How much do you practice each day?

[Mr Fixit eh]

I can conservatively say I practice 1 hour a day. I'll often practice 3 hours in a day, but then other days, I'll only practice 30 minutes. I have been able to make significant progress with this investment, but I'd like to be able to invest more time.

I'm expecting that there is a point of diminishing returns where an extra hour of practice doesn't result in a proportionate increase in skill levels. But I think history has been pretty clear - the greats have put in lots and lots more practice time than 1 hour a day.

Steve

[williejohnson]

Originally Posted by Jackknifegypsy

Anyone who has to practice 7 hours a day doing anything, including Clapton, have a limited talent.

Jack,
It has been my experience that those who have a great deal of natural talent (i.e. Clapton) don't HAVE TO practice 7 hours per day but rather they WANT TO practice 7 hours per day. There is a huge difference between those two scenarios.

[Toby Walker]

Originally Posted by Jackknifegypsy

Anyone who has to practice 7 hours a day doing anything, including Clapton, has limited talent.

And I'm STILL trying to get my head around that one.

Originally Posted by Jackknifegypsy

There is no doubt that 10-12-24 hours a day of practice is indicative of one thing only: a horrible paucity of natural talent. That goes for music, art, science, professions in any form, and every other endeavor we attempt, no matter what.

This has to be one of the most shocking revelations of all time.

"Horrible paucity of talent." Here's a short list of those pathetically deprived people who had to spend most of their time perfecting their craft:

The guitarist Charlie Byrd. His wife told me that Charlie would spend hours upon hours every day practicing. Poor Charlie.

Another great guitarist: Pat Martino. One more example of a 'horrible paucity of talent.' When I studied from Pat he told me that he spent most of his day working on his music.

Nigel Short: Chess Grandmaster. "You will always find that the most naturally talented players have put in an incredible number of hours," he says. "There are no exceptions."

Bobby Fisher: From the time he started at six years old he did little else but eat and drink chess. He actually played in the bathtub and skipped school so he could practice. This is spite of his reported 180 I.Q.

Jackson Pollock: A widely known reputation for painting sometimes days on end without stopping. Such a pity to lack so much talent that one has to compensate like this.

[Bern]

Originally Posted by Toby Walker

The guitarist Charlie Byrd. His wife told me that Charlie would spend hours upon hours every day practicing. Poor Charlie.

poor Mrs.Byrd...

Originally Posted by Toby Walker

Another great guitarist: Pat Martino. Another example of a 'horrible paucity of talent.' When I studied from Pat he told me that he spent most of his day working on his music.

One can only imagine the time he spend when he had to relearn the guitar.

[815C]

Originally Posted by Bern

poor Mrs.Byrd...

I once heard Tommy Emmanuel give the advise to take into consideration the people around when practicing and don't drive them mad by playing the same thing over and over and over and over and.....

[jpd]

When your life revolves around your pursuit of music with the blessing of your spouse (or significant other) the universe is aligned as it should be. It does not get any better. J.D.

[Toby Walker]

Originally Posted by jpd

When your life revolves around your pursuit of music with the blessing of your spouse (or significant other) the universe is aligned as it should be. It does not get any better. J.D.

"Such language is my own also, for it impossible to employ truer words."
St. Augustin.

[lovetheclassics]

Originally Posted by Toby Walker

Bobby Fisher: From the time he started at six years old he did little else but eat and drink chess. He actually played in the bathtub and skipped school so he could practice. This is spite of his reported 180 I.Q.

Jackson Pollock: A widely known reputation for painting sometimes days on end without stopping. Such a pity to lack so much talent that one has to compensate like this.

First off Toby I enjoy your playing very much. Second I don't think you are getting exactly what JackKnife is saying and who cares?..it's a public forum.

I quoted your two quotes to simply say, In the case of Pollock he was creating, NOT practicing. And Fisher was an obsessed genius. He played chess because he was obsessed with it not per-say because he needed practice.

There are definatley differences between people with talent and those who lack it. It is my opinion too that some people say they practice more than they really do. I doubt Clapton practices 7hours a day. He works on stuff all day , but I doubt he is 'practicing' all day. Maybe there needs to be atopic on the definition of practice.
When I am working something out or creating, I dont call it practice!

[Bern]

Originally Posted by lovetheclassics

When I am working something out or creating, I don't call it practice!

I agree...

[littlewing137]

<<<<IF on the other hand I have played MJH for hours, weeks, and months and cannot get down his relatively simple, First position playing and manipulating of three chords>>>

Who is MJH?

[Toby Walker]

Originally Posted by lovetheclassics

First off Toby I enjoy your playing very much. Second I don't think you are getting exactly what JackKnife is saying and who cares?..it's a public forum.

I quoted your two quotes to simply say, In the case of Pollock he was creating, NOT practicing. And Fisher was an obsessed genius. He played chess because he was obsessed with it not per-say because he needed practice.

There are definatley differences between people with talent and those who lack it. It is my opinion too that some people say they practice more than they really do. I doubt Clapton practices 7hours a day. He works on stuff all day , but I doubt he is 'practicing' all day. Maybe there needs to be atopic on the definition of practice.
When I am working something out or creating, I dont call it practice!

Sure, I can understand your viewpoint in distinguishing the differences between creating and practicing. I look at that a bit differently. I believe the ultimate goal of any musician is not only to improve at ones craft but to also keep the creative flow going. I see these two as part and parcel of that same process. Every time I create something new I have found myself improving just as much as when I am practicing an established piece, or scales or incorporating new phrases into my improvisations.

To get back to your point about using Pollack: I was using that example because Jackknifegypsy was including 'artists' in his post to support his argument. Of course Pollack was creating but again I believe creating is also the road to constant improvement. According to Jackknife any artist, i.e., a musician like Clapton, a scientist and on and on... has a 'horrible paucity of natural talent' because they spend numerous hours practicing is in my opinion absurd - with all due respect to Jackknife. I mean that.

I think Deacon hit the nail on the head when he said 'I hope Mr. Clapton will realize this before he tries to make a career out of music.' Deacon also went on to say 'I know many talented professionals - in music and other areas - who spend a great amount of time practicing their passion, and it has paid off for them. Sorry it hasn't for you, but to denigrate others for your lack of success is unfortunate and uncalled for.'

I couldn't agree more.

Whether or not Fischer felt the need to practice or to fulfill his obsession is not the point. Fischer was another example of someone who spent countless hours at his particular craft perfecting it. Call it what you will or what I will... I suspect Fischer would call it something else all together. However, Fischer was constantly improving in his field as a result of his putting in numerous hours each day. Of course he was obsessed! Did he have a 'paucity of natural talent?' I hardly doubt it. He simply worked at developing his natural talent and therein lies the difference.

If you read Clapton's history you'll discover that in his formative years he DID practice at least several hours each day. Does he now? I doubt it. But he did. How else would he have been such a musical talent by the time he was in his late teens? I seriously doubt that Clapton has a 'paucity of natural talent' as well. Again... he spent a considerable amount of time developing it.

I completely understand Jackknife's point but I disagree, as others also have, that anyone who has to spend that much time at something has a horrible paucity of natural talent. I think that statement is utterly absurd and it comes from someone that I believe was simply never able to achieve their own musical standards. Perhaps that's why Jackknife is now a CPA rather than a working musician. He perhaps is someone that despite working hard at music could never could move beyond a certain level. Perhaps that is why he used that term 'paucity of natural talent.' He clearly from what he has written lacks enough natural musical talent to become an accomplished professional player or at the very least the kind of player that he wanted to become. There's no foul there. But to attach that term to the likes of Clapton or anyone else that has achieved those incredible heights from putting in the work to develop that natural talent.. heights that Jackknife may have failed to reach... is being - as Deacon so aptly put it - denigrating and to me smacks of someone who has experienced a large degree of frustration with their own musical goals.

One clearly needs some degree of natural talent in order to start their journey in becoming a master. But I firmly believe that that same person also needs to work extremely hard at their art in order to reach those goals which by the way is a life-long process.

Off subject: lovetheclassics... I'm glad you enjoy my music. Thanks for those kind words.

[Deacon Blues]

I know most people view 'working on something' and 'practicing' differently.

I don't quite see it that way, and think it's more of a semantic thing.

If I am 'working' on something, aren't I practicing to get it right? Practicing for me doesn't always mean just sitting doing scales or patterns, but also learning.

Either way, I'm sure I could do more of each!

And back to the original thread - practice never hurt anyone if they are doing it correctly. If you aren't improving by practicing, maybe it's time to find a good teacher and change your outlook as to what practice should do.

Both of these might help.

Interesting thread.

And, Toby, again - practicing has certainly paid off for you! You play some simply incredible stuff! Hope to be able to see you in concert some day.

[Jackknifegypsy]

Equating making a career out of any endeavor, being a commercial success, has much more to do with packaging, branding, and formulaic strategy than it does talent.

As several have noted here, there are a great many more with unsung talent, who are as good or better than who became or becomes famous.

Clapton himself has said recently when asked what he does to stay on top that he needs to spend a lot of practice on his "trills", he's not satisfied with that aspect of his performances.

In comparing Clapton to Big Bill Broonzy or Wes Montgomery, to those who inspired him like Robert Johnson tells me that Clapton has limited talent to Originate, Compose, and is much more famous for his imitations, and covers for other artists. This is not uncommon in the music and art world. I see it in daily life constantly.

I can understand that hard practicers are spending 7-10 hours a day obsessing over getting better, improving if only by baby steps. I did too. Until I realized one day that 24 hours a day of practice will not provide me (and many others who will deny it) with the level of performance that would satisfy even the most casual of critics. Including myself.

Being Very fond of practicing no doubt helps one to get it done because then it's not like work, it's enjoyed for its own sake, however much of it one does. I'd say that's because you and others, including myself, are compelled to play the guitar.

And I believe it is that motivation that attracts the virtuoso who can play every piece to perfection, to practice: he just can't stop himself, he's got to play. It is WHO he is.

No matter if we become just capable, above average, or excellent. It is the journey. By the time I have reasonably mastered a piece, I have reached the point where I no longer want to play it very much and move on.

[Deacon Blues]

I can understand your frustration very well.

But I think a lot of it - as you have alluded to - centers around what your goal is. I would venture to say that the vast majority of people on this forum have 'regular' jobs and pursue music as a passionate hobby that may generate a few buck on a weekend gig. Nothing wrong with that.

Getting to be a hobby gigger, at home player, or pro, requires practice. Whether that is done by scale repetition, learning new tunes, playing in different keys, whatever, it is practice.

While some may have a tendency to pick up some things faster than others, the others pick up some things faster as well. To my knowledge, there is no talent gene that anyone has discovered. It's like the old joke about "How do I get to Carnegie Hall?"

For me, I enjoy practice and learning. I truly do. It's the journey, not the destination. Would I love to be able to be on the stage with Clapton and a bunch of others playing to a packed house? Sure would. Am I willing to spend THAT much time practicing and forgoing earning a living wage in the meantime? Certainly not. Because that is what it takes.

So I get excited that I finally mastered the tricky passage it took me weeks to get down, or to discover a new chord inversion in a position I didn't realize there would be one. And I'm fine with that.

I also think that we are most critical of ourselves. I know many professional musicians (play music full time, no other source of income and are VERY
successful). I would be hard pressed to name one that wants to listen to his recordings or see video of his performance. They look for mistakes or things they wish they would have done differently or better. I think that is part of most peoples nature, the idea of striving to get better. Probably is apparent before grade school and goes on from there, but either way it's an observation that is constantly occurring. Are there expectations too high? Perhaps. But for us 'mere mortals', these are the guitar gods that I am amazed at. Perspective can be an interesting thing.

And maybe - just maybe - that's a good thing. Maybe that is part of their motivation for practicing more, trying new things, etc. Never asked, but it
would seem to make sense.

So I agree with you in that aspect - it is certainly motivation. And the motivation encourages practice. Having motivation without practicing is only going to encourage frustration in my opinion.

And if everyone on this board was a professional full time musician, there would be a lot of important jobs without the people to fill them!

[Jackknifegypsy]

Mississippi John Hurt