Emulate the pros who have practiced the least.

[fumblefingers]

from a macro perspective, and for serious musicians, i always preach:

1. Technique
2. Repertoire
3. Ensemble work
4. Improv study/practice
5. Reading

Devote as much time per day as each requires, in order for you to make significant progress every few months (kind of like a semester).

This will require more time per day for some than it will others, and the amount that any individual topic requires will change over time for each player.

If you can reach high goals (like... successful band leader and player) by doing this in less than 4 hours per day, then you da man!

cheers.

[ecj]

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.

Some of them, but not all. Music performance has a big athletic component, and there are some people who are just more talented and coordinated than others.

There are also people who are born with serious "ear skills". If you've ever met and played with someone like that, you know what I mean. Some people can just parrot back anything they hear with crazy facility. I guess it's possible they slowly developed it as a kid through some organic process, but I don't know that there's much to learn from talking to them about it.

No one that I've met who has those skills at a very high level ever specifically focused on developing them. I've found some resources that are helping me get better at it from the classical sphere, but I don't know that there's much to learn from looking at the path of people who are naturally skilled at it.

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.

I think the most efficient path is to be really talented, dedicated, and have a clear pedagogy provided to you by a learned source who regularly observes you.

For those of us who lack the first part, the second two can get you a long way.

For people who lack the third (is this the boat you're in?) your best bet is to look around for a good teacher or teaching source and embrace it whole hog.

I really think you have this thing backwards. I think you learn more from talking to people who had to struggle to develop their skills. It's one of those things where if you have to ask you should already know that you're not in the "talented" pool, and then you need to figure out what you can do to develop skills to make up for your lack of talent.

That's where most of us are on this forum.

[Jonzo]

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?

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 ...).

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.

I suppose you can argue that nothing other than your own existence is truly knowable. Yet you do not hold your artistic models up to the same standard. Who REALLY knows how your heroes became great? Since you can't really know, don't try to emulate them.

For practical purposes, there are many musicians who are very structured, and who have a very good idea of how much they have practiced. Recognizing that, the rest of what you have to say falls apart.

Yes, I sited studies about methods, but they are also observable in the behavior of efficient learners. Why would you choose to ignore such players?

Are you really hanging your hat on the argument that you have nothing to learn from people who became fluent much more rapidly than the vast majority of their peers?

You are too focused on practice routines, rather than principles. Sound principles will allow you to achieve your artistic goals more rapidly.

[pamosmusic]

I'm just saying that the artistic principles guide the technical decisions. At this point were arguing about the chicken and the egg. This is an interesting thread. Well played!

[Jonzo]

I really think you have this thing backwards. I think you learn more from talking to people who had to struggle to develop their skills. It's one of those things where if you have to ask you should already know that you're not in the "talented" pool, and then you need to figure out what you can do to develop skills to make up for your lack of talent.

That's where most of us are on this forum.

Perhaps you're right. My thinking was that, because of the difficulty of becoming a pro, they are probably all talented. Whereas there would be wider variation among the rest of us. So, when comparing methods you start with "all things being equal". I assumed that the top 1% of players are pretty equal in the talent department, so those who practice the least would be instructive to analyze for their methods. But maybe they are so freakishly different from us as to be irrelevant. Most of them also put in a freakish amount of practice time too, so I am still curious about those who don't.

I still would be interested in hearing from people who know super efficient learners, or are one themselves.

[paulkogut]

For what it's worth, I had a few lessons with Pat Martino in the mid-80's. I remember asking him about picking chops, because it was Pat Martino and why wouldn't you ask that. He paused for a minute, then said "I've had this level of picking chops since I was 12 years old. What do I know about developing picking chops, I'm the last person in the world you should be asking......"


PK

[mr. beaumont]

I don;t agree. There are plenty of people who can give you detailed explanations. An internet forum isn't an efficient place to get such information as the signal-to-noise ratio is so low. But, for example, it is easy to schedule lessons with great players if you go to a decent size city and plan ahead. I've done it, and made important progress that way.


And in my experience, the suggestion that some large majority of great players can't explain/teach is largely fiction. Most are just not motivated to teach at an elementary level, but are happy to teach more advanced students, especially those who "get it."

ecj, I know you know this, but to get to the OP's point, the goal of becoming a creative improvising musician isn't an engineering problem that has some most efficient algorithm. Perhaps in classical music training, for which many steps have been formalized, there are "cradle-to-virtuoso" methods, but even there there are competing approaches. Jazz by its nature cannot be formalized in more than a superficial way, and the farther along you get the more you see that.

Yeah...i guess I think it's so simple.

You learn the fundamentals, apply them to the repertoire, you play with people better than you, lather, rinse, repeat a few hundred to few thousand times. That's the secret--it takes a lot of work.

Do some folks get there faster? Of course, we're all different.

[mr. beaumont]

That's about the fifth or soxth time I've heard that about Pat as a teacher...no secrets divulged, just enough to...i dunno...piss students off and motivate then to work harder on their own?

[MarkRhodes]

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.

That's a very good book. I learned a lot from it.

[Jonzo]

And in my experience, the suggestion that some large majority of great players can't explain/teach is largely fiction.

I have gotten to see a lot of teaching examples over the years, with my kids changing teachers and going to music camps. I have seen at least 30 professionals try to teach a class. A lot of them really struggled. Generally it is like ECJ says: the self taught have the hardest time. The college educated ones have the easiest time. I assume it is because at some point they had a pedagogy class, or they have had a lot of teachers to draw from. It makes sense that someone who was never taught would not automatically have teaching skills.

There are exceptions, of course.

[henryrobinett]

There's a video interview with Michael Brecker where he out and out says whenever he hears some great musician claim that they never practice he automatically says bullshit. He never believed them. "It's total bullshit." Brecker was gifted, very gifted and he practiced his ass off his entire life.

My credo is there are no short cuts. Well there IS one shortcut that beats all others. Practice. That's the best shortcut there is.

[Jonzo]

That's about the fifth or soxth time I've heard that about Pat as a teacher...no secrets divulged, just enough to...i dunno...piss students off and motivate then to work harder on their own?

My wife and I were just talking about how my son's bass teacher is a little secretive. He is an old school bebop guy, in his 70s. If you ask about what skills should be learned by the end of the year, he won't go there.

Does that come out of the Jazz tradition? I seem to recall stories about a trumpet player (Armstrong?) using a handkerchief to hide his fingers, so no one could steel from him.

I think sometimes it also comes from insecurity over lacking a formal education. Keeping information to yourself gives you power. Sometimes very talented people are still insecure.

You do have to hand it to Martino though for coming right out and saying, "I am not the person to ask about picking." You don't really get less secretive, or more secure, than that.

On the other hand, my other son's teacher refused to take payment because they didn't play music during the lesson. They just talked about long term goals, and musicianship, and good practice principles. I emailed the teacher and told him "You should have taken the check. That was the most valuable lesson he has ever had."

[Jonzo]

I know this is the conventional wisdom, but let me offer my anecdote which I believe reflects the norm. I've dedicated my life to my academic field, and have spent countless hours with students, from university freshman to PhD students.
I have enough experience to fairly quickly and accurately assess when a student either just doesn't have the ability or the work ethic to learn a subject, and although I never tell them, at some point it becomes a waste of my time to try to teach someone who cannot be taught and I stop trying to reach them. From a weak/beginner student's point of view, especially one who believes that their learning is the responsibility of their teacher rather than themselves, I probably come off as a lousy teacher. To the eager, motivated, talented, hard working, I typically come off as a good teacher. To my PhD students, I know accurately how to get them to where they need to be as fast as their talent allows, and most of then tell me I'm a good teacher. Almost all my colleagues have the same experience as me. Maybe we all suck, but I'd like to think not.

Now I'm talking about teaching adults here. Teaching children is something else, as immaturity and attention span issues can complicate the process.

I think when most people think about what makes a good teacher they are mainly concerned with how they organize and then communicate information. With young kids there are also behavior management skills. Some might say a great teacher is a good teacher who engages and inspires. Whether you have these skills or not has nothing to do with your students. But if you have the ability to chose who you will and will not teach, more power to you.

So when I am talking about the strong and weak teachers I have seen, it is mostly about whether they organized their information well and communicated it clearly.

[ecj]

Perhaps you're right. My thinking was that, because of the difficulty of becoming a pro, they are probably all talented. Whereas there would be wider variation among the rest of us. So, when comparing methods you start with "all things being equal". I assumed that the top 1% of players are pretty equal in the talent department, so those who practice the least would be instructive to analyze for their methods. But maybe they are so freakishly different from us as to be irrelevant. Most of them also put in a freakish amount of practice time too, so I am still curious about those who don't.

I still would be interested in hearing from people who know super efficient learners, or are one themselves.

I don't think there's anything wrong with looking into it, I'd just be surprised if you find anything helpful. It's like the Pat Martino thing.

I had a guitar teacher who was an amazing picker. Chops for days. At the time, my picking was terrible, and I really wanted to get better. I watched him, asked him tons of questions, tried to figure it out. He literally could not explain at all what he was doing, and he'd had chops from close to day one that he started playing. He wanted to help me, he just couldn't figure out what my problem was.

My brother is kind of like this. He's a sax player and has never had technical limits. He can play along with tons of Coltrane solos. He never even thought about technique, and he doesn't really know how to help guys that struggle on sax.

Years later, now that my picking is much better, I can teach people what I'm doing in about 30 minutes. It's because I sucked so badly at first, and I had to figure it out step-by-step.

I have other talents. Sometimes I think the path to getting better is about figuring out where you should spend your time based on what your natural strengths are. I wanted my picking to get to adequate, and I continued to work on it, but I've put a lot more time into being able to sing and play good songs. I'd say I've spent about 20x as much effort learning chord/mel arrangements and working on my voice as I have on my picking. Gets me way more gigs than any of my speed-freak guitarist friends.

[MarkRhodes]

I think I know why this conversation proves so frustrating for some of us.

It is one thing to compare methods and see which one proves most effective in teaching beginning students. It is something else again to think an experienced player can compare the results achieved by others using different methods and then decide which method he should adopt. Only a beginner can do that; we are not beginners.

Imagine two different school systems that take different approaches to the teaching of reading. If the students in school A outperform the students in school B---all other things being equal, which of course is a big "if"---then the method used in school A might be better than the method taught in school B. Perhaps school B should adopt school A's method of teaching reading. (Of course, if school A and school B both turn out "A" readers and "B" readers and "C" readers in roughly the same proportion---again, all other things being equal---then perhaps neither method is clearly better than the other.)

But here's the thing: the students who learned in school B cannot say, "O, wait, method A is better, so I'm going to start over with that." There is no starting over. They aren't beginning readers anymore. So if a student from school B supplements his current work with some things about reading from school A and is much helped, his results will now be the results of using methods A and B (with B coming first).


Then there's talent. Some guys got further starting from Mickey Baker's old book--which is not a graded method book as this term is now understood--than others will get with the method books of Mel Bay or William Leavitt. (No knock on those books. Some pros learned from them too.) Then there are first-rate players such as Jimmy Bruno (also an effective teacher) who has claimed he never learned anything from a book. Then of course there are people who learned some things from Mickey Baker, other things from Mel Bay, still other things from Jimmy Bruno, and still other other things from records, friends, and just fooling around on the instrument. If you asked such people what method they used they might say they didn't know they had a method. A style and sound, maybe, but not some singular method.

[fumblefingers]

i'm sorry that I don't find it so confusing, but then i'm formally educated. i'm no genius mind you, i just don't think it's so hard to map out.

i think that improvisation is at the root of the conundrum here. take that away, and the discussion is relatively straightforward.

you don't hear classical musicians belly aching like this. their path is relatively clear. they learn their instrument, theory and harmony, ensemble play, conducting, counterpoint and composition, music history & literature, acoustic science.

yes, they have to work very hard. they don't have to worry about being graded as competent improvisers in jazz, however.

so for the jazz hobbyist, one can look at the curriculum of the best collegiate jazz studies programs and construct a "college light" for themselves, given their time/life constraints. or one can learn a lot from books or famous player courses. going from books can be tough if the student has to be their own teacher though. that path is fraught with the risk of failure.

for any jazz student studying improv - improvisation can be taught. improvisation is taught. the typical way to learn a heady topic is to analyze it, break it down, and build a progressive course of instruction to navigate through it. this has been done, and is still being done. one can complete such a course of study "successfully" however, and still fail to be a compelling improviser when it's time to take a solo. they may just have to keep working, or they may never get there. that's just the way it is.

[pamosmusic]

GThat's not cut and dry either. There's some debate about whether or not college is the best place for teaching jazz (Spike Wilner mentions that in the article from some days back)... Not saying one way or another but just that it's not universally agreed to that a university is a great training ground for jazz.

also bear in mind that I say that as a college graduate w a music degree. So take it for what it's worth.

[grahambop]

I've always assumed the ultimate training ground is on stage.

[fep]

From my experience with professional musicians, the commonality that struck me among the best is they all know tons of songs.

So, spend a year getting some fluency with chords, scales and arps and applying that to songs... after that spend almost all your time working on and playing songs, lots of songs, hundreds. Imo, that's the quickest way to get good.

[goldenwave77]

I have gotten to see a lot of teaching examples over the years, with my kids changing teachers and going to music camps. I have seen at least 30 professionals try to teach a class. A lot of them really struggled. Generally it is like ECJ says: the self taught have the hardest time. The college educated ones have the easiest time. I assume it is because at some point they had a pedagogy class, or they have had a lot of teachers to draw from. It makes sense that someone who was never taught would not automatically have teaching skills.

There are exceptions, of course.

I don't think the issue is pedagogical technique and elegant exposition of material. The difficulty in "teaching music" goes beyond that.


"Teaching" music is different than teaching other things. Music is a matter of hearing, active learning that lights up the neural pathways in your brain, then training yourself, physically, to execute ideas on an instrument. It is more akin, in a lot of ways, to learning sporting techniques than to learning (and applying) language-based ideas, e.g. what did John Locke think about the nature of man...or what did the Romantic Poets think about nature. These latter things are much more easily "learned" and understood.

I have a golf instructor who played with Freddie Couples at Univ. of Houston. He has turned out 80 or 90 NCAA Div. I golfers, and his son is playing at the Junior Masters. Very successful PGA pros have come to him for "swing fixes/analysis", and he has turned them around. He can analyze someone's golf swing, in real time, by looking at (at most) three swings, and figure it out, and then will show you on videotape. When he teaches people, he spends 4-5 days full time just working on grip, setup, posture, and the simplest rudiments of some swing concepts. He then has you do abbreviated swings (about a half-swing) with a sand wedge to learn "body connection" and advises you to spend at least 6 mos. doing nothing but this....assuming you practice with full attention to your intention...with checkups along the way...you can gradually extend the 1/2 swing, or the "9 to 3" swing, as he calls it, into a fuller motion...in about 2 years, if you're diligent, you'll have something to work with for the rest of your life. (When I saw him, he found some bad habits...and told me to stop hitting balls, to put the club away, and to work in front of a mirror for about a month to correct some bad habits I'd picked up...that would prevent me from ever swinging up to my full potential....it worked.) He thinks a "lesson a week" is gross overkill...to work on full swing stuff...but if you mix in short game stuff (putting/chipping, etc.) that is sufficiently different to perhaps warrant that kind of lesson immersion....so with music, we can (and should) mix it up...to vary our routine...and it is all a seamless web, anyway...maybe the smartest thing Jim Hall did was compose a string quartet---his improvisations are intelligent---though Sonny Rollins is also amazing in his improvisational clarity (and design)--and I don't think he had much in the way of formal schooling, though he hung with a lot of high-powered people, which maybe more valuable.

When I worked with Peter Mazza, he'd give me stuff to work on...and I'd go off for a while, and return when I think I'd worked it into my playing. I've learned the rudiments of chord melody from Conti's materials, and the rudiments of reharmonization from his book/video...it is still up to me...to "get the grips under my fingers" and to work through the concepts on reharm. so that they BECOME MINE...nobody can do this for me....or short circuit it...or tell it to me...and have it stick. The forum member here who says "Time on the instrument" speaks a profound truth, as does Conti who says "play your axe...that's where the action is...and where all the important progress/discoveries are made..." Again, back to my earlier post, in law school, it was better to do your own outlines by reading through 3 months of cases, and the associated statutes...spending the time to take them apart in your own mind...but you learned the stuff much, much better than reading an already prepared summary that someone else did. Bach copied over manuscripts....why?....he had an "original" to copy from....by copying them, he turned over in his own mind, and for himself, what was already before him...."efficient"---in one sense, no, but effective, yes...I believe.

A dance teacher can't teach you to move...he can show you steps...maybe get you moving....hopefully you "get the groove and can them make the move"...but it still is up to the dance student to "teach their own body" (and mind) how to dance.

[fep]

I have a golf instructor who played with Freddie Couples at Univ. of Houston. He has turned out 80 or 90 NCAA Div. I golfers, and his son is playing at the Junior Masters. Very successful PGA pros have come to him for "swing fixes/analysis", and he has turned them around. He can analyze someone's golf swing, in real time, by looking at (at most) three swings, and figure it out, and then will show you on videotape. When he teaches people, he spends 4-5 days full time just working on grip, setup, posture, and the simplest rudiments of some swing concepts. He then has you do abbreviated swings (about a half-swing) with a sand wedge to learn "body connection" and advises you to spend at least 6 mos. doing nothing but this....assuming you practice with full attention to your intention...with checkups along the way...you can gradually extend the 1/2 swing, or the "9 to 3" swing, as he calls it, into a fuller motion...in about 2 years, if you're diligent, you'll have something to work with for the rest of your life. (When I saw him, he found some bad habits...and told me to stop hitting balls, to put the club away, and to work in front of a mirror for about a month to correct some bad habits I'd picked up...that would prevent me from ever swinging up to my full potential....it worked.) He thinks a "lesson a week" is gross overkill...to work on full swing stuff...but if you mix in short game stuff (putting/chipping, etc.) that is sufficiently different to perhaps warrant that kind of lesson immersion....so with music, we can (and should) mix it up...to vary our routine...and it is all a seamless web, anyway...maybe the smartest thing Jim Hall did was compose a string quartet---his improvisations are intelligent---though Sonny Rollins is also amazing in his improvisational clarity (and design)--and I don't think he had much in the way of formal schooling, though he hung with a lot of high-powered people, which maybe more valuable.

Taking that kind of approach for some might not be appropriate whether it be learning to play jazz or play golf. In the case of golf, what are you going to do, not actually play golf for a year and just practice 1/4 and 1/2 swings? This would be analogous to just practicing guitar technique for a year without playing any songs.

Another approach to teaching one golf is finding a priority piece that is going to help the student the most in the short run. For example, all pros keep their head relatively steady many amatures don't. An instructor might work on that first and the student could see good short term improvement while all along being able to continue playing rounds of golf.

fumble fingers early in this thread wrote:

Chris Standring for one, helps people articulate their goals along lines similar to the following:

a. I want to be a world class, master musician, recording artist
b. I want to be good enough to be a gigging pro
c. I want to be able to play for my friends and family
d. I want to play well enough to enjoy a little music making at home

At this point in my life, being average at jazz at best and being 57 years old, my goals are definitely 'C. and D.' from that list above. There is no way I want an instructor to build my technique and theory from the ground up. Just teach me some a few cool devices over a couple of cool tunes and I'm happy.

[christianm77]

I love these kinds of threads.

I think in general with my practice I've (recently at least) been trying to cultivate flexibility and on the gig skills. I feel that's what most of the experienced and very talented players I have met have - a great ear, in particular. They seem to know 8,000,000 tunes and be able to wing those they don't brilliantly.

For me it's a matter of what takes least time, for example - spend 6 months working on ear training so that I can play what I hear right away. Then, it's a matter of training musical memory and learning to sing songs, solos etc. If you can put it on the guitar instantly, you will never have to memorise any fingerings for things.

I really think this is the way the best players work. I might never get to that level, but it will certainly improve my playing and experience of music.

[goldenwave77]

Taking that kind of approach for some might not be appropriate whether it be learning to play jazz or play golf. In the case of golf, what are you going to do, not actually play golf for a year and just practice 1/4 and 1/2 swings? This would be analogous to just practicing guitar technique for a year without playing any songs.

Another approach to teaching one golf is finding a priority piece that is going to help the student the most in the short run. For example, all pros keep their head relatively steady many amatures don't. An instructor might work on that first and the student could see good short term improvement while all along being able to continue playing rounds of golf.

fumble fingers early in this thread wrote:



At this point in my life, being average at jazz at best and being 57 years old, my goals are definitely 'C. and D.' from that list above. There is no way I want an instructor to build my technique and theory from the ground up. Just teach me some a few cool devices over a couple of cool tunes and I'm happy.

Actually, as far as working on "9 to 3" swings---half-swings, I did exactly that...for about 4 mos., instead of 6 mos., because I had some foundational stuff, I could build on, at age 54. The alternative was shooting 95-100 for the rest of my life----hacking around---a waste of time in other words. I would have walked away from the game before continuing that. When I was younger, I was between 81 and 90 almost all the time, without no short game to speak of...but I'm not as flexible as I once was, and the swing style taught to me then, doesn't agree with my bad back ("reverse C position---and the teeter totter weight transfer, for you golfers). And even hitting half shots is close to a real golf experience..so it was satisfying, and gave me something I can play with for the next fifteen years. (Actually keeping your head still is overrated...most modern style swings of the allow the head to move along with the torso...modern style golf swing emphasizes body rotation and hips and torso...actually a descendant of Hogan's theories, ironically,--70's style older swings kept the head down with pronounced lateral slide and leg drive, with an attendant reverse C movement...e.g., Nicklaus, J. Miller....all have bad backs...basically don't play anymore)

I've heard your playing, and you play well, but I seem to recall that you had some formal instruction at some point...my point is ....there are no shortcuts.....you were running the "Introduction to Jazz Guitar Soloing" group....to me....that IS the equivalent of doing "9 to 3 " drills---arpeggios in strict position....straight 8th notes...no passing notes (I know later on...they allow chromatics)...one can still work on tunes along with doing the "connecting game"---but somehow or another a foundation must be laid

I too am middle-aged, and not about to become a pro...I can play tunes for friends, family and myself....I guess I see jazz tunes, broadly speaking, as major key stuff, minor key stuff, and maybe modally "modern" stuff...which I don't play or listen to much, anyway....most through composed stuff is much harder to learn, I think. 32 bar standards and blues-based tunes give me more than enough to work on....they were enough for C. Parker. The minor-based and dominant altered stuff is where there is a lot of room for different approaches....and I think tougher to learn because people are all over the place in how they play it.

The OP was also asking, more generally, about "efficiency" in learning...I think it is easier to learn something thoroughly without gaps, then to have gaps in understanding/execution...that are a possible by-product of short-circuiting the learning process.

But you do make a good point, the path is probably, and maybe should be, different for someone younger, starting out, then someone older who is a less ambitious hobbyist-player...but if you'd asked me 2 yrs. ago about chord melody, I would have said no way I could play that...now with some work under my belt, I can do it, on a rudimentary level, and it really does help everything else....the time toiling in the vineyard, does have its rewards.

[ecj]

In the case of golf, what are you going to do, not actually play golf for a year and just practice 1/4 and 1/2 swings? This would be analogous to just practicing guitar technique for a year without playing any songs.

One thing to note is that almost all professional athletes do this. It's called the off-season.

I'm sure they play for fun, but the high-level competition is not something people engage in year round. Similarly, I'd guess a lot of musicians take time between touring and recording to work on skills and learn new stuff.

[smokinguit]

One thing to note is that almost all professional athletes do this. It's called the off-season.

I'm sure they play for fun, but the high-level competition is not something people engage in year round. Similarly, I'd guess a lot of musicians take time between touring and recording to work on skills and learn new stuff.

The two keyword FEP used is "just" and "year". I believe what he's trying to say is why would a player exclude or de-emphasize scenarios that involve actual playing situations in the practice room (songs) or course (game for golf) for an extended period. To learn the game, you have to play it just like you do on game day. If you find that you suck at the game you go back to the drawing board and fix it, then play the game again.

If the player is a professional it should be assumed he already have the fundamentals together. I have a feeling professionals zoom in on the fundamentals often for maintenance's sake, but not for too long, because they don't have to. To me there is no off-season if you want to be a top-tier professional or maintain that status if you already are.