How much do you practice each day?

[slide496]

IMHO the more I practice the more I connect with the external sound rather than producing a sound and filling in the difference from an untrained perspective so that what I hear when I am playing and what I record and play back are closer together.

Especially with bottleneck when I started I would think I was doing great and then record and whoa! what was I thinking, back to the drawing table so to speak.

[Jackknifegypsy]

When I noodle around with the guitar, just trying different things out, I don't consider that the same as practice I do which IMO, is a regimented fashion, i.e. chord progressions, scales, dexterity, speed runs, 'working at' getting a piece down cold, and all the other components separately.

When many say they practice I wonder if they are not in fact involved in an act of creation, sort of 'play time' on the guitar, no specific goal in mind? Clapton, to belabor the point, doing "Trills", is practice. He works hard at it. Once the word "work" comes into it, i think we move from the capricious (which doesn't mean it does not contribute to improvement) to the serious business of practice.

It is in the time spent with the guitar doing 'creative' things that the true talent emerges, complemented by a more less expert skill, (or doesn't), or shows itself to be rather hamstrung, lacking originality, newness, or even a totally unique arrangement of a previously composed tune (lower on the talent scale, but serviecable).

I may be into semantics here, with some, but there is a world of difference between what a technical virtuoso like Clapton, a creative genius like Sor, Segovia, Bach, and the big dawgs consider practice, and what I consider the hard work of learning.

[AtlJohn]

....and i'm looking forward to opening the links therein, which i've got lined up in their own tab.

I'm especially interested in the creative aspect, as that's most of what i do on the guitar. As a huge, voracious fan of music, at times, mostly in the past, i've been motivated enough to work to fully learn workable cover versions of songs that have moved me.....but this doesn't happen very much any more.

After never ever playing without a pick for decades, about a year and a half ago i took up fingerstyle and fell completely in love with it. I basically completely switched to fingerstyle, and now play more on a daily basis than i ever have. I enjoy it immensely and only wish i'd done this years ago.

But though i've enjoyed learning a few fingerpicking covers that i never would have dreamed of being able to play in my previous guitar life, it's my writing creativity that has taken off and which draws me to the guitar and keeps me there for longer than i ever have.

It may start as noodling, but very shortly, and this is nearly on a daily basis, i'll stumble onto something i like and it just kind of takes off from there. Hours will fly by, the way time warps when in the company of that special someone. Fortunately, what i hear in my head when my brain starts wanting to hear the composition-germ go in a certain direction, is usually a bit faster or more involved than i'm able to play, so the coolest thing for me is that i'm moved to work at it and to improve my playing in order to be able to execute and hear in the air the music that i'm hearing in my head.

I feel so much more in touch with the instrument while playing fingerstyle, and it has just blown the lid off of my creativity.....i've never played more, enjoyed it more or progressed more than this last year. But would you call it practice? I'd guess not.

Sorry for the ramble. I guess i just wanted to say that i doubt i'd be motivated to just tediously WORK at exercises or at perfecting a cover, but the gift i've been given of being able to come up with new little pieces of guitar music that amuse me is something i'm immensely grateful for, and it has all come about as a result of a conscious decision to become a better and more well-rounded player.

Finally, Jackknifegypsy, i hear you on the diminishing returns/saturation thing, and covers work that way for me, in that i have to work so hard at getting them up to snuff, it really needs to be a song that i love, otherwise i'm tired of it.
I can't even express what an amazing gift it is to be able to create/compose(by this i don't mean that my stuff is great, only that it pleases and stimulates me, which is all i want), and i'm really not sure if it's just something that is in me, or part and parcel of my expanded guitar playing ability.

But i can say that the more i play, the more it happens, the better i get, and the more i enjoy it.

Cheers,
-js

[MaKaToM]

Woah! This is all a far cry from me!

I will play for maybe 10 minutes a day, unless I'm recording something, then I'll play for as long as it takes.

I told myself when I decided to teach myself that I would only play for as long as I could bare it, before getting cross. That way I would keep myself from growing bored and giving up. (I've never stuck to anything in life, you see)

10 minutes a day for 6 months and by then I didn't feel humiliated walking into a guitar shop and trying out instruments.

Now I'm 3 years in, own 6 guitars, a banjitar and a uke, and have set up a lovely little home studio... So I don't see myself stopping at any point.

What I have come to realise is that I will never feel like a 'good' guitarist, as I am aware of everything that I CAN'T do, but other people will always be impressed, as they only see what I CAN do...I think this goes for all musicians...?

[Roselynne]

I try for a 1-hour minimum. On a really terrific day, I'll get 4 hours or more (not all at once).

Occasionally, life takes over, and I'm lucky to get a few minutes in. Fortunately, those days are rare, but I notice a big, bad difference after even one day of little-or-no practice. (Why, oh why is it so much easier to go backward than forward?)

[815C]

Originally Posted by Roselynne

(Why, oh why is it so much easier to go backward than forward?)

That is too true!

The guitar seems merciless in that respect.

I also play piano. Although I'm a much better guitarist that I am a pianist, I can get around on the keys pretty good. One thing I've noticed is that I can not touch a keyboard for MONTHS and be pretty much at the same place the next time I sit down at one. With guitar its another story. Two or three days away from it and wow my playing sure suffers.

[Bern]

Originally Posted by Jackknifegypsy

...tells me that Clapton has limited talent to Originate, Compose, and is much more famous for his imitations, and covers for other artists.

Excuse me...

[jay7347]

I try to keep a solid average of about twenty hours per week. Sometimes it gets near thirty and sometimes down to fifteen, life does get in the way occasionally. Usually I break up that practice time between technique drills, practicing songs I've written to get them ready to play live and writing new ones. I also try to leave time for serendipity... that noodling aspect of guitar playing that sometimes keeps me from feeling that its all just work. Bottom line is I'm really trying to teach myself to talk with the guitar, so whatever I'm hearing inside I can communicate in hopefully short order. The frustrating aspect is that I could easily practice twice as much, so I guess that means I'm kind of obsessive. But I feel guitar should always be fun, even if one is working hard at it!
-jay

[Raj]

Boy, I hope Clapton is not reading this thread, he will kill himself.

Wait, he may never read this thread as he might be busy composing, imitating other artists or making covers, using his "limited talent".

[Jackknifegypsy]

You're taking this out of context. Once again: IF Clapton has to practice PRACTICE with a capital P, 7 hours a day, he has limited talent.

IF as you state he is CREATING, and in fact not practicing, then he is the genius with the well-deserved rep he has.

My point about the necessity for 50 hours of practice a week is that those with limited talent, must practice that much just to get by.

Obviously, Clapton ain't "practicing" his scales, chords, hand positions, fingering, strumming, and all the other minutiae that constitutes guitar practice. He is making music, and therein lies the difference: there is playing the guitar, and there is making music.

Worlds apart those two.

[Toby Walker]

Originally Posted by Jackknifegypsy

My point about the necessity for 50 hours of practice a week is that those with limited talent, must practice that much just to get by.

Ludicrous. Try telling that to ANY successful concert pianist. My wife... who is TREMENDOUSLY talented... was a concert pianist when she was younger. Competitions, awards, tours... the whole nine yards. To this day she is still a highly successful, full time professional musician.

She's been reading this thread and in particular your statement above with whimsical, chuckling amusement.

Long hours of practice was just the START of what it took to be successful in her field. Maintaining a major concert repertoire simply demanded that kind of time. Once the pieces were perfected then, and only then could she begin to insert interpretation, emotions and the numerous other nuances that cannot be written down into the music. This magic ALSO required long hours of study and single minded devotion. One needs to first master the written music in order to rise above the page.

However.. .and this is a point she wants to make... the second stage of the process I've described here never would have occurred without the long hours of practice that it took to lay down the foundation.

To say that anyone needing to practice for 50 hours or more a week because they are have limited talent is certainly not the case for the ones who have successfully carved out a way of earning a fruitful living by performing music. Perhaps this assertion applies to you, but not for the circle of pro musicians that I know and associate with.

This assertion of yours, in my honest opinion and with all due respect, seems to stem from your own experiences and possible failures of trying to make a living as a professional musician. They are a far reality from the musicians who by their own virtues have and continue to achieve high musical standards by putting in their continuous and at times exhausting dedication to mastering their craft. Saying that these musicians have limited talent is absolutely insulting, degrading and smacks of thinly veiled jealousy.

[Deacon Blues]

Originally Posted by Jackknifegypsy

You're taking this out of context. Once again: IF Clapton has to practice PRACTICE with a capital P, 7 hours a day, he has limited talent.

IF as you state he is CREATING, and in fact not practicing, then he is the genius with the well-deserved rep he has.

My point about the necessity for 50 hours of practice a week is that those with limited talent, must practice that much just to get by.

Obviously, Clapton ain't "practicing" his scales, chords, hand positions, fingering, strumming, and all the other minutiae that constitutes guitar practice. He is making music, and therein lies the difference: there is playing the guitar, and there is making music.

Worlds apart those two.

I understand the difference you are trying to make, but does it matter? If someone is putting X amount of hours in on their instrument - either learning scales, practicing scales to warm up, trying to learn a new tune, trying to practice a new tune, trying to develop, it all comes down to the same thing - trying to attain a certain level of mastery at the effort. I believe that if you are not performing, whatever it is you are doing with the guitar is a form of practice.

While it certainly comes easier to some than others, anyone who chooses to do something well practices some portion of it in one way or the other. I don't think I've ever spoken to a professional musician or read an interview with one, where they said practicing was not helpful or a good thing to do or they didn't recommend it. To consider that is simply silly.

I get your frustration level, but perhaps you are having trouble with the learning process. Maybe you need to find the RIGHT teacher, show him what you know and how you practice. I would doubt that you wouldn't be able to progress as long as you PRACTICE. I understand that you have had many teachers, however that does not mean you had the right teacher.

I once had an instructor tell me that it didn't matter how I held the guitar. Being a newbie, I believed him. Later found out he didn't know what he was talking about, but some bad habits were ingrained that had to be changed. Eventually I found a GOOD teacher who helped me dramatically, and practice was part of his routine with me AND his routine before performing.

Whether it was scales to limber up, a certain tune to feel comfortable, or whatever, it was certainly practicing something - a lick, muscle memory, whatever.

Yep, it comes easier to some. And that's got a lot to do with attitude, because as far as they've found out so far, there is no 'guitar gene' in our DNA structure. I'm sure environment, encouragement, etc. has a lot to do with it, but all will still encompass practice.

I would bet a substantial amount of money that if a poll is taken the vast majority of professionals - or even non-professionals - would stress the importance of good practice. Not just for a week or a year, but as part of your regular musical experience.

I get that is not part of what you are doing, and I also get that you don't seem to be at a point where you want to be with your guitar. I'd have to say there was a direct connection between the two.

Find a GOOD teacher who is also a good listener. You may have to go through several, but it will be worth it. There's a lot of them out there you can benefit from, particularly with SKYPE.

Hope it works out for you. I guess the rest of us will do what everyone has done before us and practice correctly as we keep progressing.

I'd also be interested - TO ALL YOU FULL TIME MUSICIANS ON THE FORUM - DO YOU STILL PRACTICE? AND IF SO WHAT?

[Jackknifegypsy]

Let's first you and I define our terms before I respond with an insensitive post such as yours to another's point of view.

You define practice and I will define it, then we can go from there.

My very good friend, a very TALENTED young man from the get go, trained in classical guitar from age 10 to about 30, switched gradually to Jazz, and pop. He barely gets by today financially, at age 45. He plays his guitar in his sleep. When I used to hear him play while on a break from a performance I'd ask him why he has to 'practice' this particular riff or that, since he's nailed it about a thousand times. and he said something that has persuaaded me that practice is one thing, and 'being the guitar' another. It has stuck with me forever: "I'm not practicing anything, I am just COMPELLED to play, I can't seem to put it down". I think those with immense talent, that they do not let sit idle are pretty much all in the same category. The same thing happened when I interviewed the jazz violinist, Joe Venuti at Charlie Byrd's club in D.C.

I distinguish between the two since then. When your wife is doing what she does, she is compelled to be ever better, but this is not practice in my world. If she plays every hour of every day of the week, she is not practicing as I define it, anymore than Michaelangelo was 'practicing' by fussing over "David" as long as he lived, or a Sabicas, Segovia, or the local limited talent rock guitar player who wants fame and fortune. This magnificent obsession with the instrument is separate from that of Practice.

Let's first deal, amicably, I hope, with your last assertion about my motives for stating the obvious to all but the most obtuse: Talent is required in every field, yes, even music.

To deny this is everyone's right, but it makes it no less an established fact of life.

As to my own experience, and failure of trying to make a living as a professional musician, in your words, NOTHING could be further from the truth. I've taken piano lessons with a 44 key cardboard fold out for 3 years as a 9 yr old, and accordion lessons at age 11 to 13. And because I had a talented singing voice, out of the womb, NO LESSONS, VERY LITTLE practice, I was the soloist and star attraction on Christmas Eve religious celebrations at the church. Yippee.

None of that led me to a career as a musician. I couldn't imagine a worse way to make a living seeing all around me those who were even more talented than I was, breaking their butts to achieve some level of local fame. When my magical voice broke in my teens, so did my singing avocation. Couldn't stand the sound of my own voice. Neither, I suspect, could my former fans in the family. Don't ask me how I could pick the perfect pitch in a hymn in minutes that would take forever for the other guys and gals in the choir to get. And just sing it for my pleasure or those who wanted to hear it. It was, as I learned from the accordion teacher, a natural talent, requiring minimal work on my part. If you haven't had that feeling of being really great at something with little effort on your part, far above your peers, then you have no idea of what I am talking about when I talk about the differences among talent, practice, and being compelled to do something.

Jealous? Maybe that finger you are pointing at me, in reality, is the other 4, pointing back at you?

I see no insult anywhere when I distinguish, in Clapton's case, between his own quote that he has got to 'practice' his trills, the vibrato, more, and his being compelled to play the guitar, making music, creating a new riff, phrasing or song. It is as if he would cease to breathe if he didn't play the guitar many hours a day, for the pure joy it gives him. It is just something he is by nature compelled to do with his time.

Foundational issues that you mention are a point on which we are likely in agreement. At the commencement of any vocation certainly the theory and application of it to the actual production of something, anything requires many hours of learning, struggle, and absorption in the field. Art demands it more than some craft like learning how to use a chisel. Or play a Cmaj chord in all its permutations on the keyboard, reed, or washboard. And those who are more talented than others are going to 'get it' in minutes, or immediately that which it takes other YEARS to achieve. Or never. Don't you know anyone that just 'gets it' with practically no effort at all? Never met anyone who just throws a fast ball faster than god, naturally?? With NO practice??

In re-reading your post, you inadvertently bring up a point I only alluded to as well. A 'Craftsman' is one thing, and an Artisan, Artist, quite another. There are a great many very famous Craftsmen who make tons of money and have all the accolades to go with it, that have been repeating the same song over and over again until even they are sick to death of the repitition. That doesn't mean that the Eagles 'practiced' , Hotel California' every hour of every day. Or even every month. But Henley and Frey could still come up with new lyrics within minutes, perfect minstrels and poets to the end.

Now you define practice.

[Jackknifegypsy]

Deacon,

I had hoped that by now the Talent/Hard persistent work debate would be over, but that's not likely I guess.

The words: Practice/Working at it/putting in the hours, etc. are apparently meaning different things to each of us.

I have tried to summarize: There is Practice, there is being compelled to play, and there is Talent.

I cannot imagine in my wildest imaginings that a person with very little natural ability would ever attain virtuoso status or be remotely approaching it. Without a great deal, not just a little talent, I find that an impossibility.

I cannot imagine hard work alone being responsible for a John Williams, Rory Cochrane, Eric Clapton, Mark Knopfler, Joe Venuti (and neither could he, RIP, Joe), or Charlie Byrd, Charlie Parker, and so many more acknowledged by their peers and associates as extraordinarily talented.

[Deacon Blues]

Originally Posted by Jackknifegypsy

Let's first you and I define our terms before I respond with an insensitive post such as yours to another's point of view.

You define practice and I will define it, then we can go from there.

My very good friend, a very TALENTED young man from the get go, trained in classical guitar from age 10 to about 30, switched gradually to Jazz, and pop. He barely gets by today financially, at age 45. He plays his guitar in his sleep. When I used to hear him play while on a break from a performance I'd ask him why he has to 'practice' this particular riff or that, since he's nailed it about a thousand times. and he said something that has persuaaded me that practice is one thing, and 'being the guitar' another. It has stuck with me forever: "I'm not practicing anything, I am just COMPELLED to play, I can't seem to put it down". I think those with immense talent, that they do not let sit idle are pretty much all in the same category. The same thing happened when I interviewed the jazz violinist, Joe Venuti at Charlie Byrd's club in D.C.

I distinguish between the two since then. When your wife is doing what she does, she is compelled to be ever better, but this is not practice in my world. If she plays every hour of every day of the week, she is not practicing as I define it, anymore than Michaelangelo was 'practicing' buy fussing over "David" as long as he lived, or a Sabicas, Segovia, or the local limited talent rock guitar player who wants fame and fortune. This magnificent obsession with the instrument is separate from that of Practice.

Let's first deal, amicably, I hope, with your last assertion about my motives for stating the obvious to all but the most obtuse: Talent is required in every field, yes, even music.

To deny this is everyone's right, but it makes it no less an established fact of life.

As to my own experience, and failure of trying to make a living as a professional musician, in your words, NOTHING could be further from the truth. I've taken piano lessons with a 44 key cardboard fold out for 3 years as a 9 yr old, and accordion lessons at age 11 to 13. And because I had a talented singing voice, out of the womb, NO LESSONS, VERY LITTLE practice, I was the soloist and star attraction on Christmas Eve religious celebrations at the church. Yippee.

None of that led me to a career as a musician. I couldn't imagine a worse way to make a living seeing all around me those who were even more talented than I was, breaking their butts to achieve some level of local fame. When my magical voice broke in my teens, so did my singing avocation. Couldn't stand the sound of my own voice. Neither, I suspect, could my former fans in the family. Don't ask me how I could pick the perfect pitch in a hymn in minutes that would take forever for the other guys and gals in the choir to get. And just sing it for my pleasure or those who wanted to hear it. It was, as I learned from the accordion teacher, a natural talent, requiring minimal work on my part. If you haven't had that feeling of being really great at something with little effort on your part, far above your peers, then you have no idea of what I am talking about when I talk about the differences among talent, practice, and being compelled to do something.

Jealous? Maybe that finger you are pointing at me, in reality, is the other 4, pointing back at you?

I see no insult anywhere when I distinguish, in Clapton's case, between his own quote that he has got to 'practice' his trills, the vibrato, more, and his being compelled to play the guitar, making music, creating a new riff, phrasing or song. It is as if he would cease to breathe if he didn't play the guitar many hours a day, for the pure joy it gives him. It is just something he is by nature compelled to do with his time.

Foundational issues that you mention are a point on which we are likely in agreement. At the commencement of any vocation certainly the theory and application of it to the actual production of something, anything requires many hours of learning, struggle, and absorption in the field. Art demands it more than some craft like learning how to use a chisel. Or play a Cmaj chord in all its permutations on the keyboard, reed, or washboard.

Now you define practice.

First, I don't think anyones posts in this thread are meant to be insensitive and offensive. I think they were meant to try and understand both your view of what practice is and why you feel that the way you do about it, as well as expressing their own views of it. That's what forums are a lot about, if you ask me.

Often the typed word can not reliably imply intent, and I don't think anyone is trying to be insulting here. At least in my views as I read these. I find it an interesting thread.

There are a LOT of very talented people out there. However, as you choose to define practice, let me offer my view of talent.

Often it is the ability to fail, pick yourself up, learn from the failure, and be better for it. It is all too often a part of the natural growth patten for many people who are successful. Are there exceptions? Certainly are, but they are not the rule. They are exceptions.

To me, talent is combined with perserverance, instruction (from internal AND external sources), goal setting, support, and a host of other things.

Would I want to be a professional musician? Nope. I couldn't do it as a choice. Could I apply myself with the right instructor and practice regimen (gee, that word 'practice' comes up a lot), and get to the point where perhaps people would pay to hear what I offer? Given enough time,dedication, etc., on my part, I believe they would. Would I (I say "I", but I obviously mean anyone) be incredibly successful? Who knows. But I doubt it. And the fact that I doubt it implies that I wouldn't have the dedication to do it. I've seen people with very little skill attain certain levels of notoriety from their 'talent' and practice. Nothing wrong with that.

And another piece comes in.

When you were practicing on your folded out keyboard, was there a passion in that? Did you know at that early age that you wanted to be a keyboardist professionally, or be involved in a life of music as a livelihood? I would guess that you did not. And that is fine. All too often we expect people at WAY too early an age to make decisions and commitments when they are not ready to. In many ways, I find it very, very odd that a 16 year old kid applying to college must already know what he/she plans to do with the rest of their lives for work and begin training for it. I believe many are too young to make such important decisions.

We view life differently, and there is no shame or malice or accusations that are associated with that. I think to be successful (depending upon how you define success!) you must have dedication, focus, coaching, support, and tons of other stuff. And I believe that it is often more pressure filled once you ATTAIN a level of success to stay there.

If I were to be asked by anyone what my opinion is on how to be successful at ANYTHING, I would not include 'talent' in my description. I would tell them to find something they were passionate about and follow it with all their heart, practicing, learning, and doing everything they could to follow that dream AS LONG AS IT REMAINED what they wanted from life. Simple as that. I think if you insert the word TALENT it sometimes gives people and easy way 'out'.

I believe I would use the words drive and passion as opposed to talent.

Some stuff comes 'easier' to others, but by thoughts on it is that it is a reflection of the participants attitude towards the 'work', people involved, etc.

But I'm STILL glad I didn't dedicate my life to being a professional musician. I wouldn't have dental insurance if I did!