10,000 hours...

[klasaine]

Guys and gals who put in the 10,000 love it ... or they wouldn't do it.
The ones who do it for real, love the process. They don't separate the process from the pay off. I love practicing.

The bands that 'bash out power chords' ... the ones that do it well consistently did/do put in their 10,000 hours, at least as a performing/rehearsing band. Remember that's only really 3 and a half to 4 years of 8 hour days. With holidays, weekends and a vacation thrown in lets say 5 years. Most hit bands and artists (whatever style) put in 3 to 5 solid years of 8 hour days honing their craft. Broken down like that - it's really not that much.

[ryokan]

Originally Posted by emu!

Practice makes perfect...HA!!!

What's the goal of playing music..the ego trip of being "perfect"? If I want to play Johnny B. Goode with cowboy cords...you damn well know I will. ;)

Why in the world would someone want to do an artistic endeavor like a robot? Music was meant to portray emotion, not perfection. There's been dozens of bands that were worshipped by millions and made millions just by slamming some power chords.

Perfectionists are people with a self-made problem...and they tend to band together. (pun intended) JMO.

I don't think anyone is talking about perfection in this thread. It's about mastery of a skill, and how long it takes to get there. And I don't think mastery equals perfection, just a very very high level of skill...

And bashing out simple power chords (and making it interesting to listen to) is not as easy as it seems, and surely takes a LONG time to perfect. Just listen to the 'Complete Stooges Fun House' CD's, they do take after take of those "simple" songs to get them just right...

[klasaine]

I would argue that it takes 10,000 hours to become confidently and competently average as a musician. To be 'GREAT' as in a Hendrix or Coltrane or Roy Buchanan or Tommy Emmanuel, etc. ... it takes probably 4 times that 10,000. Think about it. Lets take John Coltrane. Besides the fact that he gigged probably 5 nights a week and did sessions probably 3 days a week it's said that he ALSO practiced at least 6 hours every day - HIS ENTIRE CAREER! In 20 years that's almost 90,000 hours ... and he still thought he needed to get better. This is normal $h1t for guys of this caliber.
It's well documented that JH 'lived' with his guitar from the moment he first held one.
*Anybody who 'makes it' - whether that equates to stardom or just making a living at it - puts in their (first) 10 grand between generally the ages of 15 and 23 or there-a-bouts.

[chaseroonie]

Originally Posted by klasaine

I would argue that it takes 10,000 hours to become confidently and competently average as a musician. To be 'GREAT' as in a Hendrix or Coltrane or Roy Buchanan or Tommy Emmanuel, etc. ... it takes probably 4 times that 10,000. Think about it. Lets take John Coltrane. Besides the fact that he gigged probably 5 nights a week and did sessions probably 3 days a week it's said that he ALSO practiced at least 6 hours every day - HIS ENTIRE CAREER! In 20 years that's almost 90,000 hours ... and he still thought he needed to get better. This is normal $h1t for guys of this caliber.
It's well documented that JH 'lived' with his guitar from the moment he first held one.
*Anybody who 'makes it' - whether that equates to stardom or just making a living at it - puts in their (first) 10 grand between generally the ages of 15 and 23 or there-a-bouts.

Hmmm. Good point and analysis HOWEVER, 90,000 hours? Come on now. I know those guys were great but guaranteed they hit MAX at 20k or WAY less. No one ever sat with any of these people for every minute that they practiced. I'll even go on record as saying I believe Steve V. may have had a few 10 hour practice sessions a WEEK but not every single day for consecutive years. It wasn't until after SV was initially credited with his 10 hr practice dedication that the new information was added about it being 'well documented'..everything throughly written down..ect ect, and why? Because it totally defies human nature. I personally played sports growing up and indulged in other things, I didn't 'miss out', but when I turned 18 I flipped a switch and have practiced not only my guitar skills but my overall musicianship as my goal is to be a country recording artist. People say ALL THE TIME they never see me at home or anywhere w/o a guitar in my hand(as to infer that's ALL I do and that i sleep with it ect ect), but they just seem to come around in that 3 hr/4hr part of the day, they are just not with me ALL the time. Anyway, I would guess that i was around 1000+ hr of guitar at 18 but never counted that as my years from 14 to 18 were inconsistent ect ect, 18 to 25 were very very consistent and concise. Last point, BY 10,000 hrs you HAVE IT, sorry, if you actually made it there and are still confused...??? There does come a point when your just overdoing it or have a disorder like OCD. I have heard more qualified seasoned pros argue this as opposed to the few otherwise.

[klasaine]

80 or 90 thousand would of course be the EXTREME case(s).
But by all accounts it's what guys like Coltrane, Dolphy, Beethoven did do. They 'worked' 8 to 13 hour days regularly for many years.
Most folks back it off after they've made it but successful musicians continue their entire career to practice/play/gig/rehearse at least three hours a day. Nine years of that and you've got another 10,000 hours. Most pros have least 30 years of a career. The average good, professional player - by age 60 has probably 40 to 50 thousand hours in.
The handful of extraordinary, super human, seemingly unearthly talents I'm convinced put in closer to the 80 to 90 thou. *It is well doc'd that Trane and Dolphy did in fact play all day, everyday (after school, weekends, holidays and summers ) from a young age and into their professional careers. Coltrane was known to not take breaks on rec sessions instead opting to work on something else. Beethoven was an insomniac/workaholic. Ellington - wrote out parts while riding the train. So many musicians over-book themselves and they CAN'T not work all day or they won't meet the deadlines (Bach and Mozart come to mind). These guys NEVER stopped. Their contribution not just to the art but society and culture is a testament to that drive.
This is why I always maintain that the 'genius' (or the talent gene) that they possess is in the drive and desire.

[boneyguy]

Originally Posted by emu!

Practice makes perfect...HA!!!

What's the goal of playing music..the ego trip of being "perfect"? If I want to play Johnny B. Goode with cowboy cords...you damn well know I will. ;)

Why in the world would someone want to do an artistic endeavor like a robot? Music was meant to portray emotion, not perfection. There's been dozens of bands that were worshipped by millions and made millions just by slamming some power chords.

Perfectionists are people with a self-made problem...and they tend to band together. (pun intended) JMO.

I'll assume that you're not being tongue in cheek with your comments and rightly or wrongly I'll take you seriously.

When I read your comments the main thing I see is the interesting beliefs you seem to have.

Por ejemplo:

Practice = the egotistical desire to be perfect = becoming a robot

And that whole thing is framed within the notion that this is not only a problem but a 'self made problem'. So it doesn't even have the credibility of being a 'real' problem. It's an imagined problem. The lowest type of problem there is I suspect.

Also why is someone who desires to play Johnny B. Goode using cowboy chords exempt from wanting to be perfect? I see no logical equivalence. What you really mean then is someone who wants to play J. B. Goode very poorly using cowboy chords.

You're certainly welcome to your beliefs. That goes without saying (even though I just said it). But you do realize that your personal beliefs don't necessarily reflect the truth to any great degree right?

[klasaine]

Originally Posted by emu!

Practice makes perfect...HA!!!


Music was meant to portray emotion, not perfection.

Perfectionists are people with a self-made problem...and they tend to band together. (pun intended) JMO.

Since I'm not Dylan, Howlin' Wolf, Ellington or Mozart I have to be satisfied with striving (and so far never attaining) for perfection. In the words of Jack Sheldon, "I'm just tryin to get good".

Hey, it's a living.

[122 Vega]

Originally Posted by ryokan

Are there any guitar players you can think of that fit this description? If they are out there, I agree, I'd like to study how they have sped up the process...

Son House spent quite a bit of time making fun of "little" Robert Johnson for his lack of skills, who left and came back two years later with a "mastery" of the guitar. Of course the devil may have chipped in...

Mike Bloomfield was another, he was of course an admitted fat kid with no abilities other than the guitar which he never sat down from the age of 13, and was sitting in with Muddy Waters at 15. He later said that he never practiced, "didn't need to," just plugged in and played. So it's likely that he obtained the 10,000 hours in his teens.

And some may disagree, but I think Jeff Buckley is another amazingly underated guitar player, he did have formal training at GIT in LA but was known to be able to pick up and mimic anything at an early age...

I wish I hadn't waited until 36 to pick up the guitar, I wasted at least 10,000 hours doing other crap!

Britt

[Larry F]

I just came across an interview with a 16 year old who speaks 23 languages. He doesn't think he has any particular neurological advantage. He says:

"I think it just takes a lot of dedication, interest, organizational skills. It’s really something that I think anyone can do. There’s nothing special about me."

I think this speaks to what many of said here, that the gift is interest and desire. It has also been pointed out here, that unfocused noodling is not as beneficial as working on specific goals. The young man here mentions organizational skills, which I think is crucial in undertaking such a task as speaking 23 languages or learning guitar at the level of the greats.

Here is a link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...#slide=1152768.

[w3stie]

I did some research on bi-lingualism/multi-lingualism for a paper. This is an excerpt. Interestingly, fMRI studies have shown that later bilingual exposure changes the way the brain develops. Early exposure to a second language shows the new language being processed in the same areas of the brain as the first language in monolinguals, yet after puberty, there is more widespread use of the brain’s frontal lobe tissue including working memory and inhibitory areas, and that more cognitive effort is required for the language task. In other words ladies and gentlemen, it gets harder to learn a second language as we get older.

Brain scans of bilingual individuals show greater grey-matter density (shown in yellow) in the inferior parietal cortex. In addition, researchers have found that the age of first bilingual language exposure has a strong effect on a young person’s reading ability. In fact, early bilingual exposure predicts how strong a reader they will become. There are other benefits too, with research showing cognitive advantages extend into old age, and that it may delay the onset of age-related dementia.

I don't think this means you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but there is a physical change around puberty that makes it harder.

[klasaine]

^^^ I can attest to that. My 3 year old is growing up with two languages equally spoken at home. As far as he's concerned (with his 3 yr old brain) - it's all the same.
Interestingly he is now able to ascertain VERY quickly (seemingly instantaneously) who speaks what. This is a common occurrence in bi-lingual homes.

*It may be more difficult for the old dogs to learn new tricks but I'd wager it's VERY GOOD for cognitive health.
Learn harmony and theory - stave off Alzheimer's

[raito]

Yep, treat the brain like a muscle. Work it out. My wife is really, really, scared of her brain going when she gets older, because it does run in her family. What she doesn't see is that her grandma never had to think, ever. Grandpa took care of all the thinking. She and her sister are the first to go to college. I worry more about my brain than hers.

And usre the language kid doesn't think he's exceptional. He's both right and wrong. He's right in that his mental power probably isn't exceptional. What is exceptional is his interest and drive in languages. There's some evidence out there that that interest and drive are what the rest of us call 'talent', especially for activities that are mostly mental (and music is mostly mental in that it does not require the sorts of physical skills that say, sports do). I know that the things I'm best at are the things I'm most interested in.

(Though I'm still trying to figure out how I could've put in my 10K hours becoming an expert parent prior to having any children.)

As for the 90K guys, at what point did they stop getting better? Or did they? Can you say that Bach's last Symphony is 'more expert' than his first, for example?

As for the just trying to get good, I have a bit of a theory on that, too. You can only see as far ahead as you've already come. So when you're a novice, you might be able to see the next thing you need to get a bit better. But an expert can see way off into the distance. Far enough where the novice can't even really see where the expert is.

There's a story about an old kendo master that sums up this point pretty well. Every day for an hour he practiced lifting the tip of his sword, the first movement of the head strike everyone uses in kendo. The student asked why he spent so much time on that little thing, because he'd been doing it his whole career, and surely there was some better use of his practice time. The master said he practiced it because he'd almost gotten it right.

One of my martial arts students also had this vision problem a while back. He told my wife he wanted to be as good as I was, in that I could win a certain big tournament without even practicing. This was while I was practicing for that very tournament, and was practicing very hard and practicing things that were difficult and necessary, but not exactly related to smacking other people. He was new enough that he couldn't even see that I was practicing, let alone what.

For me, it's odd with guitar, because my theory is pretty solid, so I get double-vision. On the one hand, I haven't played that long seriously (if I can even be called that now), so I still have troubles getting my fingers in the right places. On the other, I know a lot more about where the notes go than I can possibly do at the moment.

[klasaine]

Originally Posted by raito

As for the 90K guys, at what point did they stop getting better? Or did they? Can you say that Bach's last Symphony is 'more expert' than his first, for example?

IMO they get better. They did say that they improved too.
Slower than when they were novices but improvement nonetheless.

[ryokan]

Originally Posted by klasaine

IMO they get better. They did say that they improved too.
Slower than when they were novices but improvement nonetheless.

What about Coltrane? Much of the music he was doing at the end of his life (albums like 'Meditations') I find to be unbearable. Although I love a lot of the offshoots of that music (Pharoah Sanders/Alice Coltrane).

[klasaine]

Well that's a personal taste thing, which believe me I get - and though I love Meditations some of the stuff that followed it is, to put it mildly, quite difficult to deal with sometimes.
His 'concept' became deeper than anybody to this day can even understand and he felt it was some his best stuff. He was a searcher - you're hearing him learn. On the Meditations album in particular his tone is unbelievable and his extended technique on the instrument is still unequaled.

*Are you sure you're talking about 'meditations'?
It's not really that 'out' of a record.
Now 'OM' on the other hand ...

[ryokan]

Originally Posted by klasaine

Well that's a personal taste thing, which believe me I get - and though I love Meditations some of the stuff that followed it is, to put it mildly, quite difficult to deal with sometimes.
His 'concept' became deeper than anybody to this day can even understand and he felt it was some his best stuff. He was a searcher - you're hearing him learn. On the Meditations album in particular his tone is unbelievable and his extended technique on the instrument is still unequaled.

*Are you sure you're talking about 'meditations'?
It's not really that 'out' of a record.
Now 'OM' on the other hand ...

Yeah, it's Meditations. Just went back and listened to it, and still find it off-putting. The horn players at that time (Albert Ayler, Eric Dolphy, Ornette Coleman) pushed each other to extremes. That music is valuable for its place in history, and for the interesting music that grew out of it, but I certainly don't want to listen to it anymore...

Check out the saxophonist Colin Stetson for some incredibly interesting and beautiful extended technique. He has built an entire music around it...awesome stuff and completely unique as it's not growing out of jazz.

[KyAnne]

This is a great thread. I'd like to add my 3 cents in addition to my tale of woe as it pertains to learning the guitar.
If one works four (or five) 10-12 hour days and has to cut grass and fix supper and take care of things around the house, there is so little time for practice. At times (a lot of the time), I am worn slap ass out and I have to go to bed at 8:30 to be at work for 6:30 a.m. (working) the next day. My guitar gathers dust and I feel guilty-mad-sad all at the same time. It's really hard to get enthusiastic after working in the boiling sun or freezing cold in filth and rodent feces all day (I work for a power company) and come home smiling and bebop over to the guitar and start playing. There is just so much to do and so little time. My age (58) isn't helping either. Plus they will call you out on weekends and even on vacation. I had to halt my lessons. There is nothing they won't interfere with, well, Nothing but a wedding or a funeral (and it'd better be a close relative). But that is another story.
Now.....about Hubert Sumlin and other Delta Blues players....... I am from that area and the players I've seen seem to go on patterns of chords.....
repetition, and memorization........plus....that never ending desire to be "the man". Tee hee hee. I've read of Chicago blues players (a lot of which came from the Delta), who were semi-literate in theory awe-struck with the chords and progressions some of the Delta bluesmen would come up with only to find out they had no idea what chords they were making. They just "sounded right". Who was that that said "if it sounds right it IS right"? And the tuning?
Good luck. They also used Black Diamond strings from the drug store. Hearns Music store sold those expensive strings. God, that seems so long ago.
That is what I remember of those old days in Greenwood Mississippi.
I'm longing for the day I can retire so I can finally have some peace and practice on some kind of regular basis on my Tele. Only 18 months away. Wish me luck! KY

[gfogarty]

I recommend "Guitar Zero" by Gary Marcus. He had a few interesting points:
1) The 10,000 hour rule is oversold
2) On most learning tasks, adults do BETTER than kids. What kids have over adults is basically free time, persistence, and lack of fear of doing things wrong or badly.
3) Music and language are not the same; our brains appear to have specific wiring for language, but music appears to be a happy by product of other brain abilities. Thus how we learn language and music are different. Nearly every human acquires language without conscious effort, but for most of us music takes effort.

[raito]

On the other hand, I don't recommend it. I heard an interview with him, and he clearly doesn't understand the difference between music and the mechanical skills of playing an instrument. It's pretty bad when the ad blurb before the interview makes me think I'd like to read the book, then the author himself turns me off it.

And I'd disagree that we don't pick up music unconsciously. We don't pick up playing an instrument unconsciously. But who among us didn't sing as a child. In my book, that's picking up music, and not with any conscious effort.

I'd much more recommend This Is Your Brain On Music.

[gfogarty]

I didn't hear the interview, but in the book it's quite clear he understands the difference. He has a scientist's perspective and uses a scientists language, which is different from a musician's.

He discusses children learning to sing too.