10,000 hours...

[Larry F]

Also, I am the opposite of Boneyguy, who is interested in people who have exceptional abilities. Going back to my undergrad years studying psychology, my interest wasn't in the exceptional (or pathological) cases, but in the general principles that underly most human behaviors. I respect Boneyguy a lot, so I don't mind saying that I hold the opposite view on this. Boney, why aren't you as interested in the average Joe as in the exceptional Joes?

[slowpinky]

What a great thread.
Mastery doesnt have a time-tag. Good chance that by the time you have answered the initial question 'when will I be a master?" you'll be feeling like a chump again - albeit a different chump for sure.
As for change - and this is a partial response to Larry's question ; for musicians this mastery is both physical and aesthetic - ideally so that both progress toward the artists vision. This is very rare in my experience - John Coltrane springs to mind but not many others. This is often left out of the 'mastery' equation.

Music demands some pretty specialised skills - I understand Boney's view about savantism. I know its because he's not after the silver bullet - just an enquiry into the factors that assist a few people to excel at what they do quickly- as opposed to simply assuming these people are just like any anomaly the world throws up. And wouldnt we agree that much of the pedagogy and resources that we have now results from a distillation of that type of thinking?

But I do have an opinion that I 'share' with my students.
If Im looking to fastrack anything in my playing, I know thats just desire - the energy for wanting to make music. In reality what that tells me is that I have many,many hours in the engine room ahead of me..if I work smart.

[daves561]

And...look what popped up in my blogs today:

How Virtuosos Get So Good | Psychology Today

[Larry F]

Originally Posted by daves561

And...look what popped up in my blogs today:

How Virtuosos Get So Good | Psychology Today

If you guys read my many posts to this sub-forum, you will see how systematic I am about addressing my weaknesses. I love tracking progress and repetition, and figuring out the mechanics of what I need to address. I am tooting my own horn, for sure, but to make a point. I am going to be 60 this year and just do not feel that I have all the time in the world, and that I want results. I test myself when my band rehearses and plays. I also take from those experiences things that I need to work on.

What bothers me, is how many guys get on my case about over-thinking and needing to just let er rip. I hope that the message to younger players that gets out there from those threads isn't to just let er rip, but I think that is exactly what happens. People can act so weird about acquiring skills and knowledge, as if to say that "if I don't know it, it is not worth knowing." Or, "if I can't play it, it is not worth playing." One sign of this is how people mis-interpret the acquisition of technical tools as something in the service of shredding. Our culture seems to have a hard time with effort, work, and failure. I read a lot of posts that seem to say that their lack of technique is a good thing. Related to this, is the concept of the Force via Star Wars. Think of how many TV shows and movies tell the story of "just letting go" and all will be right. "Don't think, feeeel," to quote (or misquote) Bruce Lee. The very people who think that they should not think are the ones who are terrible at feeling. "The old blues guys" didn't think, they felt...but who says? BB King reads music and studied the Schillinger System. Howlin Wold took composition and theory lessons from a professor at Roosevelt College. Albert King planned to study theory in college so that he would be able to write his own horn parts. What is really missing, is finding out what, exactly, the old blues guys did. The popular image is that they hung around seedy places and getting up onstage and playing inventively just because it was in them to do that. It was in their blood, in the air. But how do we know what Hubert Sumlin really thought about what to play? From what I have read, I don't think that he used the same verbal vocabulary as more schooled players, but that doesn't mean that he didn't devise a system for understanding the relations of notes, chords, rhythms, etc. I think the blues needs to be taken seriously as a research area, just as classical music is. There are some very interesting things going on in blues that are not found in other types of music. One small example. In a major key blues, why is it that the minor third of the scale sounds stable and consonant? That is a very unusual situation in music. I am rambling, so goodnight from beautiful Albuquerque, which I can now spell and where I am visiting with my wife and her parents. Even the clouds are strikingly beautiful here.

[Space Pickle]

I agree fully, Larry. I've been playing guitar seriously for about 10 years now, and I've met so many players who are unwilling to learn and consequently will never achieve their musical dreams. For whatever reason, after making substantial progress on the instrument people decide they have nothing left to learn (of course, at some point you have to get out of the practice room and perform what you know, but IMO that's part of the learning process).

I recall one time when you were explaining your method for practicing licks through 12 keys and different fingerings (I think it involved an excel spreadsheet) and some guy flamed you saying "it's not nuclear physics, it's the blues". He then posted a video of his own blues playing which was pretty lame, but he probably thought it was good. I've seen that type of arrogance creep into a lot of musicians' playing...they don't know how much they don't know, and stop trying because of that.

[boneyguy]

Originally Posted by Larry F

Also, I am the opposite of Boneyguy, who is interested in people who have exceptional abilities. Going back to my undergrad years studying psychology, my interest wasn't in the exceptional (or pathological) cases, but in the general principles that underly most human behaviors. I respect Boneyguy a lot, so I don't mind saying that I hold the opposite view on this. Boney, why aren't you as interested in the average Joe as in the exceptional Joes?

Does human progress depend on the average? It's typically the exceptional that moves things forward in any useful and lasting way.

If you had the choice between an average guitar teacher and an exceptional teacher which would you choose?

The state of our school systems is evidence of what happens when we celebrate ‘average’.

Do we celebrate Joe Pass, Wes, Keef, Segovia, Paisley, Hendrix etc because they are the torchbearers for ‘average’? And we should be excited by the exceptional because that’s where the real riches lay that have the potential to raise all of us up to a higher level.

And what is 'average' anyway? It's a procedure from mathematics. You can average numbers but there is no average human. It's a ridiculous notion that exists as a result of psychology’s attempt to gain credibility by aligning itself with the hard sciences. Ooooooo it sounds like science. But it's nonsense. Averaging is a statistical computation that has been applied to human behaviour and we blindly accept it as if it's actually useful and meaningful. Well it is meaningful if you’re in the insurance business but averaging has no business in human psychology. It's absolutely one of the worst and least useful notions ever.

And even if we accept the notion of 'average' it pays no dividends in the realm of psychology, behaviour and learning. What pays dividends is the modeling of people who are exceptional in a skill.

Originally Posted by slowpinky

I understand Boney's view about savantism. I know its because he's not after the silver bullet - just an enquiry into the factors that assist a few people to excel at what they do quickly- as opposed to simply assuming these people are just like any anomaly the world throws up. And wouldnt we agree that much of the pedagogy and resources that we have now results from a distillation of that type of thinking?

Yeah, that’s pretty much it.

[Larry F]

I'm not exactly singing the praises of the average Joe. It is just that I think the average wants to learn how to get better. I wouldn't know where to begin to help a savant improve his/her counting, arithmetic, and calendar abilities. And I don't think that the average Joe is particularly interested i learning how to fire off the day of the week that June 1, 1766 fell on.

However, I am interested in learning to play guitar as well as my favorite players, who are exceptional, but exceptional of a different type than savants, I believe. I would certainly like to take lessons from sich exceptional musicians. But I don't know if I would be interested in studying such savant abilities as the arithmetic kind. If I had child interested in learning to play an instrument, I would have to think very carefully if I wanted the teacher to be a savant type of musician, which means to me one who has the ability to play any song by ear right off the bat. What would a savant have to offer a beginning guitar student?

Also, by average Joe, I didn't mean the arithmetical average. I mean guys like us on the forum, which range from just picking up the guitar last week, to Redd. Well, maybe not Redd. Is he just really, really good, or does he stand apart from us other average Joes who may never reach his level, as we are not born with that potential. Is Redd exceptional at the savant level or is he a fantastic musician?

[Walker]

Originally Posted by boneyguy

Does human progress depend on the average? It's typically the exceptional that moves things forward in any useful and lasting way.

If you had the choice between an average guitar teacher and an exceptional teacher which would you choose?

The state of our school systems is evidence of what happens when we celebrate ‘average’.

Do we celebrate Joe Pass, Wes, Keef, Segovia, Paisley, Hendrix etc because they are the torchbearers for ‘average’? And we should be excited by the exceptional because that’s where the real riches lay that have the potential to raise all of us up to a higher level.

And what is 'average' anyway? It's a procedure from mathematics. You can average numbers but there is no average human. It's a ridiculous notion that exists as a result of psychology’s attempt to gain credibility by aligning itself with the hard sciences. Ooooooo it sounds like science. But it's nonsense. Averaging is a statistical computation that has been applied to human behaviour and we blindly accept it as if it's actually useful and meaningful. Well it is meaningful if you’re in the insurance business but averaging has no business in human psychology. It's absolutely one of the worst and least useful notions ever.

And even if we accept the notion of 'average' it pays no dividends in the realm of psychology, behaviour and learning. What pays dividends is the modeling of people who are exceptional in a skill.





Yeah, that’s pretty much it.

My guess is that all of the guys you cited (Joe Pass, Wes, Keef, Segovia, Paisley, Hendrix) would prove the 10,000 hours worth of practice bit, not disprove it. Just about anything I've read about those guys has said they had the guitar in their hands all the time.

[klasaine]

I think what Larry is saying (and I agree) is that , probably 99% of the time, 'the average Joe' is actually the guy that becomes exceptional. I'm interested in that too.
Of course the savant is attractive and fascinating - but they're very rare. In my experience 99% of the professional players that I work with and have met (of ALL genres and levels of fame and recognition) work like MF's to hone their craft/art/skill or whatever you want to call it.

As I've said many times before I don't believe that the majority of 'the greats' possess any special ability or gene for art ... they possibly(?) possess a special gene for the DESIRE TO DO THE WORK. They f'ng want it SO bad that they're thrilled to "put in the 10,000 focused hours".

*Maybe Mozart was blessed with something - maybe(?)

When I was in school I literally got D's in art class ... and I deserved it too. Not because my pictures sucked - which they did - but because I didn't give a $h1t about drawing stupid pictures and consequently I put in no effort. Now, because I have a reason to draw a little - my kid likes it when I draw animals - I actually CAN do it reasonably well. I have a desire/incentive to do the work.

[boneyguy]

Originally Posted by Walker

My guess is that all of the guys you cited (Joe Pass, Wes, Keef, Segovia, Paisley, Hendrix) would prove the 10,000 hours worth of practice bit, not disprove it. Just about anything I've read about those guys has said they had the guitar in their hands all the time.

At this point in our conversation I'm not even refering to the 10,000 hours thing. I'm simply talking about someone who has aquired exceptional skill at some activity. Maybe it took her 20,000 hours but my point is still the same. If she can display an exceptional level of skill then that's who I want to look at rather than the 'average'.

[klasaine]

I agree BG - that's what I talk about above.

[boneyguy]

Originally Posted by Larry F

I'm not exactly singing the praises of the average Joe. It is just that I think the average wants to learn how to get better. I wouldn't know where to begin to help a savant improve his/her counting, arithmetic, and calendar abilities. And I don't think that the average Joe is particularly interested i learning how to fire off the day of the week that June 1, 1766 fell on.

However, I am interested in learning to play guitar as well as my favorite players, who are exceptional, but exceptional of a different type than savants, I believe. I would certainly like to take lessons from sich exceptional musicians. But I don't know if I would be interested in studying such savant abilities as the arithmetic kind. If I had child interested in learning to play an instrument, I would have to think very carefully if I wanted the teacher to be a savant type of musician, which means to me one who has the ability to play any song by ear right off the bat. What would a savant have to offer a beginning guitar student?

Also, by average Joe, I didn't mean the arithmetical average. I mean guys like us on the forum, which range from just picking up the guitar last week, to Redd. Well, maybe not Redd. Is he just really, really good, or does he stand apart from us other average Joes who may never reach his level, as we are not born with that potential. Is Redd exceptional at the savant level or is he a fantastic musician?

I'm not basing all my thinking on this topic on savant behaviour. I only offered the savant example as an obviously dramatic example of something exceptional. I agree that I wouldn't want a beginner or maybe anyone to take lessons from a savant but does that mean we simply disregard their abilities as having no application to improving on our 'average' lives? We get to pick and choose in the process of modeling. I would love to have some of the exceptional abilities (I think) of a savant but I certainly wouldn't want their whole lifestyle. Why do we have to frame it in an 'all or nothing' sort of framework. We get to be selective.

To be clear I'm talking about people who have an exceptional skill at something and that person may actually be an 'average' Joe. In fact more often than not it will be in my experience. But I'm still not particularily interested in the 'average' aspect of Joe, I'm fascinated however by whatever it is that he does with an exceptional level of skill. And there's a gazillion of them (us) out there living 'average' lives. There are also people living exceptional lives that will have exceptional skills as well. That interests me as much as the 'average' guy.

[boneyguy]

Originally Posted by klasaine

I agree BG - that's what I talk about above.

Sorry Ken. I hadn't gotten to reading your post yet. We're definitely talking about the same thing.

[P Thought]

I'm a late bloomer who will probably never develop to a master's level, and I've also had, um, focus problems all my life, compounded by the typical family and job pressures on my time. However, I've tried very hard over the past few years to take myself beyond the three-chord strum that once was enough.

It seems to me that progress comes through a series of plateaus, breakthroughs, and climbs to new plateaus. It also seems to me that, when I see a new slope that I know will take me to a higher plateau, I have to consider it a while--take a few steps up it while I hang around on my current plateau--before I see how to do the work I need to do. Some slopes, there are many left to me, I write off, and leave them to the people who started earlier, with better focus and determination.

It is clear to me, however, that when I spend time purposely learning about music, then purposely incorporating new knowledge into my playing, I get better. I probably wasted my first couple thousand hours, wandering around on my first or second plateau, and I probably could have sped up my recent progress by better use of my time and increased time investment. At my age, I doubt that I have all of the other seven or eight thousand hours left to me, so my achievement level might never make the charts, but I'm resolved to keep climbing. . . .

This is an interesting thread.

[ryokan]

Originally Posted by daves561

And...look what popped up in my blogs today:

How Virtuosos Get So Good | Psychology Today

That article is frightening. Here's an excerpt:

"So how does deliberate practice work? Anders Ericsson’s 1993 paper makes for bracing reading. He makes it clear that a dutiful daily commitment to practice is not enough. Long hours of practice are not enough. And noodling around on the piano or idly taking some swings with a golf club is definitely not enough. “Deliberate practice,” Ericsson declares sternly, “requires effort and is not inherently enjoyable.” Having given us fair warning, he reveals the secret of deliberate practice: relentlessly focusing on our weaknesses and inventing new ways to root them out. Results are carefully monitored, ideally with the help of a coach or teacher, and become grist for the next round of ruthless self-evaluation."

Sounds AWFUL when it is presented this way. There has to be joy and fun or what is the point? I can't imagine making art out of this process. I know that I work on my weaknesses, and spend hours and hours in rooting them out, thinking them out. But I do it because I ENJOY it, it is highly satisfying and a life's work.

[P Thought]

Originally Posted by boneyguy

And what is 'average' anyway? It's a procedure from mathematics. You can average numbers but there is no average human. It's a ridiculous notion that exists as a result of psychology’s attempt to gain credibility by aligning itself with the hard sciences. Ooooooo it sounds like science. But it's nonsense. Averaging is a statistical computation that has been applied to human behaviour and we blindly accept it as if it's actually useful and meaningful.

That's mean.

[Larry F]

Originally Posted by ryokan

“Deliberate practice,” Ericsson declares sternly, “requires effort and is not inherently enjoyable.”

That doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable to you. You have to work at it even when you it is difficult and painful. If you only play when it is inherently enjoyable to do so, then you'll not be able to move beyond your limitations. I compose music, and my wife paints. We don't often end our days dancing on the ceiling. The longer we do it, the harder it is. Doubt, self-examination, re-examination, tossing something out, these are part of the creative process for those in it for life. My first wife is a concert pianist, and I can attest to the range of fear, terror, ecstasy, scam artistry that are everyday emotions for her. I have the deepest love and respect for artists who push themselves and not wait for the moments that are inherently enjoyable.

[ryokan]

Originally Posted by Larry F

That doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable to you. You have to work at it even when you it is difficult and painful. If you only play when it is inherently enjoyable to do so, then you'll not be able to move beyond your limitations. I compose music, and my wife paints. We don't often end our days dancing on the ceiling. The longer we do it, the harder it is. Doubt, self-examination, re-examination, tossing something out, these are part of the creative process for those in it for life. My first wife is a concert pianist, and I can attest to the range of fear, terror, ecstasy, scam artistry that are everyday emotions for her. I have the deepest love and respect for artists who push themselves and not wait for the moments that are inherently enjoyable.

Agreed. I was just objecting to the negative tone of the article. Seemed to put too much emphasis on the negative, making practice sound more like torture than work...

[boneyguy]

Originally Posted by P Thought

That's mean.

Interesting choice of words as 'mean' has a very similar meaning as 'average' in mathematics.

[P Thought]

Originally Posted by boneyguy

Interesting choice of words as 'mean' has a very similar meaning as 'average' in mathematics.

That's what I meaned.