How much do you practice each day?

[mc1]

Originally Posted by hobbesy123

...
http://www.snapjudgment.org/sudden-savant

wow, that was something! amss - i think i'll go bang myself in the head - i'd be crazy not to!

seriously, extraordinary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#axzz2KJdupy00

[mustache79]

I play at least 30 minutes a day I think. Sometimes much more, sometimes not at all. Between having a 5 month old, school, work, household duties, and sitting on guitar forums, I think I'm doing rather well.

[Jackknifegypsy]

Really good points, Hobbesy.

Especially about Tension and self doubt.

At one level I always feel this tension, which starts as a bit of frustration, and gradually builds to that level, where I want to 'throw the golf clubs into ocean'.

It is likely the single most feeling or sense I have of why I don't get much improvement. Breathing deep for a few seconds helps, but then it returns when I have another go at it.

"Talent" is a word fraught with all kinds of implications, meaning, and variability.

As I sat next to a guy when I ws studying for my CPA exam, I marveled at how he rarely even opened a book. And was the number one student in the cram course that he was forced to attend with us 35 students. He went on as an accounting and investment genius. It is ironic that he married a beautiful blonde with average intelligence, and had a passel of children who could barely graduate high school and are undistinguished in every way. He had "it" and I'm certain we all can look back at the those to whom everything mental came quite easily that we had to struggle with just to get a B.

While we share 99% of our DNA you, me and everyone in the world, 7 billion of us, the part we do not share, that 1% is so immense that if we were to color it, we would not be shades of flesh tones, but as stark as hot pink and jet black in differentiation.

I wonder how many Luthiers can actually play to the level that they achieve in their artistry, design, meticulous pursuit of perfection in the shape and beauty of the stringed instruments they conceive of, build, and sell?? I'll bet not many.

I doubt that Segovia, or John Williams or Big Bill Broonzy, Wes Montgomery, or Clapton would even be able to cut a straight edge on a tone wood with a fence, a perfect table saw blade, and a jointer with perfect setup. Even after many years of practice.

Indeed, where is the nine pound hammer. I'd give it a shot to be able to improve, not even be great, in the time I have on earth. And not need three lifetimes to achieve a perfectly acceptable performance, if only to myself, of Caprichio Arabe.

[BobbyBadd]

I usually get in about 1 and 1/2 to two hours a day. I'm surprised at how many hours guys still practice! I started playing guitar seriously about 3 years ago, not realizing how many hours it takes to play well. I grew up playing drums then started on Mandolin at 18, as the years flew by, the hours did to, I guess.
As it seems I spend a lot more time playing, practicing etc then I did when I was younger.
Was it easier to learn then? Or, is it the accumulation of years / hours that made it seem like I didn't have to spend as much time. ?
Either way, practice time is playing time. You sure better enjoy the instrument and its sound, to spend that much time at it. I do.
Not gigging on the guitar yet, Mando still main instrument, but on the 10 year plan, so as not to pressure myself and get frustrated. Who knows, may never gig on the guitar, but I sure like to play/practice.

[GuitarDogs62]

I get about 2.5 to 3.0 hours in a day to practice. I tell my wife that this is the fastest 2 to 3 hours in my day. The time just flies and goes right by. I truly enjoy this time of day.

[Roger G Lewis]

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic....makes-perfect/

One of the most interesting parts of Malcolm Gladwell’s fantastic book Outliers is his discussion of the “10,000-hour rule,” which posits that it takes about 10,000 hours of dedicated practice to truly master a skill, be it playing the violin, computer programming, or skateboarding.

Gladwell covers several tantalizing examples, from the Beatles to Bill Gates, and argues that the biggest factor in their success is not innate talent or blind luck, but rather dedication to their chosen craft. It’s an empowering message, and one that suggests that almost anyone can succeed if they put in the time (could those saccharine posters be right?).

Of course, privilege and luck can greatly ease the way, but there’s little substitute for 10,000 hours of work.

This infographic, created for the blog Zintro by Nowsourcing, takes a closer look at practice and the 10,000-hour rule.

Of course, as Kurt Cobain said, “Practice makes perfect, but nobody’s perfect, so why practice?”


With respect to talent etc that makes some aspects achievable more quickly in some areas but the notion is that it averages out to the 10000 hr mean.

On repertoire I find its a question of use it or lose it and there are qualitative differences between new learning and refreshing ones learned chops etc.

I have been playing for 3 years seriously and for 10 years casually the last 3 years I have probably managed an average of 3 hours per day 7 days a week in my own estimation I am no more than 50% of the way towards being an accomplished player or what I would call an expert player my skills are accelerating though and I am aiming to be playing professionally in another 3 years and making a living from Guitar Playing and teaching, thats my goal at any rate and it will be my 50th Birthday present to myself. It will be a lifelong thing now though the permutations are limitless ( see Video )

Will we ever run out of new music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMyGKTKGqC4


The OP is in my own estimation very accomplished, my touchstone is the late great Howard Morgen and Bert Jansch, I am currently working on getting a set together of Bert and Howard arrangements it will take another 12 months of hard work in between times I will also enjoy hacking out fun tunes and writing original songs and so forth.

[Toby Walker]

Originally Posted by Jackknifegypsy

I'd love to hear Segovia with a quarter of that practice. My bet is that we as the audience would not be able to tell the difference in his performances under both scenarios.

I learned that one day in my dorm room. A guy down the hall came to my room as I was playing a Malaguena I had by then nailed and could play for 5 minutes. He'd always ask me to play it again while he sat there listening to me, he loved it.

And yet to me, there were so many mistakes and coverups I would be complimented at his being an audience for me, but I was also amused at what I 'got away with'.

After spending much time and still occasionally listening to Segovia among others, I had to stop playing Classical guitar, overwhelmed finally after years, by their talent, their gifts, their music, compared to my 'playing the pieces' with a 'paucity of musicality' even their simple airs.

But as I stated originally, this will always and forever be a bone of contention among the obsessed who possess far more desire than they do talent. '

Sure, there are those like the golfer's child who backed away and let those with less talent and more desire than his boy did who will succeed.

But which heart surgeon are you going to choose? The practiced one or the one who is talented, from the get go Who also has done 5000 heart surgeries??

I believe that your analogy of the heart surgeon is a bit over the top... with all due respect. In that example however I would be bet that either surgeon would be more than capable in performing the operation. Who cares how they made that journey? I don't and I doubt most people could tell the difference once the operation is completed.

It seems to me that the persons you are describing with so much natural talent teeming from their pores and because of which need not practice, study or work at their skill are in the vast, VAST minority of human beings. Does this mean we should only respect these savants or use them as role models for the way things should be? Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression from your posts and if I am, my apologies.

The ones with 'less talent and more desire' are clearly in the majority amongst the populace. They need to put in their time in order to achieve the same level of proficiency as their peers who are among that rare minority of savants. I would hardly label these folks with having a 'paucity of natural talent.' That seems a bit extreme to say the least. More realistically they simply are not born geniuses, but then again... what is the actual percentage of folks possessing superhuman skills of that magnitude ?? I'm thinking about the same as the ones that win the lottery.

I can assume from your writing that in spite of the many hours you have spent trying to master classical and jazz you haven't come near to reaching your goals... and unfortunately may never do so. Yet there are many of us that DO achieve the same level of expertise as the masters by doing nothing more than spending quality time in the woodshed. That has to count for something.

I suspect we are indeed describing the same thing, albeit in very different ways. That by the way is what I love about discourse.

I would also like to have seen Segovia perform without practicing as much... or as little as you suggested in your scenario. I would be willing to bet that after comparing said performances I'd be able to tell the difference.

[oldhippiegal]

30 minutes per day, 5-6 days per week, will keep me where I am.

120 minutes per day, no days off, will allow me to improve.

I wish the first weren't so--I wish I could take a break without losing skill. Maybe it's the time in life when I picked it up, for with piano (which I cannot remember not playing and have pictures of myself playing at age 3-4), I can still play fairly well the rare times I get a chance to. Or maybe I need another decade with guitar before a similar development occurs. But right now, it's a "use it or lose it" skill.

I prefer to do all my practice at once. One hour four times a day would cut into my other interests. A professional musician has other priorities.

[Jackknifegypsy]

Toby,

I expect this to be a contentious issue, it always is whenever I talk about natural abilities vs. attempts to overcome a paucity of talent by putting in more hours.

Several things you may have assumed that I did not write, or didn't intend to convey:

1)" many of us that DO achieve the same level of expertise as the masters ". This seems way over the top, Waaaaay over. I dispute it completely

2) I had open heart and I wouldn't choose the surgeons offered at my hospital, perfectly capable of the job, over the guy, Toby Cosgrove at Cleveland Clinic, who had at the time replaced 5,000 aortic valves, with an average open chest time of, count 'em, 45 minutes. An incredible record to get someone on and off the pump to avoid brain damage. THAT is what you do when you have to have it, not speaking theoretically, and why I chose it as my example and if you don't care about that, you haven't been there or are taking inordinate risks with other surgeons. I don't gamble that way.

3) "...because of which need not practice, study or work at their skill are in the vast4
minority of human beings.." I never said or meant to imply that even the greatest don't have to practice, never. Of course they do.

4) I am betting on Segovia, with a quarter of the time, would not be detectably different to anyone but himself. A dollar?

Now I'd better be done with this issue of talent, because I learned a long time ago that Joe Dimaggio is not to screwed with. Nor is Heiftetz, Mozart, that guy in my cram course, that they will beat the pants of anyone who practices ten times more than they do, but lacks a certain gift that, yes, only a fraction of the population possess in savantic quantity.

[Toby Walker]

Originally Posted by Jackknifegypsy

4) I am betting on Segovia, with a quarter of the time, would not be detectably different to anyone but himself. A dollar?

Now I'd better be done with this issue of talent, because I learned a long time ago that Joe Dimaggio is not to screwed with.

Ok.. you're on. A buck. Let me check to see where Segovia's playin' next.

I also stand behind my statement is saying that there are many who do achieve what the masters have done. It just took them longer to get there and the majority of them go unnoticed. IMHO of course. For example, I've seen guys just as talented as Django ever was but not too many people have heard of them. Of course that gets into a whole different subject of the definition 'master' and by goodness, I don't know about you but I've got some practicing to do here.

Dimaggio may not be someone to be screwed with (one of my all time heroes by the way) but while we're on the subject Nolan Ryan once said that he had to constantly work at his craft. I would've loved to see him throw high inside fast ball to Dimaggio.

I agree that we'll be disagreeing on this forever. Life goes on.

[815C]

I studied jazz guitar under Jack Petersen at NTSU way back when. He used to say, "If you skip a day of practice, you can tell. If you skip a 3 days of practice, you're musician peers can tell. If you skip a week of practice, the general public can tell."

[rick-slo]

If playing instrumental music is your career then you should spend a few hours most days playing (time off for vacation, special events, etc), otherwise you are sort of a slacker IMO. Besides having technique exercises to do and learning new songs, you have a whole repertoire to maintain (and that takes time).

Regarding learning pieces quickly, there is being able to play through a piece, and then there in flawless execution and interpretation. With some pieces this really is a short course, with others it is a much longer process. I have heard the comment among concert artists of working on a piece a year or more before daring a public performance.

Regarding who can tell the difference, of course the artist can most acutely, and if he or she is serious about their craft then nothing less than playing to their best ability will do.

[Deacon Blues]

Originally Posted by Jackknifegypsy

Anyone who has to practice 7 hours a day doing anything, including Clapton, have a limited talent. No ifs ands or buts so save the ether and don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about WADR, i've been told this many times and it's useless to try and change my mind.

REALLY????? I hope Mr. Clapton will realize this before he tries to make a career out of music.

And I agree with you - it certainly would be useless to try and change your mind. You've obviously got it set.

Perhaps one of the reasons people are successful in one area and not in others has simply to do with the attitude with which they approach the task.

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.

[SausageCreature]

I practice between 30 minutes to an hour total (not necessarily contiguous) each day...and I'm thankful for that time, since that pretty much qualifies as downtime/relaxation for me.

[Deacon Blues]

My practice time varies according to my work schedule.

I am very - VERY - much fond of practicing. It is relaxing and builds my skills.

Ideally I get to practice 2 hours a day, sometimes more, sometimes a bit less.

I am one of those people that enjoy the journey as much as the destination, so that is a good thing for me.