I think the article is silly. One, there's nothing close to a scientific method used -- and this from NewScientist (how embarrassing). He should try to correlate "work" with "results". I'm assuming he started to, realized there was no correlation, and wrote the article anyway. Eating food and breathing are also necessary but not sufficient. Actually those at least correlate. All geniuses did do those two things. I'm not sure all of them worked that hard.

About Mozart, I only used him to try to show that "work" sometimes isn't work. Rimbaud is yet another contradictory example. He started writing in his late teens and finished abruptly at 20. In those few years he produced works of genius.

No, I think another commenter was right. The author is clearly someone on the outside looking in and who is making attempts -- in vain -- to understand.