-
Henry--
Thanks for your response. You know a lot of pros, so your observations of them are interesting to me.
I am curious if everyone has made the same observations. Is the minimal practice expert a "myth"? Can anyone name someone who made remarkable progress with a surprisingly limited amount of practice. Or is it always someone who had deep practice in their childhood?
Didn't Wes start as an adult, and squeeze in practice time after work? I know a pro bass player who said he did not put in a lot of hours because the double bass is too physically demanding--he would get injured. He plays high-level stuff.
Are there any other counter examples?
-
05-31-2015 05:59 PM
-
Careful with this. Legend is that Wes could hear a line one time and immediately put it on the guitar - he had some serious gifts that probably aided the progress a bit. Also I know a bass player (one of the best I know) who says he doesn't play much bass - when pressed, however, he reveals that he sings lines at the piano for his practice. I.e he doesn't spend enormous amounts of time w a bass in his hands but works his ear in ways that are farrrrrr more strenuous than most of us have the stomach for.
Originally Posted by Jonzo
-
You can check out this book if you like Thinking in Jazz : The Infinite Art of Improvisation (Chicago Studies in Ethnomusicology Series): Paul F. Berliner: 9780226043814: Amazon.com: Books
It's not about practice methods, but it talks about(among other things) common aspects of the learning process for many high level improvisers. Maybe that will actually serve to address your concerns better than a direct answer which you may have been hoping for.
It's also a great book in general.
I don't think you can go wrong with listening and transcribing. There's not much that is inefficient while listening and transcribing so that fits the bill.
Maybe you can go to jam sessions or find a jamming buddy who is better. Probably the fastest way to learn is to get one's behind handed to them. If its in a public situation, all the better.
-
I think that efficiency = fluency/time. Since we could argue forever about who the "best" guitarists are, I thought it would be more useful to look at all fluent guitarists--pros and high-skill amateurs--who practiced less than their peers, and examine commonalities. It is not a flawless methodology, but perhaps better than everyone saying "This worked for me." Originally Posted by pamosmusic
The artistry of the "best" guitarists is much more nebulous. I would not deign to distil a method to arrive at artistry.
-
No. At age 11, Wes started on a tenor guitar that his older brother gave him. He spent the next eight years playing that before switching to six string guitar at 19. Originally Posted by Jonzo
The "I started at 19 and learned all of Charlie Christian's solos while working 18 hours a day" story makes for good ad copy but, in fact, falls into the same category as the Robert Johnson crossroads myth.
-
Thats fine but at the end of the day aren't we practicing toward artistry? If it's just "fluency" then guys like Pat Martino and Alan Holdsworth would have to top the list --- but the problem is that (I plead here for the mercy of forum) I really really don't care for either of their playing. So why would I particularly care what they practiced? I love Jim Halls playing but he was admittedly technically deficient - but I love the spontaneity and beauty of his lines so it's much more interesting to me to learn about how he saw music. He always played fewer notes instead of more - he always considered himself a composer - etc Originally Posted by Jonzo
isnt it more important to glean what you can from players you SUBJECTIVELY prefer and figure out not only just what they did but why and how they came to decide to do it? So that you can apply those ideas and figure out for yourself how to become the player you want to be? As opposed to choosing the practice method of the fastest learner subjectivity and personal preference be damned.
-
One thing that has helped speed up my progress in recent years is singing everything perfectly with the record and replicating it from memory at a later time on the guitar. I'm at a point now where I can do this at the actual recording tempo. I used to do this with the transcribe! software to slow things down but it's not so necessary anymore. Helps with pre-hearing and phrasing ideas when you're soloing.
-
Peter--
I see your point, but I would still be curious about how anyone who is highly fluent got there with minimal practice. Competency has to be achieved before artistry. I might learn from how they practice, rather than what they practice.
I think it is probably unlikely that I could follow someone else's path to artistry, though I would be curious about artists I admire too.Last edited by Jonzo; 05-31-2015 at 07:04 PM.
-
At the risk of sounding like I'm trying to be combative here ... who is that person? The one who is highly fluent with minimal practice? Also ... competency is achieved before artistry but if you don't have a concept of what you want to sound like or what you want to do with your technique then how do you decide what to practice? You're arguing with various members about whether or not "learning tunes" qualifies as practice - do you want to play like Holdsworth or do you want to play like Wes? Makes a difference. We're talking about efficiency of practice here - so is emulating the guy with the most efficient practice routine, then later realizing that you don't like his playing and don't have much interest in applying what he does all the time really the most efficient route? Seems like it might be conducive to wasting time.I see your point, but I would still be curious about how anyone who is highly fluent got there with minimal practice. Competency has to be achieved before artistry.
Why do you assume that technique and artistry are two separate things? Don't the artistic choices a person makes influence what they pursue technically? Doesn't their technical facility influence what types of artistic choices they're able to make?I think it is probably unlikely that I could follow someone else's path to artistry, though I would be curious about artists I admire too.
I do like the scientific approach but it's also important that you're talking about music which is inherently subjective. Sometimes trying to control all the conditions doesn't really produce the most effective experiment.
-
The classical guitarist John Williams claimed that he never practiced more than 30 minutes a day as a child, even though he started young. He's indisputably a master.
According to him, he practiced only under the direction of his father (also a great classical guitarist) and was never allowed to make a mistake. So under total guidance he didn't need as much "time", because he was getting perfect repetitions and assistance every time.
This used to be the way that great singers were trained. They were only allowed to sing with their instructor present.
I think that's probably your best bet. The only downside is that I think it's the path to learning a particular style or skill well. The stuff about learning to create your own sound is so ephemeral.
Charlie Parker claimed to have practiced for 15 hours a day for several years while developing bebop.
Pat Metheny says he used to fall asleep while practicing because he couldn't get himself to put the guitar down.
If you're aims are not as lofty, you probably don't need that much time. I think the biggest issue with mastering guitar is figuring out what path to pursue that actually freakin' works. 90% of the instructional materials have fingering systems that no one actually uses effectively at fast tempos, and almost no one ever explains how to properly use a plectrum. I know I've wasted a huge amount of time on systems for picking and fingering that just don't work and have low ceilings.
-
I think technique and artistry can be developed concurrently, but you will not be an artist before you are competent. We discuss technique building independent of artistry all of the time here. Perhaps you are being too controlling in your concern with emulating your artistic heroes. You will never be them. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
Dabbling in too many things all at once without getting good at any of them is the meaning behind that quote. Singing solos does not take up much of my time. Most of my practice time is spent on transferring that to guitar by learning new tunes (one at a time) and polishing up on ones I know. Originally Posted by pushkar000
Last edited by smokinguit; 05-31-2015 at 07:16 PM.
-
Ralph Towner never even played guitar before he was 18. Shortly thereafter he was playing with Weather Report. But his concept was clear, his time on the instrument was focused and he had the theoretical background he got from playing piano (really well). He did NOT spend tons of time transcribing other people's bebop solos and shedding Pat Martino arpeggios. So in the end, he had an idea of what he needed, he heard it and made it his own. It was not important to him to play like a horn player so what he ended up with was something wholly unique and new. Originally Posted by Jonzo
Nobody tells you what you need to be at the end of it all, but if you believe others who tell you what you must do, then you'll need to judge your results, the time put in and what you learn, by THOSE standards.
If you want to do something new, and you don't believe your way is what everyone else seems convinced is the way, if you really see your own way then by all means, don't be distracted and derailed by other people's advice and expectations. I know somebody who doesn't and didn't transcribe and he has always been careful never to over practice. And he's done just fine for himself. He did it by his own standard.
David
-
I've already given the best example I can think of (albeit non-guitar), i.e. Chet Baker. Not sure I'd recommend him as a role-model to anyone though! Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
You are getting into some dicey territory bringing singers into this. Originally Posted by ecj
But they are a pretty good example of musicians who did not start young. Children's choirs aside, it was pretty common in classical music to wait until after puberty to start training, for fear of damaging the voice, and the practice was very light until the voice had matured.
That doesn't mean they were not receiving other types of musical training.
-
You missed the point of what I was saying ... Originally Posted by Jonzo
You have to think a little critically about it. Not - oh John Coltrane worked on such and such and did this and that so that's what I'll do to. Not - oh John Coltrane learned a bunch of Indian music, and African music, and spirituals and Black Church music, and bebop so I'll learn those too.
But rather -- John Coltrane was extremely accommodating of other music. He incorporate dozens of disparate styles both related and unrelated to jazz and came out with his own thing. How did he do that? Did he incorporate any of that Indian music into his composition? His improvisations? He did on both counts. How so? How did he bring this stuff into the his own music and into the jazz language?
By asking myself those questions I can then turn in on myself and say -- well -- I'm not really into Indian music but maybe I should take a look at that Bluegrass stuff I like to listen to -- maybe learning that and listening to it wasn't "inefficient" after all. How can I take all that classical guitar I used to play and do something with it? I'm super into 90s alt rock right now -- anything I could do with that?
What do you hope to get out of your quest for the player with the most efficient practice routine? A quicker route to his version of competence? Perhaps you're being being to controlling in your definition of how one comes upon and applies their technique.
-
My bigger point was about knowing exactly what to do. That's the big issue. Originally Posted by Jonzo
The huge time sink in learning guitar is that there are so few people who can actually give you a detailed explanation of what you need to do to get good.
-
Still you seem concerned with the emulation of your heroes to the exclusion of other useful information. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
You need to think creatively about emulating efficient learners who you do not necessarily want to sound like. You have to think critically about how they practice and adapt it to your artistic goals. Just like you don't copy your artistic heroes, don't copy every detail of what efficient learners do. Apply their learning techniques to reach your own artistic goals faster.
Take the concept of fluency misperceptions that I referenced early in the thread. Isn't it adaptable to any artistic pursuit?
One of my sons has really gotten into my old 90s alt rock stuff. It has been fun hearing it come out in his jazz playing. It is going to be interesting to see how this whole instant access to all genres via Spotify thing influences the next generation.Last edited by Jonzo; 05-31-2015 at 07:59 PM.
-
Do you think it is safe to assume that people who got good with minimum practice would be a good resource for this information, assuming they are articulate? Originally Posted by ecj
Last edited by Jonzo; 05-31-2015 at 07:54 PM.
-
My experience has been that the most talented players - players who got very good very quickly - are often the worst resources for information. Most of the really gifted players that I've taken lessons from and played with picked a lot of stuff up "naturally" or "instinctively", and can't really tell you how they did it or what to do to be able to do what they do. Originally Posted by Jonzo
And not only can they not communicate it, but it might not help to study their path because they may never have actually had to practice something that you or I would have to spend hundreds of hours on.
For example, some people can just play freaking fast. No idea why. Some people pick up on those physical skills super fast, and they never have to figure out the fundamentals. If you ask them how to pick fast, they can't tell you (I know because I've asked), and if you study what they did in their own personal practice, you'll find that they never even thought about it.
Same thing with ear. There are some guys who can just instantly remember something they heard on a record, whereas you or I might just remember a vague impression of it. They can sing back parts with accurate pitches, where I might only know that the shape of the line was something like this or that and miss all the details.
See what I mean?
-
Not really - I just choose who I want to emulate by different criteria than you. It's impossible to know how much someone really practiced (everyone's definition of practice is different, everyone's practice is spread out over different amounts of time, people have different natural skills, different interests, practice different things with different goals) so it's impossible to know who's efficient practice to emulate. I do, however, know exactly who I like so I can make sure I'm emulating the right people all the time. Pretty efficient eh?Still you seem concerned with the emulation of your heroes to the exclusion of other useful information.
You're right ... so let's go with what I said about Pat Martino being on the top of my "fluent" list. Ask him about practicing and I get a big thing about minorizations, and creative force, and limited functionality triad substitution ratios (okay so I made that last one up but you get the point) and by many accounts he was very much a young upstart, hot-shot, 17 year-old prodigy who played by ear and learned on the bandstand in Harlem and codified the whole theory thing later. Joe Pass would always say "I never play anything hard" - that was one part joke and one part philosophy about how he liked to have lots of uses for simple things instead of learning lots of complex stuff but he was notoriously vague and had a great deal of trouble articulating anything as a teacher. So is it really a good idea to go around and try and figure out someone's practice routine? They might not even be truthful or straightforward about what they worked on (not always by design and certainly never for any malicious reason but still ...).You need to think creatively about emulating efficient learners who you do not necessarily want to sound like. You have to think critically about how they practice and adapt it to your artistic goals.
Yes it is ... but did you get that from emulating a player's routine or from reading studies about the way the brain works? I've read those same studies. That's not really the same thing as trying to emulate the pros who've practiced the least. That's studying up on the brain so you can make your practice more efficient. An absolutely worthwhile pursuit but - like I said - not really the same.Take the concept of fluency misperceptions that I referenced early in the thread. Isn't it adaptable to any artistic pursuit?
-
Well, I have seen a lot of teachers who are exactly as you describe, in terms of being talented but not articulate. But I have no idea about how efficiently they got there. There are some who probably started very young. Originally Posted by ecj
But it also seems that you believe that there is a more efficient path for most people to take, and I must assume that some pros have taken it.
-
Effectiveness of learning can be at odds with "ease" of learning.
Let me relate about my law school experience. In law school, the professor does not say "This is the law of contracts, and it consists of x,y, and z". You read a bunch of cases which discuss fact patterns and discuss the rule of decision. The next day the professor would quiz the class, you would be put on the spot, and he would challenge you...explain that Mr./Ms. so and so...now change the facts slightly...called "hypos"---short for hypotheticals...is the result the same?...why?, and should it be?...and if this is so, then what about this situation?...one did not learn doctrine...one learned to ask the right questions....the whole process is called "learning to think like a lawyer". The pt. was not to learn concrete points of law, but the habits of mind that would enable you to learn, and master any area of law you might encounter in the future. Especially in the 1st semester, students were terrified...am I really learning this?...what am I supposed to be learning?....how well do I understand this?...then the 1st exams came, and you found out....most did OK...some got demoralized...after all, they'd been A students their entire lives, but believe me, an A at Harvard Law School was a very rare creature indeed. (You learned intellectual self-sufficiency, because your adversary is sure as hell not going to educate you, though he may "school you" if you don't know your stuff.)
There were commercially prepared outlines which set out the subject matter of some of the drier courses. But the better students rarely used them...instead you prepared your own outlines...which might end up looking like the commercially prepared version, but in the process of constructing it, you were forced to learn it and analyze what you were doing....reading it, was almost useless, I found, if you didn't do it yourself....doing your own was 6X more work, but exponentially more effective....as far as deep learning. You came out of law school with some hard knowledge, but what you really learned was how to go about teaching yourself stuff
So....is this analogous to learning music, the guitar, and improvisation?....I think so....how many books are there which show fingering patterns?...really you can construct your own once you know the structure of a scale, and the names of the notes on the fingerboard...shouldn't we know the entire fingerboard....and not have to fall back on patterns which are a shorthand, and shortcut....and may not work in all situations if you don't know the entire fingerbd. Jack Z. has posted a drill which has you play through various stuff/patterns all over the fingerbd....if you can't do it fluently...you don't know the fingerbd, acc'd to Jack Z. ...and he is right. ....So we need to know the fingerbd....Wes. M. said the same thing. You need to OWN these...find B flat ballads and play them all over the bd., same for E flat ballads, there are a ton of them....do this for a month...you should know the common fingering patterns pretty well...weak on G flat--time to work on Round Midnight...whatever it takes the particular individual to learn them...I am a "bottoms up" learner....I think I learned a minmaj 7 chord at some pt....but when I heard Harlem Nocturne, I really internalized it....want to study enclosures...they are all over the place in bebop stuff...Night in Tunisia--10th bar---then figure out why it works there...then make up your own. (Some people can do this by ear only...but reading helps, as a skill)
That covers finding the notes...then you have to understand why you're trying to play something....personally, I'll work on a chord sequence or progression...or pattern...and it will often call up some association...to me the 7th mode of the major scale reminds me a lot of "Birdland" by Weather Report...a Maj 7 arpeggio is the opening phrase of "I Can't Get Started" ("I've been around the world in a plane...etc.)....a Maj 6th arpeggio a Benny Goodman tune ...(Airmail Special, I think)...this is why working on tunes is helpful...you know that they sound like....and you learn what it takes to make music.
You want to work on cadential resolutions...get backing tracks and work on them, or better yet, find tunes which use them prominently...if you can combine this with chord melody stuff, then that is an added bonus....it gives you context.
I've found that working on Conti's Precision Technique exercises is very helpful...I can now play Scrapple from the Apple about 3x faster, and more fluidly than I could before...one of the exercises "lays out" very close to the 1st part of that tune...
Law professors use to say the law is a "seamless web"...in a way the same thing is true with music...even the most mundane exercise is probably helping you in a way that you're not aware of.... I've listened to a lot of jazz in my life, and I can hear things going on...without necessarily being able to explain it, or execute it on the guitar...but as you go on...you learn more and more....and you learn the context or theoretical name for something you really knew already.
Also, part of playing an instrument is pure muscle technique...this can be developed but patience is needed...I think this can be indeed worked on without conscious attention to what you're doing...sometimes it helps to do this....most sports people think 21 days worth of repetitions are needed to ingrain any sporting movement...probably the same is true with an instrument...I had a golf instructor who said in golf, a year is a short time, to change/build a swing....two years will build a solid foundation...and probably five years to get really good...all the while working on other stuff as well (short game, etc.)....music is more challenging--it's like stepping onto a different course every time out, as the song changes.
Finally, to make explicit what is implicit above, listening closely and relating it back to what you're trying to learn is crucial....through transcription...ear training, lick study....working on tunes that you have heard or can access....
The more and more I think about this process, the more I think "efficiency" is a misplaced concept...half the time you're not really aware of all the stuff you're really taking in....phrasing, etc......You can learn this stuff effectively, or you can learn it fast, or more likely, you will learn it half-fast.
-
hardly practiced or played by ear? i always heard it was the latter. Originally Posted by grahambop
anyway Jonzo appears to be looking for a daily time limit constraint for his ideal method. what if Chet practiced "by ear" 8 hours per day when he was "gettin it together"? then poor old Chet wouldn't pass Jonzo's standards test.
-
quantification helps. what do you mean by minimal? 1 hour per day? 2 hours per day? Originally Posted by Jonzo
you don't have to answer that you don't mean 12, we got that.
Reply With Quote
2 new & excellent Jazz Comping Truefire...
Yesterday, 10:22 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions