Where’s the logic in looking at something successful and picking a singular thing to be responsible? What seems more likely is you are looking for an idea you are attached to that exists adjacent to something successful. It’s like a Mormon looking for successful Mormon CEOs to then claim the company’s success is due to the Mormon work ethic. It’s like how in Whiplash the Charlie Parker story is venerated and seen as explanatory by the characters.
The logic is simple. This is s his style and it demonstrably worked. I’m sure you could point to someone else’s style that also works in another context but that’s irrelevant.
But did it work because of the style or in spite of it? No reason to believe it wouldn’t be even more successful if he had been less abrasive like he is now.
Where’s the logic in looking at something successful and picking a singular thing to be responsible? What seems more likely is you are looking for an idea you are attached to that exists adjacent to something successful. It’s like a Mormon looking for successful Mormon CEOs to then claim the company’s success is due to the Mormon work ethic. It’s like how in Whiplash the Charlie Parker story is venerated and seen as explanatory by the characters.
The logic is simple. This is s his style and it demonstrably worked. I’m sure you could point to someone else’s style that also works in another context but that’s irrelevant.
But did it work because of the style or in spite of it? No reason to believe it wouldn’t be even more successful if he had been less abrasive like he is now.