>>2308708

Very few people on /ic/ will have the experience in both necessary to answer your question.

>>2308708
It's easier to become proficient at music in my opinion. The number of child prodigies in music vs art makes that apparent.

Also, in music you can be considered a master just by how you play, but you can play the music of Bach or Mozart or whoever. In art you need to "compose" every time you make an image.

So I would say the best comparison would be a composer to an artist. You get young children and teens who can play fantastically but they rarely ever compose, and when they do it won't be till they are much older that it is anything good. In art composing an image is a necessity, which is why it takes much longer to master.

Mastering the instrument is like mastering your pencil. I'd say learning to play already existing music is comparable in difficulty to drawing directly from reference. When it comes to composing good music it becomes far harder to compare difficulty.

>>2308713
>The number of child prodigies in music vs art makes that apparent

You're forgetting that parents are more likely to force their kid to learn an instrument than draw.

I'm a musician and artist; I'd say that becoming technically proficient in music is more demanding of physical dexterity than art, in part because speed in the moment is essential.

>>2308719
>I'd say learning to play already existing music is comparable in difficulty to drawing directly from reference.

Timing makes the difference here, too.

>>2308733
>You're forgetting that parents are more likely to force their kid to learn an instrument than draw.
I'm not forgetting that. I think the numbers still don't add up. You can look back in history too so it isn't biased by lack of art education now or something.

You might also be underestimating how many people get art training at a young age. In school I was surrounded by a lot of Asians whose parents immigrated here, and most of them were forced to do both music and art at a young age. They would copy casts and do some pretty standard "classical" training for art. I knew lots of people like this. And you know what? Many were very good at music, and none were really good at art.

I draw and play guitar, some piano and a bit of the drums. I can say with absolute certainty that learning to play music at a passable level is much easier than learning to draw.

Learning music is a much more linear affair, where every aspect of it can be atomized and absorbed with some training. With drawing, it's much harder to divide it's components into manageable parts.

For example, after you memorized the most common chords like C, Dm, Em, G and Am, you are ready to create a simple and beautiful song. It doesn`t matter if you can't play complex rhythms, our brains will perceive your playing as correct and acceptable. Just five chords. With these five chords you can create differents kinds of music just singing at a passable level.

Can you create a simple and appealing drawing just knowing the basic solids, like a cube, a sphere and a cylinder? Maybe. But you'll need to know lots about perspective, line weight, light and shadow and composition.

The problem with drawing and painting is that they basically have much higher barriers to entry than music, not in terms of materials costs, but in terms of learning requirements.

If some musician just learn to play by ear, he can just get by without any kind of theoretical knowledge.

http://theconversation.com/the-secrets-of-self-taught-high-performing-musicians-34301

apples - oranges

>>2308824
>>2308832
This.

Drawing is a compound of more different skills than music. You might say that to be a world class musician and world class artist the time input is the same, I don't know. That might be true. But fewer artists will get there because you have to tolerate being shit at drawing for a lot longer than you have to tolerate being shit at music when learning.

It's completely dependent on how much time the musician/artist wants to put into their craft. You can't just slide by without any fundamental knowledge of music in an academic setting, same as art. If the goal is to wow friends and peers then yeah, learn some chords and how to hold an instrument and you're set. Just like how any college student with eyes and a steady hand can make a nice oil painting that gets oohs and ahs from their mother.

Basic music theory is easier to teach to children because breaking the rules comes with immediate negative physical feedback. A hand that's been drawn like shit will not register as strongly as someone loudly playing a note off key to a child. That's why these child prodigies rarely compose until they're old enough to understand the more advanced concepts that go into composition, at which point they'd absolutely be able to understand how to implement advanced concepts of other arts, if it were worth it to them at that point.

Either way as far as mastery is concerned, a master musician will spend months to years composing and practicing a song for a performance. A master artist will spend months to years drawing their best work. I think if there was an objective way to measure the barrier of mastery and both parties could be compared in terms of work ethic, and time put in the gradient would be about the same, maybe with a negligible difference based on who was born when.

People have an appalling view as to what 'passable' musician is. Compare it to painting by numbers. Badly. 5 chords . . . Pfft. They are completely different skills. Not equitable.

>>2308824
makes sense. I assume it balances out at the top with guys like Mullins and Ruan Jia being comparable to whatever the top living classical guys?

>>2308708
Music, at it's core, is mechanical. You can easily program a robot to play an instrument flawlessly.

Programming one to draw, however? Good luck with that. You can't get significantly better just by drawing every day, for example, but you can get better at an instrument by doing so.

>>2308892
>People have an appalling view as to what 'passable' musician is
This is true for art too. Have you ever seen what the general public likes? Take a look at what crap gets thousands of upvotes on reddit and then read some of the comments. You'll realize people are impressed by very little and have zero taste and may very well be blind.

>>2308937
>Music, at it's core, is mechanical. You can easily program a robot to play an instrument flawlessly. Programming one to draw, however? Good luck with that.
If you want to simplify it that much I could argue a roomba with a digital camera taped to it that sends the images to another robot that just prints the pictures with pencil instead of ink is just that. It spits out whatever you tell it to look at, just like a robot programmed to follow certain parameters you set based on rules of music theory. Anything more abstract and you're getting into subjective ground of what makes a good *artist/musician.*

>>2308937
>You can't get significantly better just by drawing every day, for example, but you can get better at an instrument by doing so.
You get quicker and more accurate, which is true for drawing too. Just like how mastering drawing isn't only about being able to draw straight and round lines perfectly, being a master musician isn't only about being able to play correct notes really fast. Both are just means that people who don't have a deeper understanding latch onto because they have no other point of reference.

I draw and play guitar.

Music is way easier. Theory is nothing more than simple math and beyond that it's just the physical capability to pull it off.

I will say though that I think music relies more on inherent instinct. There are people who are just incapable of carrying a tune or playing a steady rhythm, no matter how much they practice. It just isn't in them. I don't see that in art.