Jazz Guitar Exercises That Are a Waste of Time?

[Jonzo]

Not exactly. I set the system in motion and don't "decide" which ones to review. I know each morning when I get up what I will be working on. I keep a separate log for ideas, observations, notes after gigs when I messed something up and what I need to do to address that problem so it doesn't occur again. I don't intuitively decide what I will practice. That's decided by my list. I'm already in rotation on it.

I understand. It is all in the flow of your work as an artist. With beginning students I imagine it is much more structured.

[henryrobinett]

I understand. It is all in the flow of your work as an artist. With beginning students I imagine it is much more structured.

Yes, but it's pretty well structured as it is. It's probably less so with beginning students. My routine is very, very structured.

[Jonzo]

Thanks for sharing the information. What I like about your approach is that you emphasize that the guitar is secondary--how to learn efficiently is primary. I would have to pay to find out if you really deliver, but I like your philosophy.

On your website, you say

At its most basic I will teach you how to learn, if you're a willing student. I mean ACTUALLY how to learn. And this you can take anywhere, for any subject!

I take this to mean that you disagree with the people who say only a great guitarist is qualified to speak on learning guitar. A good teacher is qualified to speak on learning anything.

I won't go into my credentials, but I will share something that you and other people reading might find useful. If you really are not interested in science, you can disregard it.

For most people the optimal amount of time to wait until you practice something that you have mastered is around 1.7 times as long as the last interval. So, practice daily until the skill is perfect two days in a row, then follow the schedule in the chart below. If you fail to play it perfectly, start back at the beginning. If you find this schedule too easy or hard, you can adjust your intervals up or down within a range of 1.5 and 2.0. Also, if you are having to start over at the beginning a lot, you may not be mastering the skill adequately to begin with, or the skill might need to be broken down into smaller sub-skills.

I know most people won't actually follow this schedule (though it is easy with a computer), but it does give you a sense of how most people waste time with over-practice.

I will leave you with a final thought:

"The only thing I know is that I know nothing."
--Aristotle

Interval
4 days
7 days
12 days
20 days
1 month
2 months
3 months
5 months
9 months
16 months
2 years
4 years
6 years
11 years
18 years

[jster]

Very interesting Jonzo. I have wondered about that. I review vocabulary lists for a couple of languages every day, but I have never figured out how long to go before returning to a given list. 1.7-- I like it. Actually feels about right.

But you need to change your quote attribution. That's Socrates, not Aristotle.

[henryrobinett]

Well, a little bit maybe. I believe the process of learning can be universal. BUT if I want to study electrical engineering I shouldn't take lessons from a gardener, even if he's an excellent gardener and knows how to study.

However learning is a step by step process and is best done in an order. Don't get too complicated too quickly or learn things out of sequence or you'll have too many failures and confusions and will likely leave the subject of either the guitar itself or the area that you've tried to learn, like reading, bebop, chord melody, etc..

As I said earlier I don't put any stock in systematized "scientific" studies of intervals between practice. I mean I have no way of necessarily verifying unless I do my own correlated comparisons. I don't tend to believe in studies just because someone says it's so, no matter how many degrees or how bonafide he or she seems to be. If it works for you that's fantastic. But the way I have done it works for me and my students who have done it. There isn't enough time in the day as it is.

It reminds me of guys who get all kinds of things like squeeze balls and do isometric exercises to help them build chops. I mean what?? Practice the GUITAR!!! That's the best squeeze ball or exercise there is as far as improving your ability on the guitar! I just don't see the relevance.

I do it every day. A LITTLE everyday for it to retain. It's the consistency and repetitiveness daily that makes the difference. I can see taking a slight break and coming back. But I don't know that continuing every day as opposed to breaking and returning has any great advantage. Maybe so.

[Jonzo]

I get what you are saying about the gadgets. Following that chart with pencil and paper would be too much. I'm just trying to give a feel for what is supposed to be an optimal schedule.

My actual practice schedule, using a computer, has no more overhead than yours. A computer is a complicated tool, but it doesn't have to complicate everything. It also allows me to type a letter quicker and with fewer errors than I could with a simple paper and pencil.

Thanks again.

[henryrobinett]

I use the computer too. I use a timer and a metronome as well. I practice in front of the computer. I don't write this stuff with pencil and paper. I have no problem with gadgets. It feels like we keep mis-communicating.

[henryrobinett]

Oh, you mean the gadgets like the squeeze balls? Lol. Yeah.

And I guess I take exception to statements like, "what is supposed to be an optimal schedule". Who says its supposed to be more optimal? More optimal than what?

[Jonzo]

Oh, you mean the gadgets like the squeeze balls? Lol. Yeah.

And I guess I take exception to statements like, "what is supposed to be an optimal schedule". Who says its supposed to be more optimal? More optimal than what?

I am going from memory about some discussions I had with an educational psychology professor. Ultimately you have to adjust it to your actual abilites, but you want to have increaesing intervals of about 1.5 to 2.0 with each successful attempt. At least that is what experiments so far have shown.

Optimal in this case means efficient. Achieving a result with the least amount of work, compared to other schedules.

I can't write a disertaion on it here. Just putting it out there for people to think about.

[henryrobinett]

Well that's fine. To me it sounds like poppycock. I'm not a big psychology/psychiatric establishment kind of guy. I'd have to see Coltrane, Corea, Jarrett, Bird, Brecker - how those guys did it. Those are my experts. And what I do seems to work very well. But if it works well for you, great. Just don't go passing this off to me like it's official optimal, proven methodology, OK?

I always see the proof as being in the pudding. Show me the results.

[henryrobinett]

jonzo - I apologize for being rude with the poppycock remark. Sorry. But as I said I don't see why practicing has to be so complicated.

[docbop]

I just picked up Jean-Michel Plic's new book, It's About Music The Art and Heart of Improvisation. He is a great Jazz pianist who's on faculty of NYU Steinhardt. I just started reading it and something seems like it would fit in this thread.

If you never heard if Jean-Michel Pilc...
Jean-Michel Pilc

>>>>
I believe this the most common mistake in music education: make people analyze walking before they can actually walk, and make them study a language before they can talk.

Music is self-contained, indescribable, and unexplainable, but can be conveyed and transmitted. Like language, it main medium of transmission is oral tradition. The way a child learns how to speak should be the model for any serious kind of music education, at least at the basic level, and seeing so many students play the most intricate scales without hearing one note of what they are playing, is always a reminder that this analogy, however obvious, is being routinely ignored.
<<<<<

I'm looking forward to the rest of the book.

[Jonzo]

jonzo - I apologize for being rude with the poppycock remark. Sorry. But as I said I don't see why practicing has to be so complicated.

No problem. You can't get rankled about what people say in forums. Half the time you miss the intended nuance, humor, etc.

When I read about your thought process on your site, it seemed very similar to mine. What I do is not that complicated. I think you might find it interesting if we sat down together. But it still might not change your mind. Every system has strengths and weaknesses.

A simple way for you, or anyone, to test this 1.7 interval would be to take a new skill, get it up to the desired level of performance, and then see if you are able to maintain it by practicing on the schedule. Trying with just one skill isn't a great test, but it would give you an idea of whether it is in the ballpark.

Millions of people learn foreign languages using this system. Med students use it to study for exams. I asked a Dr. Bjork at the UCLA education lab whether the same systems applied to learning physical skills, and he said they did. He referred me to a summary article. I don't think anyone here actually wants to track down the research, when it is more informative to perform a small experiment.

(Not meaning to name drop, but people keep asking.)

[edh]

Jonzo, would you mind explaining to me what you mean be an interval of 1.7.

thanks

[mr. beaumont]

Seriously, without any intention to be a jerk here...Jonzo...how many tunes can you play?

I feel like there's a real imbalance with the way jazz is taught and learned by most folks vis the internet/ self practice.

[bobby d]

Someday I'll share something about practicing that I believe will be beneficial. It might be common knowledge with some of the advanced players. But that will be another thread

[henryrobinett]

I just picked up Jean-Michel Plic's new book, It's About Music The Art and Heart of Improvisation. He is a great Jazz pianist who's on faculty of NYU Steinhardt. I just started reading it and something seems like it would fit in this thread.

If you never heard if Jean-Michel Pilc...
Jean-Michel Pilc

>>>>
I believe this the most common mistake in music education: make people analyze walking before they can actually walk, and make them study a language before they can talk.

Music is self-contained, indescribable, and unexplainable, but can be conveyed and transmitted. Like language, it main medium of transmission is oral tradition. The way a child learns how to speak should be the model for any serious kind of music education, at least at the basic level, and seeing so many students play the most intricate scales without hearing one note of what they are playing, is always a reminder that this analogy, however obvious, is being routinely ignored.
<<<<<

I'm looking forward to the rest of the book.

That's great. I fully agree. I'm a big fan of Jean-Michel Plic's.

[Kojo27]

[MarkRhodes]

What is gained by defining an "advanced" player?

Depends. Some music publishers use that term (along with beginner and intermediate) to rate the material they offer. Chord book A, for example, is for beginners, while B is for intermediate players, and C is for advanced. Which one do you look it?

Mick Goodrick's book for "the advancing guitarist" has been praised as uncommonly good by many players here. Some people get the book and then realize, "whoa, I'm not ready for this!" Others react with, "man, this is exactly what I'd been looking for." Those players are at different levels.

A specific gain to such a definition here at the JGF might be that new members, who don't know anyone else here, could quickly find out what "advanced" means here.

[henryrobinett]

The 1.7 "scientific practice rule" (for lack of a better term) seems not to take into account the deepening of artistic expression that – seems to me – comes from *learning* intangible, even inexpressible "stuff" that we encounter while playing a tune or piece for the sheer love of the piece.

Or while playing for many other reasons, actually.

But not just because it's "time to practice now."

Staying with this one “extra” reason for playing (that we merely feel the urge), however, I doubt that anyone who has played for longer than, say, ten years would deny that, over time, something does happen with the tunes we love most and enjoy most. I'm talking about an enjoyment that comes only from playing the thing, perhaps in a "zone" one can enter only after a certain level of proficiency has been reached.

kojo27 - Very well said. This articulates better than I could have my nagging issue with this type of thing. But finding "systems" that help make the process your own can be very helpful. Its another way of being creative.

I've given scales and arpeggios and various tools to my students and see some of them derive complex schematics and number systems and weird geometric diagrams and various "theories" related to their construction. And I sit in amazement at some of this stuff. But they are doing a necessary, for them, process of internalizing and making what I've given them, their own. I want to say, and some times do say,"Well great. That's cool, but just LOOK AT IT ON THE FRETBOAD. Just practice it and LOOK at it. You'll probably understand it quicker if you just practice it and eventually see the shapes and see their own geometric designs. It all comes in application."

But whatever floats your boat and whatever method you use to get there is well and good.

I have found with an awful lot of my students, many of them want to find the magic short cut that gets them there faster than practicing. Charts and diagrams and notebooks full of mathematical equations and they are still, to this day most of them, back there fumbling around. To a certain degree they UNDERSTAND. But the execution is way off. Better to have just practiced it. Just go ahead and drill it and ALL OF THAT OTHER STUFF WILL JUST COME. You won't need the diagrams and equations because you'll understand it because you just drilled it. It's very simple. Some people like to see the complexity in everything. I like to find the simplicity. It's easier to understand. BUT if that's the way you have to do it, do it that way. Make it your own. Just DO IT.

[fep]

I have found with an awful lot of my students, many of them want to find the magic short cut that gets them there faster than practicing.

That made me laugh as it's so true. I think it's human nature.

I worked in the weight loss industry and it was common to say, "Everyone's looking for a magic pill". But the way to lose weight was simple (but not easy), it involved a life style change over time, and the simple calorie in vs. calorie out formula.

[MarkRhodes]

I have found with an awful lot of my students, many of them want to find the magic short cut that gets them there faster than practicing. Charts and diagrams and notebooks full of mathematical equations and they are still, to this day most of them, back there fumbling around. To a certain degree they UNDERSTAND. But the execution is way off. Better to have just practiced it. Just go ahead and drill it and ALL OF THAT OTHER STUFF WILL JUST COME. You won't need the diagrams and equations because you'll understand it because you just drilled it. It's very simple. Some people like to see the complexity in everything. I like to find the simplicity. It's easier to understand. BUT if that's the way you have to do it, do it that way. Make it your own. Just DO IT.

Henry, I see this a lot in writers too. The market is flooded with books about how to write screenplays, for example. (They are more alike than different too, so it less a matter of competing theories as of competing marketing approaches.) Some people read book after book but never actually finish a screenplay (or a novel.) They have the theory down but can't do anything with it, other than maybe discuss it with another would-be screeenwriter. (Truman Capote was once drunk at a reading and stopped to tell the audience, "You should all be home writing instead of here listening to me!")

Guitar is a bit different because most play primarily for personal enjoyment (-writers tend to write because they have to, and indeed whenever a writer is asked by a novice, 'should I give up?' the correct answer is, 'if you can, by all means, yes!' Most can't give up...) What gives personal enjoyment varies and may change over time. But I completely agree with you that, as Herb Ellis once said in frustration, "Just play the god*amn thing." You have to play to get better at playing. You have to play a lot. Playing is the thing.

Though because this is true, I'm sympathetic to a lot what Jonzo says because not all practice material is of equal value and there's a real question about how much time one needs to spend on something. (I liked the approach in "Patterns for Jazz" where two metronome readings were given above each exercise, the first being the lowest tempo you should be able to play exercise X at before attempting a further exercise and the the second being the point at which you move on from daily practice of exercise X.) Also, I like his suggestion of 'just try this on a couple of things and see if it works.' Hard to think of a more practical test. I've made many mistakes in my life and am wide open to the suggestion that my way of practicing might be much improved.

[fep]

I like schedules simple to keep me on track and to keep me from procrastinating. I've made them from time to time but often fall off the discipline.

With what Henry and Reg have posted I just made another schedule. As Henry said, I don't try to hit everything every day. I do want to sight read and do some Repertoire tasks everyday though. Also, I want to hit everything by the end of the week.

I'm trying to make this as simple as possible. For me, this is something to think about and adjust on a weekly basis.

[henryrobinett]

Henry, I see this a lot in writers too. The market is flooded with books about how to write screenplays, for example. (They are more alike than different too, so it less a matter of competing theories as of competing marketing approaches.) Some people read book after book but never actually finish a screenplay (or a novel.) They have the theory down but can't do anything with it, other than maybe discuss it with another would-be screeenwriter. (Truman Capote was once drunk at a reading and stopped to tell the audience, "You should all be home writing instead of here listening to me!")

Guitar is a bit different because most play primarily for personal enjoyment (-writers tend to write because they have to, and indeed whenever a writer is asked by a novice, 'should I give up?' the correct answer is, 'if you can, by all means, yes!' Most can't give up...) What gives personal enjoyment varies and may change over time. But I completely agree with you that, as Herb Ellis once said in frustration, "Just play the god*amn thing." You have to play to get better at playing. You have to play a lot. Playing is the thing.

Though because this is true, I'm sympathetic to a lot what Jonzo says because not all practice material is of equal value and there's a real question about how much time one needs to spend on something. (I liked the approach in "Patterns for Jazz" where two metronome readings were given above each exercise, the first being the lowest tempo you should be able to play exercise X at before attempting a further exercise and the the second being the point at which you move on from daily practice of exercise X.) Also, I like his suggestion of 'just try this on a couple of things and see if it works.' Hard to think of a more practical test. I've made many mistakes in my life and am wide open to the suggestion that my way of practicing might be much improved.

Excellent! And I didn't know about the 2 tempo markings in Patterns For Jazz! That's a great idea! The only thing I might have a small exception to is the notion of trying it on a couple of things to see if it works or feels good. Very often things will not feel right because they're outside our comfort zone. It may be just what we need, but it's uncomfortable or hard or gives us a headache. Sometimes you have to pull up the chair and work it out well BEFORE you can have a valid point of view. That's what teachers are for. GOOD teachers any way.

And yes, playing music and PRACTICING is what I do. It is as a part of me as my left foot is. Could I survive without it? Sure. I'd have to really learn how. What to do with myself?

(-writers tend to write because they have to, and indeed whenever a writer is asked by a novice, 'should I give up?' the correct answer is, 'if you can, by all means, yes!' Most can't give up...)

I love that.

[henryrobinett]

fep - That's a great chart!!! Very cool.