Jazz Guitar Exercises That Are a Waste of Time?

[ColinO]

The problem with relying on unnamed researchers in this context is that it is completely meaningless. I would wager that there is a vast ocean of research on the subject of learning and that there are thousands of research papers on what the best way to learn stuff are and about the same number of different viewpoints. I'll even bet that a lot of the research says that different people learn things in different ways and a lot of it says just the opposite.

Unless you are an expert on the science of learning and have assimilated all of that research, to simply through out the opinion that some research says such and such as authoritative in the slightest is absurd. You might suggest that it is interesting or that someone might want to mull it over over a beer and then forget about it, but to have it form the basis of a debating position will not get you very far.

I tend to believe the guys who have done it.

I also think that this discussion is getting too personal.

[Jonzo]

Funny thing is Henry and I are both advocating "practicing what is hard". He does it via familiar material.

Cheers.

[Kojo27]

[Kojo27]

[ColinO]

Err... in this thread, aren't we talking about learning to play?

Actually no. The question was put to advance players as to what they personally found looking back to be exercises that they found to be a waste of time. It devolved into a critique of one person's experience in terms of what he found to be best for him - a critique based on research from an unnamed source.

It makes sense to ask advance players what they have found to be useful. When they answer, it is polite to thank them for sharing.

[coolvinny]

Err... in this thread, aren't we talking about learning to play?

Yes, but based on opinions of those that can already play!

[MarkRhodes]

Here's an example of research I read about years ago and haven't forgotten. A psychologist named Collier recorded several piano players (-separately) and went over the performances later to check the variations in tempo. The pianists were chosen because they were reputed to have exceptionally good timing, "like clockwork." Only they didn't. It was much more fluid than that. Not that they had bad timing but that 'good timing' wasn't as exact as most had assumed.

Further, many classic jazz performances have a shifting sense of time -some songs speed up and slow down at certain spots across several takes- and the musicians doing it, when asked, claimed to have not intended that. That is remarkable for two reasons. One, it shows that they were not individually aware they were doing there yet, two, they were all doing it together. If you TOLD them they had done this they would deny it, but you can demonstrate objectively that they did, whether they admit it or not. (This reminds me of the 'hot hand' theory in basketball, which was disproved by a Thomas Gilovich, apsychologist who went over the shot tracking of Philadelphia 76ers---the team tracked every shot taken in every game, period---and even when the results were clear, Andrew Toney, a great player known as a 'streak shooter' said they COULDN'T be true because he knew better. But he didn't. He was a great player but he was wrong about this.)

Back to before, the shifting time in jazz performance: This is one reason why drum machines bother some people--they're exact in a way real drummers are not--but when hearing a good drummer play we don't detect 'inexactness.' Many people claimed this was NOT the reason but rather, the drums didn't sound like real drums, but then drum machines using real drum sounds were used... People were bothered but what they SAID was bothering them wasn't what was actually bothering them. Jonathon Haidt has done a lot of research on how the reasons people give for holding certain views are rarely the reasons they actually hold them: the views came first and the reasons were cobbled together afterward to make sense of views decided upon unconsciously.)

Several people here teach young musicians (and some teach the not-so-young.) Thinking that research into how people learn most efficiently is irrelevant to that task strikes me as wrong-headed. Every good researcher I know holds his or her views as subject-to-further review in light of new evidence, better research, what have you. "Because I said so" is not part of their vocabulary. That's the kind of thing we all have to take from our parents (-when you are a kid, your bedtime just IS what they say it is) but when adults are talking to adults about jazz this isn't the way to go about it. ("Because I'm a pro" is just a variation of "because I said so.")

We all understand 'this is what works for me' but some of us fail to understand that Everyone Else is more interested in what might work for them!

If you want to post clips and get praised for them, fine, but if you want to talk to people about how to get better, or how to develop this or that skill (-how do I get started with chord melody? or what's all this about drop 2 voicings?) then you have to realize that YOU are not the gold standard for anyone else. You may have a lot to offer others but unless you can pass it on in a way that appeals to and makes sense to them, it's all for naught.

Joe Pass and Herb Ellis did a lot of teaching but they didn't talk that way. We are all equal in membership in this forum. Some of us are better than others, a few of us (-not me!) are better than almost everyone else here, but NONE of us, in this forum, is in a superior position to anyone else. Some members may take lessons from other members, but in the forum, no one is appealing to another person as a personal teacher but as a fellow jazz guitarist.

It is prudent to pay attention to the advice of those more accomplished than oneself. It is also prudent to realize that a better player may be a poor teacher, or have little advice to offer. (There's an adage in sports that great players make poor coaches because they can't put themselves in the position of an average player, whereas average players--John Madden was the go-to example for my generation--can be excellent coaches because they really had to work at everything and have to deal with a mix of talents and figure out what works best In Most Cases. Frank Robinson, a Hall of Fame baseball player had a hard time relating to 'average' ballplayers, making him an, um, not-Hall-of-Fame manager.)

End of sermon!

[mr. beaumont]

Err... in this thread, aren't we talking about learning to play?

And for what it's worth, I find Jonzo's thoughts on learning to be fascinating, and not "a snore" at all.

The thread was originally asking experienced players what they found non-useful as far as exercises go.

Science is only one part of what can be used to explain what works and what doesn't work in playing jazz, and that's not the part the OP was looking for.


I'm not one to usually play the put up or shut up arguement, but in this thread we got posts from an actual accomplished player that are getting swept under the rug in favor of theories and science and "maybes". One need not be a great player to post opinions here (I'm certainly not) but at a certain point, it's time to start getting concrete about jazz...it's not "rocket surgery" as I like to say.

We can have these scientific discussions (and philosophical discussions) but eventually it's simply folks liking to hear themselves talk (or read what they wrote) All we're doing now is muddying the waters for the OP.


I really wish people would stop trying to make jazz into an impossible mathematical equation, or a code that cannot be cracked. We need more real conversations about what IS and what WORKS, and less about what COULD, in my opinion--otherwise we're not helping anybody, we're just killing time.

[Kojo27]

Yes, but based on opinions of those that can already play!

Touché - that point slipped my mind.

[mr. beaumont]

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.

Great post.

[henryrobinett]

Henry, I doubt that anyone here would deny that you are a superb guitarist, and that your skill level has exceeded that of most players. You still practice, though, and it seems a safe assumption that you practice in order to become even better. To maintain your high skill level, and to go even higher. Surely you can see, however, that something like a practice routine is rarely, if ever, "perfect." We're all human, and my practice methods are no doubt FAR from optimal, far from perfect. And even though you may be 100 times the guitarist I am, your practice method isn't "perfect" either -- much closer than mine, but we're both human... That a practice method can be made better doesn't mean the player is flawed, that something is "wrong" with him. But the fact that your practice routine is better now than it was, say, ten years ago, shows that your instincts ten years ago weren't as "right" as they are now. No? So, why is it so hard to imagine that your current practice routine, ten years from now, won't seem wrong in certain ways? Aren't we always growing, changing, evolving?

I am *not* trying to start an quarrel here. I'm striving for a meeting of minds. I *think* this is similar to what Jonzo was saying above. He wasn't calling you or your practice methods bad in any way, but was merely allowing for the possibility that the way you approach practice may change, if you find a better way. I hope that makes sense.

kj

I wouldn't necessarily say that my instincts are better now than they were 10 years ago. Not at all. My objectives were a little different. You must always have your objectives known and clear when you design your "program." What are you trying to achieve? That's the question. Where are you at and what do you need? 10 years ago I had different strengths and weaknesses.

10 years ago I wasn't interested in bebop. I was a little, but I was more into more modern jazz. It was about 10 years ago that I discovered, even though I could play well on changes, poly-chords and strange progressions - Coltrane stuff as well, and play very fast, I couldn't play bebop convincingly. So my methods now wouldn't have applied to what I was trying to achieve then.

[henryrobinett]

I've been here before on this forum. It's a philosophical difference we just won't agree on. I don't believe the BRAIN has much of anything to do with it. You can cut it up in the tiniest chunks and look at it with the highest tech microscopes and you're not going to find that secret picture screen. You're not going to find the seat of human consciousness. I don't think these researchers know jack shit about it. Beethoven would. Give me a researcher who can play his ass off and write phenomenal symphonies FIRST. How many hours does it take to practice before you . . . I mean what is that about? PRACTICE?? People want a magic elixir. Instead of spending the necessary time to learn it. You practice it until you LEARN it. Not a moment sooner. It might take 3,589,430,322,134 times. It might take 5. I'm not going to count it myself and I personally think it's pointless because it's useless. -- sorry. Cross threads I think.

[Jonzo]

It's funny you say that Henry--it is another point that we agree on. I was just going to post that any discussion of the worth of an exercise needs to take into account the learner's goals. It also needs to take into account the practice time available.

[Kojo27]

The thread was originally asking experienced players what they found non-useful as far as exercises go.

Yep, I conceded that point above; the OP was so far back I forgot what it was!

Science is only one part of what can be used to explain what works and what doesn't work in playing jazz, and that's not the part the OP was looking for.

I agree it isn't what the OP was looking for, but just for what it's worth, you know there are some awfully big minds who would argue that science is the *only* sure way of explaining what works in anything. Science never bores me, but that's just me. I think it scares some people. Especially those who cling to strong beliefs based on no proof.

I'm not one to usually play the put up or shut up arguement, but in this thread we got posts from an actual accomplished player that are getting swept under the rug in favor of theories and science and "maybes". One need not be a great player to post opinions here (I'm certainly not) but at a certain point, it's time to start getting concrete about jazz...it's not "rocket surgery" as I like to say.

What is the "put up or shut up argument," exactly? Does that mean, Play like Henry or don't challenge Henry - or something like that?

I really wish people would stop trying to make jazz into an impossible mathematical equation, or a code that cannot be cracked.

Amen. Fareed Haque says jazz is "almost folk music" - and detests all the university-level, endless analysis and complication of what is just GOOD MUSIC. I think some people masturbate to their theory books, I swear to god.

We need more real conversations about what IS and what WORKS, and less about what COULD, in my opinion--otherwise we're not helping anybody, we're just killing time.

I hope I don't talk too much about what "could" - if so point it out, please. But theorizing isn't a waste of time, imo -- it can be very important. Perhaps best in its own thread.

[Kojo27]

Jonathon Haidt has done a lot of research on how the reasons people give for holding certain views are rarely the reasons they actually hold them: the views came first and the reasons were cobbled together afterward to make sense of views decided upon unconsciously.)

Several people here teach young musicians (and some teach the not-so-young.) Thinking that research into how people learn most efficiently is irrelevant to that task strikes me as wrong-headed. Every good researcher I know holds his or her views as subject-to-further review in light of new evidence, better research, what have you. "Because I said so" is not part of their vocabulary. That's the kind of thing we all have to take from our parents (-when you are a kid, your bedtime just IS what they say it is) but when adults are talking to adults about jazz this isn't the way to go about it. ("Because I'm a pro" is just a variation of "because I said so.")

We all understand 'this is what works for me' but some of us fail to understand that Everyone Else is more interested in what might work for them!

If you want to post clips and get praised for them, fine, but if you want to talk to people about how to get better, or how to develop this or that skill (-how do I get started with chord melody? or what's all this about drop 2 voicings?) then you have to realize that YOU are not the gold standard for anyone else. You may have a lot to offer others but unless you can pass it on in a way that appeals to and makes sense to them, it's all for naught.

We are all equal in membership in this forum. Some of us are better than others, a few of us (-not me!) are better than almost everyone else here, but NONE of us, in this forum, is in a superior position to anyone else. Some members may take lessons from other members, but in the forum, no one is appealing to another person as a personal teacher but as a fellow jazz guitarist.

It is prudent to pay attention to the advice of those more accomplished than oneself. It is also prudent to realize that a better player may be a poor teacher, or have little advice to offer.

GAWD BLESS YE, O THEE OF CLEAR MIND!

[henryrobinett]

What I see happening that is frustrating to me - makes me scratch my head - is all the theorizing instead of playing. Theorizing about WHAT? It should be in your hands. Like guys who obsess about gear but can't really play. PLAY fercrissakes. I found that we learn by DOING, rather than talking about doing, or reading about other people doing, or how we might do it if we actually started doing.

ONLY when you start doing do you know what to do and what works and how much time it takes and what no longer works FOR YOU! It's not a universal, general thing. This applies to you.

[Kojo27]

What I see happening that is frustrating to me - makes me scratch my head - is all the theorizing instead of playing. Theorizing about WHAT? It should be in your hands. Like guys who obsess about gear but can't really play. PLAY fercrissakes. I found that we learn by DOING, rather than talking about doing, or reading about other people doing, or how we might do it if we actually started doing.

ONLY when you start doing do you know what to do and what works and how much time it takes and what no longer works FOR YOU! It's not a universal, general thing. This applies to you.

What makes you think we haven't started? Theorizing does not preclude playing -- ask Hal Galper.

[docbop]

What I see happening that is frustrating to me - makes me scratch my head - is all the theorizing instead of playing. Theorizing about WHAT? It should be in your hands. Like guys who obsess about gear but can't really play. PLAY fercrissakes. I found that we learn by DOING, rather than talking about doing, or reading about other people doing, or how we might do it if we actually started doing.

ONLY when you start doing do you know what to do and what works and how much time it takes and what no longer works FOR YOU! It's not a universal, general thing. This applies to you.

+100

To learn to play you gotta listen and play, listen and play, and more of the same.

[henryrobinett]

What makes you think we haven't started? Theorizing does not preclude playing -- ask Hal Galper.

I'm assuming everyone has, or you wouldn't be reading this forum. I know Hal. Well I KNEW him years ago. It doesn't preclude anything. That's the point. Theory is useful, very useful to a point. You gotta PLAY and put it into action. If it stops you or if you spend way too much time THINKING about it over DOING it, it's going to to be a very long and arduous road, and you just might not get beyond it.

[henryrobinett]

+100

To learn to play you gotta listen and play, listen and play, and more of the same.

Yup, yup, yup!

[Jonzo]

What I see happening that is frustrating to me - makes me scratch my head - is all the theorizing instead of playing.

Welcome to the internet.

Actually, time on the instrument is neutral. It can be productive, counter-productive, or have no effect. If how to best use practice time is not a good topic of discussion, I don't know what is.

[mr. beaumont]

I don't think anybody's arguing research and science are useless. I'm certainly not...I'm an educator for a living...I'm always looking for new approaches...but I also have great respect for experienced teachers at my school who have proven results and successes in their classrooms.

I'm also very wary of the soundbyte teaching people glean from famous players quotes on the internet...I don't care about fluffy, broad scoped quotes that can be taken and twisted into multiple meanings...give me something concrete...I'm not so concerned with how good a player can play, but if somebody tells me "this will help you organize the fretboard" well then, I wouldn't mind seeing that you have a good organization yourself.

There's too much info out there...I can't consider it all. Therefore I need to look for the concrete stuff...there's only so much room for theory in my head for when it comes to something as inconsequential as playing music.

[Kojo27]

If how to best use practice time is not a good topic of discussion, I don't know what is.

YUP.

[MarkRhodes]

I tend to believe the guys who have done it.

Well, if they're saying they have done it and they have, then they're credible, but doing something well and knowing the best way for Someone Else to learn to do it well are different things. (Often enough, people don't even know how THEY do something well: many writers don't even want to think about how they do what they do because they fear it will gum up the works.) And anyone doing research in the area of learning is taking for granted that the subject is a *group* of people, not an isolated individual, and that all conclusions (-provisional as such findings tend to be) are couched in general (or statistical) terms.

Many great players (-writers, artists, historians, economists, golfers, chess players...) make poor teachers. Others make fine teachers. The test of their TEACHING lies in their teaching, not in their accomplishments outside the classroom.

[Jonzo]

I don't think anybody's arguing research and science are useless.

Researchers mean nothing.

Just sayin...