-
You might have me there.
-
12-14-2012 06:46 PM
-
Is logic part of science? If so, how come logicians aren't in the faculty of science?
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
-
Good point. "By their fruits ye shall know them." The problem here is that a teacher in Denmark or Dallas or Dunkirk doesn't know how well your students are doing by way of your instruction, and you don't know how well their students are doing. I don't remember anyone posting clips of their students playing, only themselves. (This is not a criticism!)
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
This does come up in connection with gypsy jazz (and of course classical music) because we've all seen vids of tykes who have dazzling technique AND a few baby teeth left. We recognize that however they learned, it worked. We know their teachers were good ones. We would recommend them to a friend...
But for many of us, our lone path has had so many twists and turns that we don't really know how much time we spent on this or that element (scales, arpeggios, basic jazz chords, progressions, tunes, ear training, what have you) years ago, or can assess where we would be now if we had changed the order of learning. We do know that people often misperceive their abilities (-the Dunning-Kruger effect) and none of us can know how things would have turned out if we had done things differently.
Further, there's no established standard of 'what we're going for.' Some think jazz guitar primarily is chord-melody playing, while others are top-flight players but don't excel in that area at all. It's just not their cup of tea. Our tastes change and what we want to do on the guitar changes with them.
-
Logic used to be called a science. The term 'science' for centuries meant 'the knowledge of things through causes,' thus many things (including metaphysics!) were thought of as sciences that are not part of science departments today. When scientists misapply logic, beware! Originally Posted by jster
-
I'm just against scientism. It's been a disease for more than a century. Done incredible harm. Research is fine. But the idea that there is some line that can be drawn around science and that everything outside it is defective has been rejected by nearly everybody who has seriously considered it. Unfortunately most scientists haven't seriously considered it and besides like to benefit from the prestige. And unfortunately our so-called "culture" still buys into the absurd idea that science will help with our deepest problems.
-
90% of my time spent on this website...more like 99% if we take the last month or so... Originally Posted by Limetones
-
I'm okay with science as long as it confirms what I already believe.
-
I'm against scientism too. But I don't think research into how people learn efficiently (and best retain what they have learned) is an example of it. Originally Posted by jster
And science *does* help with some deep problems: ignorance and disease being two woefully widespread ones. Just because some people claim it is the only way to knowledge doesn't mean that good science is any less good. If there is something wrong with the studies Jonzo refers to, that is one thing, but I can't see anything wrong with an honest attempt to understand which methods of teaching / learning are more and less effective with a group of people.
-
An honest emotional response. But seriously, it's hard for anyone to recall the past of month's worth of time on this (or any other) site, and how much you found useful, how much not-so-useful-but-entertaining / funny, and how much was a complete waste of your time. Negative things stick out in our minds more than positive ones; many things that benefit us don't rush to mind when we look back over the day / week / month. We remember extremes better than the normal things, and negative ones more than positive ones. (Negative memories tend to last longer. Who hasn't been ill, recovered with a cheery view of life only to let go of it a couple days later? But many of us can remember a kid who was sh*tty to us in third grade...) Originally Posted by coolvinny
-
No argument here. If you go back and read the whole thread--which I am not suggesting you do--you'll see the rank scientism that elicited my scorn. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
-
Forgive me, maybe I just haven't paid close enough attention, but I don't see what science and brain research has to do with playing the guitar. It's fairly simple. No, actually it's extremely simple. Drill. Repetition. Drill, drill, drill. Repetition. What does science have to do with the creation of a great musician? Up to now it; hasn't happened. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, through Bird and Coltrane. Not one of these people were attached to electrodes and double blind tested on brain fart analysis.
Music is at the other side of the spectrum. It deals with things that science, up to now, knows little about. The subject of aesthetics is a subjective subject. It's a subject of human consciousness and emotion and aesthetics. Trying to quantify it into numbers and symmetrical, mathematical equations, reductio ad absurdum, just makes little sense. I dont see it. Play the guitar. Study jazz. There's so much of it to study. So much. That's what can be daunting and intimidating.
-
@ henryr: I avoided this thread for a long time. I figured I wasn't an advanced player so I better keep quiet. I was hoping all the advanced players would come out talk about the ways they have wasted time. Maybe a good fight about how much scale running to do. But instead, you guys started talking about neuroscience. I still avoided the thread. I figured I don't know anything about neuroscience so I better keep quiet. But then somebody said how scientific knowledge was the only reliable knowledge. And that pissed me off, so I had to make a joke which flopped and needed to be explained. Frankly, I'd be happy if all the advanced players could focus on the OP's original question. But in answer to your question as to how the thread got derailed, I think all of you are about equally to blame and I am somewhat less so.
Last edited by jster; 12-14-2012 at 09:14 PM.
-
Don't you guys have any fun when you practice? lol This sounds more like being in the Army! Lighten up Francis Originally Posted by henryrobinett
-
That can be pretty fun because you'll start seeing actual results...
-
Good call Mr Beaumont. I love discovering and learning and didn't mean any harm to Henry. After listening to his music I can hear that his practice methods are paying off nicely. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Yeah, but the real fun is when you have a break from practicing, and read forums like these! Infact, who needs to practice in front of the TV when the laptop can be stuck on the Jazz Guitar Forum channel......
As much as I've enjoyed both polarized views (Henry's posts are cracking me up), like most, I'm probably in the middle somewhere in that I feel that there is a little science to the "art" of practicing, even if that science is unquantifiable. We just arrive at our own little conclusions abut how the brain/body machine works for us.
Earlier I sorta asked this : What is more effective, 4000 repetitions of something in a day, or 200 per day over 20 days? If You agree that the latter is more effective (as I do), then surely it's ok to wonder WHY? It's these personal epiphanies that lead us to our own personal systems. Whether they be "scientific" or not, Bird and Trane had systems for their practice. I'm just trying to develop my own, based on personal revelations, and ideas I might get from the outside world, heck, even from TJGF ! .....
-
I have complete fun when I practice. I wouldn't spend 3-4 hours every day at it for 40 some years if I didn't. Why do you say that? Because it has to do with drilling? Repetition? Originally Posted by bobby d
Don't you guys have any fun when you practice? lol This sounds more like being in the Army! Lighten up Francis
I'll tell you where the fun happens. It's in accomplishing something. Everyday, gradually pulling back the layers of the guitar. Setting my sights on a goal and doing it. But also so much of my practice, nowadays, involves just playing. But then on top of it going to the gig and playing Good Bait and really digging in and feeling great about what your'e playing. AND THEN, on top of THAT, every now and again getting the opportunity to play with some of your real heroes like Bobby Hutcherson, or Keezer or Benny Green, and not only not embarrassing yourself but playing well. Having any of those guys look at you, nod their head and smile or say, "Go ahead on Henry!" Damn it. THAT'S worth the work.
BUT it's not work when you love what you do, right? I start practicing at around 6 every morning. I CAN'T WAIT to practice. Believe it or not, I'll wake up at 4:30 some mornings and have to make myself stay in bed. LOL. I kid you not. I love it.
What have I practiced that's not worth it? Nothing. It's all worth it.
-
I've definitely had and have my systems of practice. In a certain sense they've all been very "scientific." They're based on results I've seen and repetition of fretboard mechanics. I just think it's a waste of valuable time resources to try and seek "researchers" who have studied whatever to help determine how much of whatever is worth it to do WTF. Originally Posted by princeplanet
Earlier I sorta asked this : What is more effective, 4000 repetitions of something in a day, or 200 per day over 20 days? If You agree that the latter is more effective (as I do), then surely it's ok to wonder WHY? It's these personal epiphanies that lead us to our own personal systems. Whether they be "scientific" or not, Bird and Trane had systems for their practice. I'm just trying to develop my own, based on personal revelations, and ideas I might get from the outside world, heck, even from TJGF ! .....
We humans love to over complicate simple things. How someone becomes a great musician or even just a good, competent one is a mystery to a lot of folk, I guess. And it shouldn't be. Practice. I wrote a manual I give to all of my students called The Art of Practice. I discovered that most musicians use the word but few have a real concept of what it is. I wrote it almost 20 years ago and it still is relevant. It's like playing over changes. You can look at the complexity or you can look at the simplicity. The simple way is preferable, to me, because it's easier to get complex from simple. You can grok it easier. Take the complexity away and you can create easier. You don['t need a study in neuroscience to play jazz. It may seem that way, but it's the furthest away from the subject of music and jazz and creating.
-
No one is talking about playing with emotion, feeling the rhythm etc., but I understand that's not what this thread is about. I like to just come up with stuff experimenting sometimes. Henry, I'm glad to hear you're really into practicing as much as you do. Like I said, it's paying off for you.
-
Indeed, and for the record, I took your post as a playful ribbing... Originally Posted by bobby d
-
Thanks. And anything up there is so last year! I hope to have gotten a lot better since then! Originally Posted by bobby d
Emotion is kind of what music is, right? In a tonal form. Music's what emotion sounds like.
But the entire reason I'm going off in this direction is because THAT'S what music is and what musicians DO. Practice. I had a very famous musician tell me that and it took a few years for it to sink in. THAT'S what musicians do. Practice.Last edited by henryrobinett; 12-14-2012 at 11:19 PM.
-
And I want to make one thing clear, if it's not already. What I've been trying to say that it's NOT my way or the highway. I'm just posting my opinions about a subject I've devoted my life to, apparently. EVERYONE has their own valid points of view. If you can find valid research that helps you play guitar better, awesome. What you do and what works for you is what is important. There is no one size fits all. Hands are different. Temperments are different. Patience varies. Goals are wildly different. Coltrane practiced 12 hours a day. Others never practice. I need to.
-
Hey Henry... Originally Posted by henryrobinett
You might have misinterpreted what I said. Having your act together, at least to a level of being an advanced player is one subject and practicing is another. I don't believe I said advanced players don't practice. I'm at a gig right now... Practicing . Sorry if I wasn't clear...I don't believe I was generalizing when I said advanced players have their act together... But then we might have different definitions of what makes an advanced player.
That might be another interesting thread, what make an advanced player.
Reg
-
Got it. Sorry if I misinterpreted your post Reg! Originally Posted by Reg
That would be a great topic for another thread!
-
Advanced is the new Intermediate. Originally Posted by Reg
Reply With Quote
There will be another you changes
Today, 02:06 AM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions