The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 428
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonzo

    My OP is pretty straight forward. Why are you so intent on avoiding a straight forward answer? Is there something about the question that makes you feel insecure about your own methods?

    I'm serious, because why not just engage with the OP instead of derailing it with implied insults? Is there something wrong with examining the effectiveness of learning methods in a forum about learning methods?
    Not intending to jump into this fray so much except to say that the original OP has no real answer. It's a rhetorical question that asks for generalized guesses and surmises. It's somewhat silly.

    You have through the years it seems, tried to find ways of getting around the issue of hard time earned practice. That's fine. And you've been asked this question about learning songs over and over again and has been met with no answer, repeatedly. That's fine. It's just what it is.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    I will also say this: you seem pretty intent on explaining how many here have a flawed way of thinking about learning, yet you don't give us a leak to see how effective your way actually is. You seem to be an expert.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Mr. B.--

    Here you are saying that there is no "foolproof method" (which is a straw man), but on every other thread you preach "learn tunes".

    You do have opinions about best practices, but you are complacent.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonzo
    This is a good example of the flawed way that people think about learning.

    How many tunes do you think I should have learned? Do you know how many minutes a day I have to practice? Do you know my age or when I took up guitar? Do you know whether I have any physical limitations? If not, how would you judge whether I have learned "enough"?

    I don't spend as much time as you posting on the forum, so why would you assume that I am wasting my time, or that I am not practicing effectively while continuing to look for ways to improve my practice?

    My OP is pretty straight forward. Why are you so intent on avoiding a straight forward answer? Is there something about the question that makes you feel insecure about your own methods?

    I'm serious, because why not just engage with the OP instead of derailing it with implied insults? Is there something wrong with examining the effectiveness of learning methods in a forum about learning methods?
    No, but it really helps to know

    goals of player
    current skill/experience level of player.

    context is important in music as much as any other field of study. Medicine, law, accounting, mixed martial arts.

    make sense?

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Henry--

    There are people who have practiced much less than you, and achieved equal or better results. There is no need for regrets if you enjoyed the process and got the results you wanted. But your equals and superiors who practiced less have evidence of using a better method than you. It is not perfect evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

    I don't see where answering the OP requires guesses or surmises, if you happen to know what some high efficiency learners did, or were a high efficiency learner yourself. I don't see how it could possibly be considered a silly question. It doesn't give us a perfect answer about how to practice, but it is more supportable than everyone just saying "Here is what I did". I have laid out my reasoning for looking at the methods that high efficiency learners have used. Perhaps you could lay out your argument for complacency.

    The topic of this thread is specifically not about how I practice. It lays out a line of reasoning, and asks for input. If someone responds with a flawed argument, should it not be addressed? I mean, what does "some people like to practice a lot" have to do with "what is the most effective way to practice"? How many tunes I know, how I practice, my attitude, etc. have nothing to do with the OP. Next someone will ask me the color of my guitar.

    It really is a straight forward question. Answer it or don't.

    Really, I am kind of shocked by the contortions people go through to avoid actually engaging with the OP.
    Last edited by Jonzo; 05-31-2015 at 05:21 PM.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonzo
    Mr. B.--

    Here you are saying that there is no "foolproof method" (which is a straw man), but on every other thread you preach "learn tunes".

    You do have opinions about best practices, but you are complacent.

    I preach learn tunes, because that's the point, isn't it?

    Tunes aren't a method in and of themselves. But they ARE the point of playing--to make music.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fumblefingers
    No, but it really helps to know

    goals of player
    current skill/experience level of player.

    context is important in music as much as any other field of study. Medicine, law, accounting, mixed martial arts.

    make sense?
    For each individual, you are correct. But all of the fields you mention above also address generalities. In mixed martial arts, for example, you will discuss generalities of offence, defense, spacing, leverage, etc. They are the foundation that the specifics for individual goals are built on.

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    I preach learn tunes, because that's the point, isn't it?

    Tunes aren't a method in and of themselves. But they ARE the point of playing--to make music.
    So when people ask questions about learning methods, and you tell them to learn tunes, are you purposely misguiding them?

    Learn tunes to learn tunes is pretty circular.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    I think there's some really good stuff hidden in the OP. The brief statement you made about practicing a line 100 times being less effective than practicing it 10 then 10 then 10 then 10 ... etc ... Times is very interesting and something I've looked into a lot. As for a specific answer to a point in your OP, I would say that the "repetitions" method of practicing is misguided. I agree there. I've read various thing that seem to settle on 4 as a pretty good number for establishing muscle memory. I'll often practice something until it's perfect 4 times before changing it (something other than tempo). Transpose or play in a different position or something like that. Then go back and repeat the whole process with the tempo a bit higher. Sometimes I try it on a more macro level too. Like working on bop heads until I can feel auto pilot kick in before switching to something else, then again, then back to bop heads, etc. I'll also say that with that idea it's important for me to find the sweet spot where I'm not working on the exact same thing for hours but I have picked a small enough number of things to work on that at the end of the day they all got real attention. That's a fine line.

    as for the broader answer to your question - I think maybe you've gotten it already. Id guess that maybe some really good people to check out would be prodigies. Not random hot young players or YouTube talents but someone like Julian Lage who was both a genuine prodigy at a very very young age and also has staying power to keep improving and evolving. I think the difference youd find is in Princeplanet's "focused listening." Musical families, constant subconscious exposure to music, the willingness and passion to move beyond that into real critical listening, early attempts to assimilate what they hear on recordings and live into their own playing in a direct way. Listening. Constant exposure to sounds.
    Last edited by pamosmusic; 05-31-2015 at 05:21 PM.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonzo
    So when people ask questions about learning methods, and you tell them to learn tunes, are you purposely misguiding them?

    Learn tunes to learn tunes is pretty circular.
    not at all.

    my advice is never just to learn tunes. I've posted my advice for beginners here a hundred times...chord building, 12 essential chords, arpeggios, ear training, etc, all learned in the context of tunes.

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Suggest you research Chet Baker. OK not a guitarist, but by all accounts he hardly practised at all. I'm not sure what his methods were though. Just having a phenomenal ear and copying everything he heard, probably.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    not at all.

    my advice is never just to learn tunes. I've posted my advice for beginners here a hundred times...chord building, 12 essential chords, arpeggios, ear training, etc, all learned in the context of tunes.
    Exactly. Though you say there is no "fool proof" method, you are happy to give advice on what you consider the "best" methods. The OP seeks to explore an idea for determining who is really using the best method.

    We can all float around in the sea of "everyone is different", and make no judgments on methods, or we can make our best efforts to identify best methods, both general and specific. Or we can be complacent.

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Who are some examples of pros that practiced the least?

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    You have to practice a lot to learn jazz well, but yes, I do feel you can become competent at it in a timely manner if your approach is an organized one. This I've come to realize in the last 3 years since I've started practicing with more structure. To help with structure I advocate you write everything down in an organized binder.

    There is certain things that you have to do whether you like it or not - things like ear training, music theory, and knowing your fretboard the same way you know how to walk or ride a bike. Tackle everything step by step - no skipping. As someone mention it's better to find a good teacher you enjoy listening to, when you want to generate ideas on how to do things more efficiently. Good luck.
    Last edited by smokinguit; 05-31-2015 at 05:38 PM.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett
    Man, I thought I answered it already. There is NO frogging finite, definitive answer. None. Everybody attacks it in a different way. And methods vary over time. You try --EVERYONE -- different things at different times. No one size fits all. No one size fits even a single person forever.
    I don't know what "everybody" does. I assume that there are differences and commonalties, and that identifying the commonalities would likely be worthwhile.

    Why do you assume there are no commonalities? On your website you say that you don't just teach jazz guitar; you teach people how to learn anything. So you must believe that certain practices and principles will apply to everyone. Or have I misunderstood you?

    Do you really think there is no value to learning how the most high-efficiency learners have approached learning?
    Last edited by Jonzo; 05-31-2015 at 05:41 PM.

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    My experience has been regarding those who never appear to need to practice and yet play at a high level of ability two things seem to have occurred:

    1) they started out very young. I mean like by the age of 6.

    2) they "practiced" long hours in their youth.

    When your language skills, including music develop at such a young age, as your body is also growing into your hands, arms it becomes a lethal combination. Everyone I personally know or knew who were great players and yet never practiced fell into those categories.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonzo
    Exactly. Though you say there is no "fool proof" method, you are happy to give advice on what you consider the "best" methods. The OP seeks to explore an idea for determining who is really using the best method.

    We can all float around in the sea of "everyone is different", and make no judgments on methods, or we can make our best efforts to identify best methods, both general and specific. Or we can be complacent.
    I give advice based on reality. It works. It's not fast. If "fast" is necessary for "best practice," then no, it's not the best. But it's worked for 1,000's...because its non-linear. So is/does the stuff Paul mentions.

    Efficiency isn't so important.

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonzo
    I don't know what "everbody" does. I assume that there are differences and commonalties, and that identifying the commonalities would likely be worthwhile.

    Why do you assume there are no commonalities?

    Do you really think there is no value to learning how the most high-efficiency learners have approached learning?
    Because I don't believe there are. There are people and people are different. And because I've known countless great and many,many, many famous musicians. The commonality was they all, without exception, practiced long and hard. They worked harder than anyone could guess. I've taught seminars with a lot of these greats. We've talked methods. I don't know ANYONE personally who said they never practiced. Not anyone who I considered was accomplished.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    neuro plasticity

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    Efficiency isn't so important.
    Anyone concerned with making the most progress during limited practice time would disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.
    Last edited by Jonzo; 05-31-2015 at 06:48 PM.

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonzo
    What is the best way to learn to play jazz?

    I suggest that we should look at what the pros who have practiced the least do. While we are not getting a controlled experiment, we are getting a pool of talented people, who have all achieved similar results, with different time investments. I am suspicious of any advice from someone who had to practice obsessively to achieve the same results as someone who has practiced for three hours a day.

    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? Who is the laziest pro ever? I want to do what he or she does.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonzo
    ... why would you assume that I am wasting my time, or that I am not practicing effectively while continuing to look for ways to improve my practice?
    ...
    I'm serious, because why not just engage with the OP instead of derailing it with implied insults? Is there something wrong with examining the effectiveness of learning methods in a forum about learning methods?
    Jonzo, I think there's at at least a little misunderstanding of intent and terminology here. If you're looking for a correlation of mastery on the instrument and a different balance of kinesthetic training and musical awareness, that's a huge topic, and though very relevant, one that is rooted in the fact that everyone I know of has found their own way eventually regardless of how they've begun. I've seen peers at music school, having studied with the same teachers, taken the same proficiency tests and run parallel trajectories wind up with radically different uses for those fundamentals in the real world. I've seen some of the most ostensibly erratic practice regimens turn out to be much more rigorous when seen through a different metric.
    In the end, if I get your OP right (I'm not entirely sure I'm on the right track on that), we all accumulate a complex toolkit that we need in order to become improvising musicians. I agree that there is no standard procedure to getting there, and the time it takes to get there is widely varied.
    But Jonzo, I think the idea of "professional mastery" is a myth. If you ask some people, it's a distinction that anyone with airplay has. To others, it's the ability to play over a form without stumbling. To others, it's having your own sound. Still, for others, it's a personal moving target and only occasionally achieved in themselves though the majority of the music world considers them masters.
    When you think of it, only you can know where the bar is set, and what that space beneath it consists of. You're going to run into ideological conflicts here until you define your own standards clearly. Personally, I don't see a smaller ratio of "practice" time to playing as being bad, if your time not playing drills is spent on the path to the development you have a clear picture of.
    If you have a clear picture of where you need to be, see what needs to be done, commit to your constant growth, and keep an open mind to changing possibilites, then yes, your practice regimen MAY look erratic but only to outsiders. A better question may be: If your musical training deviates from the norm, has it served you well and why did you make the choices you did? It may be very revealing.
    David

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonzo
    Anyone concerned with getting making the most progress during their practice time would disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.
    i do disagree. Jazz is a journey, not a destination.

    so far, the more i play and practice the better i get. I'll be at it the rest of my life. To me, that's progress and the promise of future progress. I guess I don't think i can reasonably expect anything more than that.

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by paulkogut
    There's never going to be a one size fits all, hyper-efficient method for art. I hope it's self evident, but Jim Hall, Wes Montgomery, Pat Martino, George Benson, John McLaughlin and Bill Frisell are all different people with different aesthetics who practiced different things to get different results.
    This is an interesting turn. He's totally right. You could probably go so far as to say that the INefficiencies in their practice are what make them what they are. It's the things that at some point in your development seem to be the time wasters (ugh why did I spend years learning brad paisley licks, ugh why did I spend all that time trying to play bluegrass, ugh why did I waste all that time playing bebop heads, ugh why did I waste all that time writing bad tunes when I could've been practicing) that often turn into parts of your signature sound and your uniqueness when you start to mature.

    Jonzo - If if you're keen on posing this as a logic problem then I'll challenge the logic of one assumption you're making throughout this thread. You seem keen on equating "best" practices with "efficient" or "effective" practices. How do you know that those practices are the same? Is "best" way always the most efficient way? Id wager that it's not.

  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    Emulating the players who practised the least could be a mistake. It could be that they had incredible gifts for rapid development that most of us do not possess. In which case you might be better off emulating the ones who practised the most. Their skill set may have initially been closer to yours and therefore their methods might be more appropriate. Just a thought.

    I would tend to assume that I need to practise more like the 'heavy practisers' if I wanted to make a huge amount of progress.

    Actually I doubt I have practised much more than an hour a day on average, if that. But then it took me probably 15 years to get anywhere good with it.

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    Id also wager that something that makes people learn more quickly is to have the ability to turn anything they do into a learning experience. It's not what they do but rather their ability to make it a part of them and to see it as a progression rather than a diversion.