave-grohl...

GROHL: Well, I remember we talked about this. I think we were talking about practicing. . . .

STARR: I never practice [laughs].

GROHL: Nor do I! Because I don’t like playing alone. I only like playing when there’s music.

STARR: I’ll play with you all night, but on my own, after two and a quarter seconds, I’m like, “Ugh. That’s not what it’s about.” When I’m doing shows, and people hold up their little seven-year-old: “This is Tommy. He loves you, and he’s taking drum lessons.” And I always say, “I hope he’s not taking too many!”

[yeeyeeyee]

Good point, yeah I guess the social and political aspects of music are equally if not more important.

Probably should stop listening to so much jazz. So glad I did not attempt to be a professional musician.

[agumonkey]

Even seasoned experts, will find creativity in jam sessions, stuff that they wouldn't have found by themselves. How hard is this to understand ?

[yeeyeeyee]

Incredibly hard to understand. As if, say, Einstein waved his hand and produced a rigorous theory of the general relativity. And spent no time on it himself. Or if, say, Coltrane revolutionized music but never practiced.

I agree that adversarial interactions can produce results. That's not what the OP is saying. What the OP is saying is that you need a whole lot of self understanding to create good work in the space of writing.

[bigmealbigmeal]

I would posit that the person you're replying to is challenging the title, not the article. The title and the article are incongruent.

The article essentially suggests that considerable solitude is required to really take one's writing to a higher place. That might be the true, or it might not be true, and it depends on how we define 'good writing'. But we can agree that it's not so easy to dismiss.

On the other hand, the title plainly states: 'creativity requires solitude'. That's a clear-cut statement. And it's extremely debatable. Not to mention that Rilke never even said that.