-
Huh. Interesting. So if I work on a tune I sorta-learned a couple years ago, it should make a stronger impression than repeating the tune I've been working on all week?
Originally Posted by Jonzo
-
12-13-2012 10:41 AM
-
Talk about timing. Last week, Dick / Dutchbopper posted a Joe Pass etude and said something about Pass's "Joe Pass on Guitar" being more accessible than "Joe Pass Guitar Style." I ordered it and it came yesterday. Early on, Pass says a few words about playing fingerstyle. His recommendation? Sit in front of the TV! I kid you not. His point was that your fingers will fall in the most natural / comfortable way for each particular player.
Couldn't resist passing that along.
-
Basically, yes. Practicing something that you can play well is a pretty inefficient use of time, in terms of improving as a musician. However, if you are preparing a piece for performance, the diminishing return you get on each repetition still might be worth it, if you need to perform it perfectly. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
-
I like to practice things I know well. I always start out with something relatively new, but I ALWAYS play some tunes I know very well. I'm working on other things and don't want to struggle remembering a tune I'm less familiar with. It's the intuitive thing for me. So when I'm working on phrasing, improv, tempo, II-V playing, bop rhythmic phrasing I like working on tunes I knw well. If I'm learning a new tune that's learning a new tune. That's just me.
-
In theory you want to always be pushing forward with new material, and only reviewing old stuff enough to maintain it, if you goal is maximum improvement. But maximum improvement isn't the only reason to play.
Also, you can use a tune that you know well in a new way to learn something new.
Keep in mind that when you space out reviews, you are only maintaining your ability. Initially you would practice as frequently as necessary to attain a target level.
-
No, that's not necessarily true. I'm increasing my ability many fold with my method. I've been practicing and playing jazz for many, many years. This is the biggest leap of improvements I've seen all at once.
I am pushing forward, but I'm increasing my intuitive playing by leaps and bounds.
BTW I'm not a student.
-
Sorry, if I sounded condescending. I'm just trying to translate what I know about educational psychology to guitar practice.
Which statement is not true?
Intuition is a funny thing. Sometimes it is a good guide; sometimes it's not. Often it tricks us into thinking immediate progress is the same as efficient progress.
Take, for example, the way that spelling is taught: study a list, take a test, repeat with a new list.
It makes sense on the surface, and teachers have been doing it that way for decades, but there is plenty of research showing that it is not especially effective.
I like the metaphore of herding sheep. Carrying a sheep across the valley gives you a small, immediate success. But coaxing the whole herd along gives you the best long term result.
None of this means your instinct is wrong in this instance. Only that it could be.
-
Well you're still sounding condescending. It COULD be wrong? There's no right or wrong here. I am not seeking advice. I have designed and redesigned, over and over and over for 35 years my methodology. I'm actually fairly accomplished. It could be WRONG??? Lol. And how would you determine this? Without even knowing what I'm going for?
-
I think this makes perfect sense. There is enough to think about when working on phrasing,etc. without having to do that with a tune that you're just learning. In fact, I can't see how you could. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
I would have thought that improvement means taking what you already know and doing it better as much as it means learning stuff you don't know.
-
I re-read your post, and understand it differently now. I see that you are using material that you have mastered to work on new skills, which does not contradict my premiss. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
I also understand that you cannot conceive of the possibility that you could be wrong, which is a great impediment to advancing knowledge.Last edited by Jonzo; 12-13-2012 at 10:15 PM.
-
There should be some sort of skill-testing musical exercise which is required in order to post in a thread which specifically seeks the input of advanced players. Talk is cheap...especially when it comes to music.
And in the interests of full disclosure, I readily concede that I would fail the test.
-
That's exactly right. I start out with an hour of ear transcribing. That's my new stuff. I've been doing bop and post bop solos: Bird, Coltrane, Dexter, Red Garland, Herbie, Freddie, Rollins, Michael Brecker, Chick, etc. An hour of that, getting the phrases under my fingers and the sound in my head does wonders first thing in the morning. Then I improvise over various tunes I KNOW WELL at tempos from 100 gradually up to 300 BPM. Then it's to a battery of exercises, scales, arpeggios, including challenging picking exercises. This is every day without fail. Originally Posted by ColinO
The only new thing I do is the hour of transcriptions, none of which do I commit to memory. I've never in my life transcribed a jazz guitar solo. Weird I know.
Now I'm addressing certain issues with my playing. This my best routine. It's working quite well.Last edited by henryrobinett; 12-14-2012 at 03:38 AM.
-
I don't practice muscle memory... hell I rarely practice. I haven't since the late 70's. I already have my fretboard skills together and fingering systems. ( you need to play enough to keep those up)
When I slosh through a phrase, it's because I chose a lousy position. I mentally made a mistake. Usually I have enough technique to fake my way through, I can cover my mistakes.
Advanced players have their act together, they already have their playing... performance skills together. If something is required, it takes just a few moments to mentally understand what that is... the performance aspect, the physical part is usually not the problem. You already have the skills.
I can read through burnin lines that I have no muscle memory of playing... but I can mentally see and hear the lines. I can solo through very fast complex changes, not because I've trained my muscle memory... I understand the music... or at least have methods of understanding.
I have always separated technique, or what ever you want to call your physical skills of playing music on your instrument... and the music.
Becoming a jazz player is very different from being a classical style player. It may require memorization of music, but the memorization of the music is not the method of performance. I understand most preach... learn the tunes. But why do you learn the tunes?
-
Last edited by Kojo27; 12-17-2012 at 09:28 AM.
-
I learn the tunes so I can gig,please the audience,connect with previous generations of jazz musicians, and because it is fun. Aren't the tunes the form or container for the improvisation. It is kind of odd that most request I have had are for tunes(usually love songs or show tunes) and only once or twice has Giant Steps or Confirmation been requested, and I have never had anyone say to me "man you just don't play fast enough". I practice what I play and right now I am into motivic development on standard tunes and trying to create improvisations that are ordered in logic and precision to the degree of Paul Desmond, Ed Bickert, Jim Hall and J.S. Bach might as well aim for the moon ehh... For me I want my improvisation to be ALL about the tune. My pet peeve is a solo that disregrds the tune and uses the form of the tune as just a launch pad for what strikes me as a bunch of ego strokin'. To accomplish this I practice Bach and then tunes solo guitar style working on developing the motives of the tune that have already been established. It is fun to try...
-
Actually, the discussion would be much more robust if you could draw in more knowledgeable outsiders--sports psychologists, neurologists, educational psychologists, kindergarten teachers--anyone knowledgeable about skill acquisition. Requiring musical "credentials" only results in intellectual inbreeding. Originally Posted by coolvinny
-
Well here's another totally uncredentialled titbit, I was once told that muscle memory isn't ingrained long term unless something is repeated for at least 21 days.
Now, earlier in this thread I have read that anywhere from 500 up to 5000 repetitions are necessary for retention. Well, has anyone discussed a time frame for these repetitions? I think we're all different, so I can only speak for myself when I say that 200 repetitions every day for 20 days will pretty much be remembered forever, but doing them all in a day, then trying to remember it a week later is not as effective.
Then there is the difference between finger memory versus conceptual memory. I sometimes realize I have "remembered" something that my fingers can do - in a way they've obviously been trained- but yet struggle to remember why I bothered to learn it in the first place!....
That's why I keep a diary of my guitaristic adventures these days. I got tired of getting sidetracked into new ideas before I'd completed previous "projects"...
-
Well not if you're still trying to improve your skills. I practice all the time and I'm an advanced player. I'm always taking notes on what I can improve. I am my own teacher, so I design things to do to that will fix certain things. And everybody has things to improve upon. Coltrane and Brecker constantly practiced to improve their playing. Every gig I play there's at least one of two tunes I REALLY didn't like what I played. I played Domingo at a breakneck tempo and I tensed up and therefore played like crap. So I do the best I can to fix it. Originally Posted by Reg
It's best not to generalize about what "advanced players" who "have their act together" do. I think advanced players practice. But that's just me.
-
Research suggests that you should practice the skill daily until you can play it at the target level of proficiency, and then practice at progressively longer intervals to maintain. You will get the best results if you practice just as your skill level begins to decay.
You always need to keep in mind the opportunity cost of over-practicing something. Practicing something that does not need practice means either not practicing something that needs practice, or not learning something new.
I don't know if any of the reserchers play guitar, so take this information with a grain of salt.
-
Daniel Dennet said something like this was in order for people to write about religion. (Dennet thinks religious belief is silly, though he also says if you are going to write about religious beliefs, you need to exhibit some knowledge of them. Ironically, Dennet has been relentlessly ill-informed about religious beliefs....) Originally Posted by coolvinny
But here, we are talking about several things at once. Jonzo focuses on the psychology of learning, studies that show method A is more or less efficient than method B for attaining goal C. He's not attempting individual critiques. Those who are talking about what they themselves do are not in a position to refute his claims because his claims are about groups of people, not isolated individuals. (Many great guitarists have a bad habit or two that they would discourage a novice from developing, or who realize ten-fifteen years down the road that they paid too little attention to A and too much to B while they were coming along. I sometimes think having a recognizable style requires an over-development in some areas and an under-development in others.<<<< I'm not saying that is true. I think it may be.)
Having said all that, I think there could be merit in kicking around forum-specific definitions of 'intermediate' and 'advanced.' ('Beginner' seems clear enough to all.) Perhaps 'intermediate' could be divided into two groups, those who are pretty good and those who are closing ground on 'advanced' status (-however defined.)
-
Researchers??? Researchers? The only researchers worthy of comment would be Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Herbie Hancock, Chcik Corea, Jarrett, Brecker, and mainly ones own experience practicing the instrument that's met with success, personally. Originally Posted by Jonzo
No one can tell you the proper way to talk, walk - certainly not "researchers" - that amorphous group of nobodies. Researchers mean nothing.
Walk the walk, talk the talk and share what YOU know. Otherwise third party "researchers" - undocumented and undisclosed means less than zero.
-
Actually I can see both sides of that, I think the truth might be somewhere in the middle.
Research about the brain and body can be helpful or at least thought provoking regarding decisions about practicing. Of course, how directly helpful the information/ideas will be isn't a sure thing...too many variables when the information is transferred over to something as specific as jazz performance.
The experience of world class players can be helpful, and provide information about what certain individuals have done in their process to get where they are. But still, there are many variables, everybody is different, and just because Coltrane did some activity doesn't mean I'm going to play like Coltrane if I perform that activity.
I think I've said this a few times before, but deciding what to practice IS a bit of a crap shoot anyway. I mean, when you really look at all the variables involved, it's quite difficult to be scientific and set oneself on a plan with only a minimal margin of error.
The flaw with relying on scientific research is that their are so many nuances within this "music" thing that the research might not account for. Or even the individual trying to apply the research might not 'know' enough about music to know how to efficiently apply the information. As I learn more about music, goal posts move, I realize that the target might be different than I thought it was before.
The flaw with just listening to what the greats did is that correlation doesn't equal causation. Charlie Parker probably did many, many things in his musical time, and he also was an individual with a basal level of dexterity, short term memory, aural ability, etc, to begin with. So just because Charlie Parker DID certain things, it's not accurate to say that those things were the CAUSE of his skill and abilities.
Even what great players advocate can be flawed...it must be, as often great players disagree with each other on...quite a lot.
-
Henry--
I would be interested in knowing what Parker, Coltrane, Hancock, Corea, Jarrett, and Brecker have to say on the subject. Please site your sources on their methodology, if you expect me to site my sources of research.
I am guessing that they would agree with Winton Marsalis that you should "Practice what is hard", which is what research has demonstrated.
Your blanket dismissal of scientific research amounts to willful ignorance.Last edited by Jonzo; 12-14-2012 at 02:55 PM.
-
Man, Jonzo, this is getting to be a snore...
Can you play jazz? Henry can. I might take his word on something like this, as in the end, we're talking about playing jazz here.
Science only goes so far in describing the process of learning jazz, which is both a right and left brain activity.
-
Jake--
You bring up some good points. There are a lot of reasons why a musician might think that research does not apply to a specific musical issue. For example, sometimes better learning occurs when a problem is broken down into small steps, sometimes open-ended exploration is better. Therein lies an interesting discussion.
Reply With Quote
Playoff Hockey
Today, 08:14 AM in Everything Else