Hello!
Troy Grady interviewed my lucky butt a little over a year ago, and it was my first time hearing about Cracking the Code.
Mr. Grady has been instrumental in helping me become more aware of what I do on guitar, and in turn has led me to be a more focused musician.
I’m grateful to have met Troy and Cracking the Code. I look forward to being a part of this forum and speaking with other like minded musicians 
You are far too kind as usual. But I refuse to take any credit for the massive amounts of work you’ve put in over the years - that’s all you man. Thanks for signing up!
Well fancy seeing you here 
Still looking forward to that interview, should be an interesting one. I’m glad I heard about you through Troy, it’s lead to many banter filled email conversations and of course our terrifying shred duel to the death! Shred Battle: John Taylor VS The Count - YouTube
I like the way you stalk me online, Count
You guys both thrash! I love when my favorite youtubers comes come together. looking forward to that interview. Don’t know what I’d do without Troy and John!
Hey, I was looking for the interview with John but couldn’t find it. Is it released or still on the conveyor line?
It’s still not released!!! What are they waiting for?
I had assumed that Troy and the team agreed not to release the video series until the corresponding academic paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal. As an academic, I can tell you that this can be a long, frustrating process!
When has that ever been a pre-requisite for the CTC team to air new material? I haven’t hear anything about the plan for a corresponding academic paper but even if they want a corresponding paper written on it, why wait for some university professors to publish it in one of their journals? The professors within the ivory towers of academia certainly don’t have a stranglehold on the intellect!
Never previously, but CtC hasn’t worked within the context of academia previously either.
If CtC wants access to the knowledge, experience and equipment of an academic research group, it’s natural to assume that the research group would want to ensure that the time and work they invest is of benefit to itself also. This means they would want to ensure that findings can be published in peer reviewed journals.
To be published, findings must be novel. If Troy decided to make all findings of the study available before the research is published in a peer-reviewed journal, this could be seen to diminish the impact of the paper by the publishing journal, hence reducing the likelihood that the paper would be published.
Like it or not, this is how most journals operate. If findings were always freely available, the journals could not charge subscription fees. If they can’t charge subscription fees, the journal system would cease to exist, and there would be no way to verify the merit and rigor of new research.
Knowledge is not open-source. Masters in Mechanics content is not free, and neither is content published in most academic journals.
Thanks for the insight, Tom. It sounds like you have some experience with publishing academic research. Am I right?
I’m a mathematician, and I’ve co-authored several papers since I completed my doctorate in 2014.
Unfortunately, the review periods for the papers I have submitted have been very long, and we’ve been very unlucky. Each time, we have received reports from referees who either admitted they didn’t understand and were therefore couldn’t recommend the work for publication, or they so severely misunderstand the work and how it relates to the state of the art that they believe it shouldn’t be recommended.
Either way, I’m battling against the incompetence of others. /rant
I know that I could not professionally devote significant research time to a problem if a resulting publication was not foreseen. I’m sure the academics Troy was working with felt the same.
Hey, jumping in here to clear up any confusion! There are a few reasons we haven’t released this stuff yet. Not specifically because we’re somehow embargoed from release due to academic publishing constraints, though it is the case that this thing is more complex than our usual interviews.
In addition to our initial interview with John we’ve met with and interviewed several academics as part of our quest to better understand the “science of speed”. We also did a follow-up where we brought John to one of these research labs and did some actual data capture.
So all told we have something like five or six total interviews here, resulting in quite a bit of footage to go through. There’s been some waiting involved as well — after capturing the lab data with John, the researchers we worked with still had to find the time to analyze it, chat with us about the results, etc. So we’ve gone back and forth with them quite a bit since the initial filming to make sure we understand as well as we can what we actually learned here.
We also want to put together a nicely produced feature summarizing what we’ve learned — more narrative mini-documentary style, as opposed to simply releasing hours of interviews without a clear through-line. We think that’s the best way to do justice to this whole study, but that sort of thing takes a lot of time as well.
Short story: we’re aware it’s taking more time than expected to get this stuff out, but yes we’re still moving it along the Cracking the Code conveyor belt as best we can
Hey Brendan, That sounds amazing! I’m really looking forward to seeing it.