Emulate the pros who have practiced the least.

[fumblefingers]

i will simply choose to conclude that this is not about efficiency but rather, shortcuts. the "anti-theory" approach, or "anti-academic" approach.

for that, all one has to do is just look at the history of poor jazzers who somehow managed to figure it out. of course, that's not necessary today, but if one wants to romanticize their approaches out of some sense of nostalgia, fine. just don't blame anybody else if you get lost taking a willfully ignorant path through the woods.

another obvious point, or perhaps it should be, was made by non other than Bruce Lee. he described how one has to condense their workout(s) after learning a ton of techniques. there are only so many hours in a day after all. but - that was after doing the hard work FIRST.

[jordanklemons]

Again, I don't know which guys we could look at. But I definitely agree that there are 'good' ways and 'bad' ways of learning things. As I've said, I think a lot about, and work a lot on, efficiency in my own practice time and in how I teach my students to practice.

I don't see it as lazy though. Professional bodybuilders don't create strategies for working out because they're lazy. They do it to see better results than most others can dream of.

Here's a few studies that might shed some light? At least a little???

They're not necessarily about improvisation, creativity, composition, etc....they seem to be specifically regarding muscle memory. But that's a huge piece of the puzzle. Every semester I require my new students to read this first one.

8 Things Top Practicers Do Differently | The Creativity Post



This one I just stumbled upon and am just now reading through myself.

If You?re Busy, You?re Doing Something Wrong: The Surprisingly Relaxed Lives of Elite Achievers - Study Hacks - Cal Newport

[Jonzo]

Again, I don't know which guys we could look at. But I definitely agree that there are 'good' ways and 'bad' ways of learning things. As I've said, I think a lot about, and work a lot on, efficiency in my own practice time and in how I teach my students to practice.

I don't see it as lazy though. Professional bodybuilders don't create strategies for working out because they're lazy. They do it to see better results than most others can dream of.

I thought it was obvious that I was using "lazy" as a tongue in cheek substitute for "efficient", as I use "efficient" throughout the rest of the thread.

The rest of what you are saying is sacrilege. How dare you bring research into a discussion of effective learning strategies. If it isn't what Henry already does, it is a waste of time to research.

[Vladan]

Hypothetically, in general, one have to agree, if two people of same quality and predisposition acheived the same result in different ammount of time, one was more efficient than another. By all means, there's no reason to spend more time than needed, on whatever.

It's when it comes down to practicalities that the answer is not that easy. We can not know supposed quaality of anybody. We can only judge based on the results and eventhough those results may be exactly the saame, acheived in different ammounts of time, we can not know which one was more efficient because we can not know exact qualities of "participaants".

For example: One who acheived proposed result in much shorter time may be much more taallented one, but should he have used methods of the lesser tallented one, maybe he'd acheive it even faster. Or, on the contrary ... and so on ...

[grahambop]

OK trying to give this some kind of constructive answer. There must be some key skills/knowledge that any good player must have mastered. So I would try to boil those down to essentials and focus your time on those. Especially if like me, you don't have a lot of spare time each day. That's one way of trying to use the time efficiently.

I would say, learn arpeggios, learn some scales (not every single one that's been invented), learn say 10 key standards inside out, and transcribe 2 or 3 useful solos. I reckon this would get you a lot further than say, spending 100 hours practising a gazillion scales to the exclusion of all else.

Of course I don't know what level the OP is at, so perhaps he's done all this stuff already. But it's what I would suggest to someone starting out, at any rate.

[Jonzo]

Hypothetically, in general, one have to agree, if two people of same quality and predisposition acheived the same result in different ammount of time, one was more efficient than another. By all means, there's no reason to spend more time than needed, on whatever.

It's when it comes down to practicalities that the answer is not that easy. We can not know supposed quaality of anybody. We can only judge based on the results and eventhough those results may be exactly the saame, acheived in different ammounts of time, we can not know which one was more efficient because we can not know exact qualities of "participaants".

For example: One who acheived proposed result in much shorter time may be much more taallented one, but should he have used methods of the lesser tallented one, maybe he'd acheive it even faster. Or, on the contrary ... and so on ...

You are right. It is flawed methodology when compared to a controlled, random sample. But that doesn't mean it cannot be constructive to look for similarities among successful individuals.

I did pull the old "correlation does not equal causation" bit earlier, but correlations can point out where to look for causation.

[targuit]

I think that searching for some Magical Prescription is fruitless and wrong. Clearly, working on technical mastery is the first stage. But beyond that, there is no magical formula. Learn to play what you hear effortlessly. And once you have that technical mastery, learn to hear great things. That is where the X-Factor resides.

Frankly, with the technical devices available today, achieving a high level of mastery is easier than ever! I still maintain that slowing down the tempo while maintaining the tonality is the single most important advance in the last fifty years for mastering the guitar in any style. It is important to have a sound fundamental base of knowledge and technique. And there is no substitute for time spent playing the instrument. Innate talent does not hurt one bit.

[jordanklemons]

I thought it was obvious that I was using "lazy" as a tongue in cheek substitute for "efficient", as I use "efficient" throughout the rest of the thread.

The rest of what you are saying is sacrilege. How dare you bring research into a discussion of effective learning strategies. If it isn't what Henry already does, it is a waste of time to research.

The 'lazy' comment I made was in reference to something Henry was saying regarding finding the laziest guy out there who's a pro and imitating him rather than finding the best guy out there. It's possible you used the term 'lazy' also...I came into this thread pretty late and I'm sure I missed plenty of things.

I did notice however that in the OP you didn't say let's find someone who's only good enough to get by, but seemed to be asking if there were any great players who sounded as good as any other great who felt that anything over 3 hours a day was a waste. So I assumed you weren't looking for lazy for lazy sake.

There's definitely objective things that can be looked at. At least for the technique and muscle memory stuff. As for improvisation, ear training, creativity, composition...I don't know.

I've had teachers that have helped me open my ears more in an hour than I had in the previous 20 years.

Though I have to ask...would I have been ready to hear what they were showing me in that hour had I not worked through things inefficiently for 20 years first? But then I also have to ask, if I'd met them 20 years ago and worked on my ear training their way for 2 decades, how good would my ear be now?

For instance...if you set up the key of C, you can pretty much just play random notes at the piano and I can pretty much tell you what each of them is borderline instantaneously without singing or thinking. That took me forever to accomplish. The next step was to be able to hear 2 random notes at the same time and identify both. That was really hard but I'm getting way better at it. And I'm starting to work my way into hearing and identifying 3 random notes. As well as learning to identify some really dense and specific harmonies.

Had I not spent 20 years working in scales and triads and arpeggios and learning to do interval ear training, the stuff I'm doing now would be even harder. But again, had I found out 20 years ago this stuff was learnable and worked on it for 20 years...who knows? Maybe my ear would be good enough to live up to what Charlie Banacos referred to as a 'professional level ear'....the ability to hear 6 random notes played simultaneously and know what each of them is. That's a 20 year goal for me.

But yeah...if someone could show me a way to practice it that would help me accomplish it in 5 years instead of 20, I would take it in a heartbeat. That's not being lazy. That's being smart. And I'm fortunate to have some teachers that have some very efficient ways of accomplishing things like that.

[matt.guitarteacher]

I would agree with the idea that guitar pedagogy in general is decades behind pedagogy on other instruments. Definitely true for jazz pedagogy as well. I honestly don't see any need to reinvent the wheel, and best practices are cool. There can't be 1 million best ways to do something. Can there? I tend toward the nerdy end of things as well and getting bogged down in efficiency etc.

All that being said, the more I learn, teach, and experience life, the more I tend to think that obsessing over efficiency is a waste of time and kind of "inefficient".

The problem with arguments about best practices is that they somewhat assume that all things are equal, and of course they're not. The more complex the area of study, the more things can't be simplified, quantified and boiled down so simply.

It also completely disregards our humanity and individuality. we're not robots, and you have to factor in the personality and learning/teaching styles of both the teacher and the student. People learn in vastly different ways.

Besides which, the most efficient methods of practice on paper would probably involve 99% of people quitting before mastery. You have to factor in motivation, interest, and joy in learning something. That's almost never "efficient" in terms of some long-term goal. I want to enjoy playing TODAY. the meandering, to some degree, it's kind of the point.

[matt.guitarteacher]

BTW, best practices are just a shot at doing the thing that is the most efficient for the greatest number of students. But it still may be completely inefficient for a great number of others. I believe "best practices" in teaching something are often more about the teacher's comfort than the student's learning. Most teachers, especially the good ones, teach in ways which are comfortable for themselves. There's nothing really wrong with this. The trick is to find the right teacher for your learning style.

All of that being said, probably the most "EFFICIENT" thing that one can do, is find the right teacher. The good news is that in the 21st-century it's easier than ever. You could easily take 10 or 12 excellence jazz guitar teachers for a test drive in a one year period.

Don't think about it too much. Go for visceral gut feelings. Your humanity. Just move from one to another, and then, go back to the ones that work best for you as a human being. You can't quantify such things. It's not the way that we learn to use a fork or learn to speak from listening to our mother talk or most things in life. Linear efficiency doesn't apply to most things in life.

[NSJ]

Confirmed by Bird himself in an interview with Paul Desmond --11 to 15 hours a day, every day, for many years.

But ehat hat does he know, he's just Charlie Parker. Never been online, never accessed wifi, which apparently forms the new bedrock in Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs".

[henryrobinett]

The way I look at it, I research every time I practice. My practice sessions and in between are always research. I am trying to be as efficient as I can be. I make notes on mistakes I made, and set about exercises, drills and workouts to eradicate those problem areas. What I DON'T DO is get advice from someone else. I don't read research papers. I could take lessons but it's been many years since I've done that. And I'm not interested. I know what it ha a need to know and I know how to get it into my hands.

Jazz is a very personal thing. When you play at my level it's very, very personal. I'm not interested in other people advice. I like the way I play.

[dallasblues]

There's just too many variables to consider when evaluating efficiency among creative individuals. Since all cannot be considered equal, the starting point is not the same. The same goes for the end result. Goals and expectations are different for each individual. There's just no way to measure it. How do you define efficiency? Your definition may not match the next guy and so on. Who's to say efficiency is better? Sometimes the hard, tedious, way is the better way... but not always. But most importantly...

Who cares?

[pushkar000]

The OP was about "efficient" players, and hopes to separate them from "gifted" players. Perhaps there are none. I have asked for examples a few times in the tread, and there haven't been many mentioned. I think perhaps those that have been mentioned started as children, as Henry said. My own kids aren't prodigies, and never practiced more than a half hour a day until they were in their teens, but it is amazing how quickly they can integrate new concepts and techniques into their playing now. I don't think of them as being especially efficient, or gifted, but starting early seems to have opened up that part of their brains.

I have mentioned one example on the first page - Mike Moreno.

[pamosmusic]

This whole thread is asking what the most efficient pros do, not what I think people should do.

That brings up an interesting thought I've had about usage of the word "pro" in this forum. Perhaps another thread for another time ... but think about it ... I played three or four times for money last month. Half a dozen a month MAYBE at my busiest last summer. Technically I'm a pro but I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say you're not talking about people like me. It's just an illustration of how you could clarify your question a bit. You may think it's quite clear but some of the terminology you're using is not clear. And think about the definition of efficiency. You're looking for something that can accomplish the most with the least exertion. If you're talking about a hundred yard dash you're probably looking for a cheetah ... if you're talking about a trip from NYC to Washington DC you're probably talking about a passenger train. No matter what you might think the goal IS important ... your idea of fluency might be some specific knowledge of scales and chords and a certain number of tunes in these keys and those keys and metronome markings etc etc ... mine is a musician who plays from the tradition, composes their own music, sounds original, and improvises well and interacts well with a band. The practice routine for those things (ie the most efficient route) probably will be VERY different.

[pamosmusic]

Also ... Russell Malone ... on point

https://www.facebook.com/russell.mal...2905473854574/

[henryrobinett]

The most efficient thing to do is to practice, any way you can. Playing songs, playing scales, playing rhythmic exercises, reading, transcribing. It really doesn't matter so much as it does playing long and often. I had and have my methodology which worked extremely efficiently for me. I think it's a system that would work for everybody IF they had the amount of concentration and determination required to get through the programs. But if not it wouldn't work for them. I have short cutted it for students often. It's hard. But to me it's the FASTEST MOST DIRECT WAY of getting to really master jazz and the guitar as a whole. But I know it's not for everybody. But it sure does kick ass more than anything else i know of.

But EVERYBODY does it in their own way. That's why there are so many methods.

But be organized. Meticulous. And comprehensively and consistently.

[jordanklemons]

Yes, I was being ironic. But I was pointing out the imprecision of the question. You don't want a pro who has an efficient way to practice. You want a GREAT PLAYER who has found a very efficient way to practice. Now THAT I'm down with. But the premise as stated doesn't make a lot of sense.

I didn't read your 'lazy' comment as ironic. Sort of came off more as argumentative and insulting. But you know...it is an online forum. So maybe you wrote it with a different tone than it came off.

From the OP
"There are great players who practice obsessively, and great players who say that more than three hours a day is a waste of time. Well, who are these efficient practicers, and how do they practice?"

Doesn't seem like an imprecise question to me. Nor does it seem to imply that Jonzo will settle for just some crumby player who really isn't that good.

Earlier you mentioned that you put in 2-3 hours a morning, yeah? So perhaps if that's what you put in every day and you've reached 'your level' of playing....perhaps you're one of the guys Jonzo is asking about.

[henryrobinett]

Well sorry. I like very precise communication. I don't do well with generalization. There's no WHO PRO. I don't know what hell that means. Sorry. Pro who practices the least. So what, you WANT SOMEONE WHO'S LAZY??? LOK!! Humor man. It was ironic. I even said that I know that's not what he means. It's the imprecision of language. It doesn't mean much.

[EarlBrother]

i was rehearsing with a band when the bass player walked.Leader said he'd cover guitar if i would learn bass.He set me up that day with bass guitar and amp.Figured i had a couple weeks.We played that night.I got paid as result i was a pro with no practice.Sweet.From the beginning as a guitarist for some reason i focused on the drummer we played off each other.So i got by but i stuck.

[Bluedawg]

Also ... Russell Malone ... on point

https://www.facebook.com/russell.mal...2905473854574/

Oh my ... LOL

This kind of touches on what I said early on how being "gifted" can be a detriment if it makes you lazy ...

My best guess is that gifts or talents do exist ... or maybe they are developed ... and people with these gifts and talents can understand things and develop skills better and faster than us average people


But if you become too reliant on the idea that your "gift" will get you out in front of the pack it can hurt you in the long run

Even if you do have a "gift" .. you still need the hard work to make something of it


The opposite is also true ... and I think where Russell is on to something ... if you think you can't be great because your not "gifted" then that is not a good mind set either ... I'm a firm believer in the idea that smart hard work and discipline can more than make up for not being "gifted" or "talented"

and maybe smart hard work and discipline is what brings about gifts and talent


I see the OPs question as how do we accomplish this hard work in the smartest and most efficient manor ....

And there have been some good answers .. and those articles on researching how the best musicians and chess players practice are very interesting

[Nabil B]

I'm always wondering about the efficiency of my practice, and this sometimes leads to paralysis by analysis. I always like to find the most optimal ways of doing things in general (work, cooking, cleaning the house...) and I think it's a good thing... but it has to be kept under control. Otherwise, you get nothing done. So now I'm beginning to accept the fact that some things will never be 100% optimal, and that I will have more chances of attaining my goals by doing imperfect practice than by wondering about how to achieve perfection.

The other extreme is also dangerous : just practicing for hours without any sort of plan will not necessarily get you where you want to be. So bottom line is, we have to do the "right" amount of thinking...

Looking back at all the different things I've done in order to make progress, I can clearly identify what helped me and what was a waste of time. This is what helps us be more efficient : discovering what works for us and what doesn't. This is why it is so important to get advice from several reputable (accomplished players) sources. You try different things and after experimenting with them, you determine their efficiency. In order to do that, you have to accept that there will be some "wasted time", doing things that don't help you. It's the one step forward, two steps back thing.

If I had to name the most difficult thing about playing jazz guitar, I would say that it's "knowing how to practice efficiently". Because even with the myriad of advice out there, it's still a long and difficult road for most people.

Now that I think about it, maybe the players that got good at an early age didn't necessarily achieve that thanks to talent... maybe they just somehow practiced very efficiently. Instead of taking turns and detours, getting lost on the road, they just went straight towards the destination. And when you hear these players talk about how they learned, they invariably mention learning solos from the greats.

[goldenwave77]

[QUOTE=Jonzo;536118]What is the best way to learn to play jazz?

This post has gone around and around, because the way it is posed confounds several issues. Let's come at it from the other direction---looking through the "long end of telescope", so to speak:


1. Yes, it is possible to practice stupidly, and inefficiently: If we keep practicing what we already know...then we are wasting time...I suspect you know this, but it is human nature to like what is pleasant, and to avoid the unpleasant...what we don't know, or can't do very well...I keep meaning to learn "Donna Lee" but it's so much easier to keep playing "Billie's Bounce"---I knew it years ago. Learning, and progressing, must pose consistent challenges without being "beyond realistic". Even with a tune I know automatically, can I play it everywhere?...in all 12 keys..this is not beyond me....but it is WORK

2. Keep playing automatically---just move those fingers around---don't tax your brain "pre-hearing" or whistling, or humming what you're trying to play: Man, you can do this the rest of your life and never learn anything---if you ignore "mindfulness"---there is no possibility of constructing a meaningful feedback loop--little chance of learning effectively...if pigeons are randomly rewarded for a given task, they will never learn the task posed to them...e.g. pigeons who must peck a lever will learn to do it quickly if rewarded consistently...but if you reward them some of the time, and ignore their result...they will start doing all sort of other irrelevant and bizarre behavior....walking around in circles...flapping their wings, etc... music can be like this---sometimes we are "rewarded" for something which is not, in fact, the right way to do something

Another e.g. from the world of sport (golf)---"putting is easy but learning putting is hard": The putting stroke is short, doesn't require great athleticism yet great players struggle with it...why---(1)imperfections in the putting surface---as golfers walk around a hole during the day, thousands of footprints create a "lumpy donut" around the hole---imperfections---you can hit a perfect putt, and it will veer off minutely...also, (2)putting greens are not flat...how do you know if you "read the green" correctly?...answer, you don't generally----you could go back and roll the ball down an inclined plane to test your green reading ability---most do not do this, and if you're playing you can't---the foursome behind you would grab the nearest shotgun if you held them up doing this, (3) how do I know if I used proper technique.?..again, very difficult without watching video or other feedback devices, e.g. two marbles on a board...an eighth of an inch wider than your putter blade will tell you if your putting stroke was straight at impact....most people don't bother with these feedback devices, (4) our own minds "get in the way"----great players have struggled with "putting yips"---freezing over the ball, being unable to start the stroke...sometimes their hands shake almost uncontrollably---Harry Vardon, Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, and Walter Hagen---all the best players of their day struggled with this...hacks don't get the yips----only good players who have the reasonable expectation of doing something well, and the perfectionistic personality that cannot stand to do something poorly....Tiger Woods just shot 85 yesterday, and he looked like a weekend hack at times--will he ever get "out of his own way" (his own mind)?---he better or else he'll stop playing, (4) we keep changing technique/equipt.---Arnold Palmer was a deadly putter early in his career, and then he "lost his mojo" and his confidence---supposedly he would out to the practice green before a tmt. with 4 or 5 putters, and whichever felt better that day, he would go with....hardly the way to build consistency or feel....now let's see, I don't like my sound----maybe a new carved top guitar is what I need...or those damn 13's are like telephone wires--Jim Hall played with 12's--better change those strings; or that Fender amp sound is not a real "jazz sound"--too scooped---better get a new amp; or pedal; or different pick; or a new style that is more suited to me---man that bebop stuff or swing is so old school....the possibilities for equivocation are endless.

Again, the parallels to music/learning music are not hard to figure out---every song is different than another...the "rules of feedback reward/punishment" change with every different chord progression...different styles demand different approaches and technique

3. If true internalization is achieved, then maintenance might not be needed: Ida Presti, a great classical guitarist, gave high level public concerts at age 12, I believe, and Segovia said "I have nothing to teach her"....she was raised to play, with her fingers manipulated by her father literally when she was in the cradle...she said she did not have a normal childhood, and amazingly enough, seems to have been a normal, vivacious fun person...in adult life she did not need to practice extensively...and preferred to improvise and jam rather than "polish" repertory pieces she knew well already

Reg on the forum has said he practices little, in a conventional sense, but it sounds like he spent a lot of time in his teen years getting basic technique under his belt...so yes, at some point mastery becomes "2nd nature"---and this is why, I think, accomplished players often cannot describe their conscious thought process--because they're beyond the pt. of needing to explicate it...the stages of mastery are: (1) unconscious not knowing; (2)conscious not knowing; (3) conscious knowing; and (4) finally unconscious knowing.

Depending on the particular tune/musical situation---I am firmly between (2) and (3) most of the time...and once in while find myself in stage 4....but I don't think anyone ever got there without a lot of work---and extensive neuro-programming through practice/repetition/mastery of technique/acquisition of some theoretical tools (helpful, but not strictly speaking, required)

[Jonzo]

Again, here is the complete statement.

"The most efficient thing to do is to practice, any way you can. Playing songs, playing scales, playing rhythmic exercises, reading, transcribing. It really doesn't matter so much as it does playing long and often."

Just wrong on so many levels, from the basic misunderstanding of what the word "efficient" means, to the suggestion that what you practice "really doesn't matter".

S: So teacher, what should I practice to become a better Jazz guitarist?
T: It doesn't matter. Practice any way you can, long and often. Have you got my check?

It doesn't require much effort to find fault with the actual words.

[Stevebol]

Again, here is the complete statement.

"The most efficient thing to do is to practice, any way you can. Playing songs, playing scales, playing rhythmic exercises, reading, transcribing. It really doesn't matter so much as it does playing long and often."

Just wrong on so many levels, from the basic misunderstanding of what the word "efficient" means, to the suggestion that what you practice "really doesn't matter".

Playing classical music and having really bad technique or posture can be big problem. Still, Henry is right. Play your instrument. Looking for any excuse you can find not to play is wrong on so many levels as you put it. I'd rather have bad technique than none at all.