How hard do you push yourself to improve

[Andyrondack]

I bought the e book Brainjo recommended on this site and there's lots of stuff about practicing smart and taking things in appropriately small steps to avoid becoming demoralised. The author is a neurologist who points out that practising anything is about molding new pathways in the brain and that can only happen when we are alert enough to be paying concious attention to what we are doing, for most people staying alert enough happens in 25min chunks so we need rests gaps where the brain can consolidate what it has been told to learn, once playing feels subconcious then we are no longer learning to do something new but re- inforcing an old pathway. So that makes me think that if we are actually making stuff hard then it becomes counter- productive.

[NormanKliman]

I think different kinds of hands face different difficulties. I’ve got big hands with twisted fingers. Not noticeably twisted, but you’d see it if you looked at them head on, with my fingertips pointing at your eyes. I have no problems whatsoever with my fretting (left) hand, it’s my big clunky right hand that doesn’t seem to have an “indoor voice." (Heh, anyone remember “The Loud Family” from Saturday Night Live?) I’ve noticed in other guitarists that small hands with short sausage-like fingers seem to get the best results. Of course, they probably struggle with some of the broader chord fingerings, but there are always ways around that.

Guitar playing is harder for some of us than it is for others.

About burn-out, demoralization, etc., it’s not good, but it’s not like it’ll make you sick of guitar forever. You get thrown, you get up and dust yourself off, you take a break if you have to and you get back in the saddle.

[raysachs]

I’ve never pushed myself to improve. I started playing about 43 years ago, played a ton for about 8-10 years, then barely played for about 30, and then got way back into it 4 years ago. All pretty much based on how much time I’ve had available. But from a few months in, I was good enough to really enjoy myself and improvement has just come from playing a LOT when I was playing. And I’m not particularly good, but I’m better than I ever have been. And for the past couple of years I finally started learning a bit of blues fingerpicking, which I didn’t have the patience for before, and that’s a lot of fun, and a bit of work too. But it never feels like work, or practice, because I don’t approach it that way.

I’m sure if I’d pushed myself harder to improve at various points I might be better now. OTOH, I might have stopped playing because for all of the pushing to improve, I might have enjoyed it a lot less and just blown it off. So I guess I’m probably about as good as I’m hard wired to be, given my temperament and motivations. And ambitions, which are quite limited...

-Ray

[Methos1979]

I definitely don't push myself nearly enough. Early on I worked hard to get the open chords down smoothly and then a few years later I spent several months really working on learning my own fingerstyle style but recent attempts to improve always lead me back to just improving upon what I do best - simple songs with simple chord progressions.

I do have an acoustic duo with my wife that used to play out though so I would like get better. Better for me means playing lead lines, using a looper, and learning chord shapes and progressions farther up the fretboard. I think once I retire and I have more time on my hands I will likely dedicate more time to learning these things but I really should start now with just formalizing my daily practice structure a bit.

Then when I do retire maybe I'll start taking some in-person lessons from a local talented player and instructor that I know well. I took a few from him years ago to help change up my playing and his little tips and tricks were great and I still use them today.

[Nymuso]

Often I will encounter a riff or a passage which I will analyze, reason out, plan my moves - and can’t do. So I will put it down for a while. Sometimes a long while. Then I will pick it up and play it without thought . And the riff will come. My hands will do it on their own if I simply keep my cerebral cortex out of the way.

[JonPR]

I'm right with Mandobart here - word for word.

"Improvement" is not why I play guitar. I play because I enjoy it, and always have, no more no less. I like to say I never "practice". I just "play". (Calling it "practice" makes it sound like exercise, like work.)

I've been lucky in that guitar-playing has never been my job - I've not had to make a living from it*, which would have meant I would often have to play things I wasn't much interested in; and therefore might have to push myself to new levels of skill.

I play what I want. Occasionally I come across a piece of music I want to play but is beyond my current skill level. In that case, I sit down and work on it. (OK, I used the dread word "work" . But it's "work" in the same way a mountaineer is "working" when he climbs a mountain: it might be a struggle, but he wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't also a thrill.)

Sometimes, a piece does prove too difficult - meaning that, in the time taken to develop the necessary skill, to get through the tricky parts, I start to lose interest in the piece. The law of diminishing returns kicks in - I stop enjoying it, so there is no point. Life is too short, and there is too much other great music out there.
Other times, I find I can (before losing interest) get to the point where I can play a piece which once seemed impossible. It feels as I have thereby stepped up a notch in my skills - I congratulate myself! - but in truth those skills were already there; they just needed some warming up, some repeated application. Some practice.

What I never do is technical exercises or drills, and never have. I've never had a practice "schedule". I sometimes play a scale, but only as a warm-up, for finger exercise - a few seconds at most.

I've come to the conclusion now that there is no such thing as a piece of guitar music which is too difficult for me. I may well choose not to attempt a difficult piece, but that will be because it's either not interesting enough to begin with (there's some really boring difficult pieces out there), or I guess that it will stop being interesting before I've mastered it. But I'm confident enough from experience to know that if it's physically possible (if another guitarist can play it!) I would be able to do it if I applied myself.

IOW, I'd never say "I can play anything", because clearly I can't. But the things I can't play are things I don't want to play. And nobody is making me!

* I have actually earned money from guitar teaching, from transcription, and from gigs. The teaching was my living for a while, and sometimes involved me doing things I would not normally have chosen to do. The transcription sometimes has too. The gigs, never.

[jschmitz54]

Originally Posted by JonPR

I'm right with Mandobart here - word for word.

"Improvement" is not why I play guitar. I play because I enjoy it, and always have, no more no less. I like to say I never "practice". I just "play". (Calling it "practice" makes it sound like exercise, like work.)

I've been lucky in that guitar-playing has never been my job - I've not had to make a living from it*, which would have meant I would often have to play things I wasn't much interested in; and therefore might have to push myself to new levels of skill.

I play what I want. Occasionally I come across a piece of music I want to play but is beyond my current skill level. In that case, I sit down and work on it. (OK, I used the dread word "work" . But it's "work" in the same way a mountaineer is "working" when he climbs a mountain: it might be a struggle, but he wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't also a thrill.)

Sometimes, a piece does prove too difficult - meaning that, in the time taken to develop the necessary skill, to get through the tricky parts, I start to lose interest in the piece. The law of diminishing returns kicks in - I stop enjoying it, so there is no point. Life is too short, and there is too much other great music out there.
Other times, I find I can (before losing interest) get to the point where I can play a piece which once seemed impossible. It feels as I have thereby stepped up a notch in my skills - I congratulate myself! - but in truth those skills were already there; they just needed some warming up, some repeated application. Some practice.

What I never do is technical exercises or drills, and never have. I've never had a practice "schedule". I sometimes play a scale, but only as a warm-up, for finger exercise - a few seconds at most.

I've come to the conclusion now that there is no such thing as a piece of guitar music which is too difficult for me. I may well choose not to attempt a difficult piece, but that will be because it's either not interesting enough to begin with (there's some really boring difficult pieces out there), or I guess that it will stop being interesting before I've mastered it. But I'm confident enough from experience to know that if it's physically possible (if another guitarist can play it!) I would be able to do it if I applied myself.

IOW, I'd never say "I can play anything", because clearly I can't. But the things I can't play are things I don't want to play. And nobody is making me!

* I have actually earned money from guitar teaching, from transcription, and from gigs. The teaching was my living for a while, and sometimes involved me doing things I would not normally have chosen to do. The transcription sometimes has too. The gigs, never.

Your post says you never do exercises and drills but yet you mention playing scales, taught guitar so at some point didn’t you have to do exercises and drills to learn those things?
I’m a 2.5 year player with only one year of lessons that went away due to the pandemic. My perspective is likely different that someone with your depth and breath of experience.
About 8 months in I tried to learn Blackbird and it was far too difficult and that was a little disappointing. Never went back to it, yet anyway.
Since I’ve been able to learn most rhythm parts for Stairway to Heaven, Needle and Damage Done which imo are a little more difficult that the strumming songs in the beginning. Lately I’ve been learning some blues riffs that can be difficult but rewarding all the same. I enjoy songs that include small riffs inside the melody. They seem challenging but attainable at this point.
I get the fun idea but with out the challenge and progress this would be boring to me, that is doing the same old same old so to speak.
I appreciate your sharing your experiences and expertise with me.
John

[TRose]

Post deleted as it was off topic

[Glennwillow]

How hard do you push yourself to improve?

When I was younger, I pushed myself to improve on the guitar quite hard. I never pushed myself so hard that I found myself so discouraged that I quit. Certainly, I got discouraged, but my approach has always been to get up the next day ready to try again. That's how I have approached all aspects of life.

After I retired from full time work and started my YouTube channel, I pushed myself to come up with a new performance or tutorial video at least once per week. Now that I have nearly two hundred videos on my YouTube channel, I don't push that hard anymore. I come up with a new video maybe once every two weeks. But, I still work on new stuff constantly as a way to keep myself motivated.

I don't want to be a guitar player that plays the same things forever, over and over. I don't necessarily have to be learning new techniques every day or every week. But I want to keep my brain active and keep my playing skills reasonably sharp. At 72 I am probably not as good of a guitar player as I was 10 years ago, especially because I have to be more careful because of osteoarthritis in my finger joints. Still, I want to be able to continue playing as far into the future as possible.

- Glenn

[reeve21]

I play an hour or two and sometimes more just about every day. Even though it’s only a hobby for me, I am really focused on improving. That’s where I get my satisfaction, so I don’t ever feel like I’m getting burned out. I’ve always got a couple of tunes in my pile that I can’t play (yet) but I slow way down and try to get them to sound musical nonetheless. On the other hand I still play tunes that I’ve known forever and really enjoy them as well. One good thing about being a mediocre amateur is that your expectations are pretty low and there are a lot of small victories along the way

[CTIMOTH]

Originally Posted by shekie

Thank you for the link. He tabbed out what he heard/saw from a Doc Watson video and allegedly dumbed it down a bit for me. I guess he doesn't know just how dumb the tab needs to be

When I learned deep river blues it took me closer to 6 months vs 6 weeks. I was determined and very much starting out fingerstyle it was extra challenging. My suggestion is break it down to half a bar at a time master and splice together - but be sure to keep driving the alternating bass. Learning deep river blues benefited me as a player so much as it combines essential elements of fingerstyle. Tune down your guitar a half step for repping out those pinky bends could help too.

I bought a Doc Watson tablature book on Amazon which is pretty much spot on. It is a really fun song to play and worth the effort don’t give up!

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by jschmitz54

Your post says you never do exercises and drills but yet you mention playing scales, taught guitar so at some point didn’t you have to do exercises and drills to learn those things?

I said I play scales for maybe a few seconds at a time for warm-up. I don't practice them, as an exercise, and never did.

I'm not sure what a "drill" is - I never heard the term applied to practice until a few years ago on forums like this. I can guess, obviously, but it sounds appallingly militaristic to me. It's not a term I would ever use, for that reason.
"Exercise" is not a bad term, but I get all the exercise I need from playing music.

I remember some years back hearing interviews with two classical musicians - in two separate radio prgrams. They were asked how they practised, and they both said they never played scales or exercises. What they did was practise the next pieces they were due to perform. Exactly what I'd always done, instinctively.

Of course, I learned scales - just as those musicians would have done! I did that in school way before I was ever interested in being a musician myself. (I remember being taught to play a G major scale on the recorder, and probably some very simple melodies. I don't remember being told to practice scales, although we probably were.)

When I started teaching myself guitar, I played tunes, because that's what I wanted to do. (I'm not at school now, I can do what I want! ) Because I'd learned to read notation, I could play tunes from songbooks (melodies as well as chords). I wrote my own tunes, and I improvised. So I was getting plenty of "work-out".
Of course, "working out" wasn't the point. "Improving" mattered, but only so I could play more songs. Obviously the way to get better at playing songs was - playing songs. Again, the point wasn't to "get better"; it was to play the songs. So I would practice each tune or song.

The teaching came a lot later. I'd been an amateur/semi-pro (gigging) musician for around 30 years before a friend asked if I could give him guitar lessons. I found it surprisingly difficult, because of the planning needed - I took so much for granted that I had to analyze how I did everything, to get back to what it was like for a beginner. (I didn't use existing teaching material, I found it all rather unsatisfactory; I wanted to prepare my own.) But I found I enjoyed teaching, so took a part-time course in how to teach music. I had to pass an audition, but I had the skills necessary. That's where I learned all the essential admin teachniques (planning, assessment and so on).
Drills? Nope.
When I got work teaching kids in schools (ages 7-10), I did use an existing tuition book, because I was taking over an existing course. It was all classical guitar, and did involve some scale practice. But mostly the book consisted of short tunes, so the kids had pieces of music to play - and that was my focus. I probably didn't push the scale practice as much as I should have, but the kids enjoyed themselves, which was the main point. As a self-taught enthusiast myself, I wasn't going to go down the "push them through the grades" route. Some parents did want that, but few of the kids did.

For teaching adults - community classes, the occasional private student, which I still do - I use all my own teaching material. There are "scale exercises" right at the start - but they are all in the form of well-known melodies. The idea is to get the fingers working, and to give the beginner a recognisable piece of music they can actually play, after the first day. (Chords won't do that.)

It's not that I ban scale practice! For some intermediate students - especially those who want to be lead electric players (I get very few of those) - I give them various scale patterns and exercises. Always with plenty of context, key and chord associations, etc. Most of them actually want that kind of thing, of course, although some are mistaken as to its purpose.
The main purposes are (a) learning the fretboard, and (b) finger exercise. Those are both crucial, naturally. But scales don't make sense unless context is provided.

Originally Posted by jschmitz54

I’m a 2.5 year player with only one year of lessons that went away due to the pandemic. My perspective is likely different that someone with your depth and breath of experience.
About 8 months in I tried to learn Blackbird and it was far too difficult and that was a little disappointing. Never went back to it, yet anyway.
Since I’ve been able to learn most rhythm parts for Stairway to Heaven, Needle and Damage Done which imo are a little more difficult that the strumming songs in the beginning. Lately I’ve been learning some blues riffs that can be difficult but rewarding all the same. I enjoy songs that include small riffs inside the melody. They seem challenging but attainable at this point.
I get the fun idea but with out the challenge and progress this would be boring to me, that is doing the same old same old so to speak.

Sure, but the "challenge" is part of the "fun". Anything that keeps the enthusiasm up is important. Some people enjoy scale exercises. Some enjoy drills. That's great.
When practice gets boring - whatever it is you're doing - that's when you need to stop and do something different. I would be bored with scales, which is why I don't practise them. (I know them all, of course, I just see no need to work on them.) But I can spend hours learning one tune. My hands are getting plenty of exercise that way, but the exercise (the technical improvement) is beside the point.

To invoke a corny old aphorism, "it's about the journey, not the destination". We play music for the same reason we listen to it: to enjoy the moment, in a way that no other activity provides.
There's a great principle in psychology known as the "extended present", which refers to something I've always connected to music. One music professor (in an online lecture) likened to a computer's RAM, as opposed to ROM. It's our working memory, and it's about the attention we give not just to "now" - this moment you're in - but to the previous few seconds, probably not more than 10 or so. Music works entirely on that time scale, as we focus on each moment and compare it with our memory of the previous moment. In fact (of course) music makes us extend that attention back to a few minutes, making us remember things like "key", so we recognise when a piece returns to an opening key.

Obviously I'm disregarding our long-term memory (our "ROM", our "hard drive storage"), which is what enables us to recognise cultural aspects of music, and plenty of other defining factors that we use to judge what we're hearing. But in the main, music is about entertaining us in the present moment.

"Entertain" is a great word - it means literally to "hold between" or "hold among". Our attention is "held between" the previous moment and this moment. (It's a shame that "entertainment" is often used disparagingly in contrast to "art", especially in a musical context. The greatest art is also the greatest entertainment.)

And when we actually play music ourselves, we are creating our own moments, our own "extended present" - entertaining ourselves (even when no one else is listening). There are lots of other nice puns and associations there: "present" means "now", "here" and "gift". The French for "now" is "maintenant": literally "hand holding", "held in the hand". Think about all that next time you play the guitar. You are holding the moment in your hands and in your mind, like a gift .
Music is an art of time - it works via sound, obviously, but it's subject is time.

[jschmitz54]

Originally Posted by JonPR

I said I play scales for maybe a few seconds at a time for warm-up. I don't practice them, as an exercise, and never did.

I'm not sure what a "drill" is - I never heard the term applied to practice until a few years ago on forums like this. I can guess, obviously, but it sounds appallingly militaristic to me. It's not a term I would ever use, for that reason.
"Exercise" is not a bad term, but I get all the exercise I need from playing music.

I remember some years back hearing interviews with two classical musicians - in two separate radio prgrams. They were asked how they practised, and they both said they never played scales or exercises. What they did was practise the next pieces they were due to perform. Exactly what I'd always done, instinctively.

Of course, I learned scales - just as those musicians would have done! I did that in school way before I was ever interested in being a musician myself. (I remember being taught to play a G major scale on the recorder, and probably some very simple melodies. I don't remember being told to practice scales, although we probably were.)

When I started teaching myself guitar, I played tunes, because that's what I wanted to do. (I'm not at school now, I can do what I want! ) Because I'd learned to read notation, I could play tunes from songbooks (melodies as well as chords). I wrote my own tunes, and I improvised. So I was getting plenty of "work-out".
Of course, "working out" wasn't the point. "Improving" mattered, but only so I could play more songs. Obviously the way to get better at playing songs was - playing songs. Again, the point wasn't to "get better"; it was to play the songs. So I would practice each tune or song.

The teaching came a lot later. I'd been an amateur/semi-pro (gigging) musician for around 30 years before a friend asked if I could give him guitar lessons. I found it surprisingly difficult, because of the planning needed - I took so much for granted that I had to analyze how I did everything, to get back to what it was like for a beginner. (I didn't use existing teaching material, I found it all rather unsatisfactory; I wanted to prepare my own.) But I found I enjoyed teaching, so took a part-time course in how to teach music. I had to pass an audition, but I had the skills necessary. That's where I learned all the essential admin teachniques (planning, assessment and so on).
Drills? Nope.
When I got work teaching kids in schools (ages 7-10), I did use an existing tuition book, because I was taking over an existing course. It was all classical guitar, and did involve some scale practice. But mostly the book consisted of short tunes, so the kids had pieces of music to play - and that was my focus. I probably didn't push the scale practice as much as I should have, but the kids enjoyed themselves, which was the main point. As a self-taught enthusiast myself, I wasn't going to go down the "push them through the grades" route. Some parents did want that, but few of the kids did.

For teaching adults - community classes, the occasional private student, which I still do - I use all my own teaching material. There are "scale exercises" right at the start - but they are all in the form of well-known melodies. The idea is to get the fingers working, and to give the beginner a recognisable piece of music they can actually play, after the first day. (Chords won't do that.)

It's not that I ban scale practice! For some intermediate students - especially those who want to be lead electric players (I get very few of those) - I give them various scale patterns and exercises. Always with plenty of context, key and chord associations, etc. Most of them actually want that kind of thing, of course, although some are mistaken as to its purpose.
The main purposes are (a) learning the fretboard, and (b) finger exercise. Those are both crucial, naturally. But scales don't make sense unless context is provided.
Sure, but the "challenge" is part of the "fun". Anything that keeps the enthusiasm up is important. Some people enjoy scale exercises. Some enjoy drills. That's great.
When practice gets boring - whatever it is you're doing - that's when you need to stop and do something different. I would be bored with scales, which is why I don't practise them. (I know them all, of course, I just see no need to work on them.) But I can spend hours learning one tune. My hands are getting plenty of exercise that way, but the exercise (the technical improvement) is beside the point.

To invoke a corny old aphorism, "it's about the journey, not the destination". We play music for the same reason we listen to it: to enjoy the moment, in a way that no other activity provides.
There's a great principle in psychology known as the "extended present", which refers to something I've always connected to music. One music professor (in an online lecture) likened to a computer's RAM, as opposed to ROM. It's our working memory, and it's about the attention we give not just to "now" - this moment you're in - but to the previous few seconds, probably not more than 10 or so. Music works entirely on that time scale, as we focus on each moment and compare it with our memory of the previous moment. In fact (of course) music makes us extend that attention back to a few minutes, making us remember things like "key", so we recognise when a piece returns to an opening key.

Obviously I'm disregarding our long-term memory (our "ROM", our "hard drive storage"), which is what enables us to recognise cultural aspects of music, and plenty of other defining factors that we use to judge what we're hearing. But in the main, music is about entertaining us in the present moment.

"Entertain" is a great word - it means literally to "hold between" or "hold among". Our attention is "held between" the previous moment and this moment. (It's a shame that "entertainment" is often used disparagingly in contrast to "art", especially in a musical context. The greatest art is also the greatest entertainment.)

And when we actually play music ourselves, we are creating our own moments, our own "extended present" - entertaining ourselves (even when no one else is listening). There are lots of other nice puns and associations there: "present" means "now", "here" and "gift". The French for "now" is "maintenant": literally "hand holding", "held in the hand". Think about all that next time you play the guitar. You are holding the moment in your hands and in your mind, like a gift .
Music is an art of time - it works via sound, obviously, but it's subject is time.

Thank you for your exceptional response and taking your time to present those concepts and ideas to me. The response itself contains the beauty of art and allows me a new meaningful perspective.
I wish I could return the favor. I also wish I could find an instructor like you.
Wishing you peace and contentment for the new year.

[srick]

Some of my best learning has come from guitar weekend workshops, some of my worst from trying to learn to play a piece or a riff from an online source. And I have wondered, "What's going on here? I am trying just as hard to learn when in both venues."

I think that the in-person sessions have a few benefits that you usually don't get:

• There's an intrinsic excitement and release from the day-to-day when you travel to a workshop and stay over - this heightens learning
• The acoustics are different - you hear yourself differently, and you also hear ans see other trying to attempt the same thing - IOW, lots of aural feedback
• The instructor plays, you repeat, the instructor plays, you repeat. You are watching at the same time and receiving both aural and visual feedback

I think the feedback is a big part of the learning process. When your brain learns what to listen for, your hands and fingers work in synch to achieve that. And, a pleasure pathway is set up.

Learning on-line is very different. The course is usually well-prescribed and more of a lecture\demo. There is no interaction and hence, minimal feedback. There are no natural breaks, Learning in person is more of a conversation. When we practice alone, we are talking to ourselves.

So to get back to the original question, I learn the best and improve when I am not even trying. When I try to push, it never seems to pan out. The brain has to be in an 'open' state where is receptive to feedback and can create new neural connections (afferent loops in the trade). Practicing alone is like talking to yourself, practicing in a group is like having a conversation.

best,

Rick

[Dru Edwards]

I actually don't push myself anymore. For 30 years I used to push myself with practice and band practice but now I play what I want when I want. Although I still improve by playing (not practicing) I'm not concerned nor am I pushing for that next level. I guess I'm in the minority here.