Members Virgman Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 I think conservatory scrutiny would have placed him in a remedial sub group. Most likely. But then Shawn Lane is a legend and those conservatory dudes are nobodies. No doubt Hendrix wouldn't pass either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 1001gear Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 True haha true ... Well just for the record - and what isn't (?) around here. The scrutiny would be on requisite accomplishment and not star quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members runnrdad Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 As a new player, I find this thread so informative--as I do most of the threads in "The Lesson Loft."I've been playing for about six weeks. I practice about an hour a day. Can you guys compute the hours and years I'll need to be able to play like this fellow: BTW, I'm 57, but in good health.Many thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 Check this link out. This guy is trying it out:"10,000 hours to become a virtuoso? I'm gonna find out."http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2275008 A virtuoso at what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 To get the record straight...the last time I played ANY video game was over 10 years ago. I am married with a 2 year old baby and a full-time job. So, as it is, if I get an hour per day to myself for ANYTHING, I am fortunate. So, what updates do you have to share with us? Have you followed any advice posted so far? Have you rejected any? What is it exactly you are trying to play with "speed"? What have you been practicing? What music are you trying to play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Virgman Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 As a new player, I find this thread so informative--as I do most of the threads in "The Lesson Loft." I've been playing for about six weeks. I practice about an hour a day. Can you guys compute the hours and years I'll need to be able to play like this fellow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATub40Npxik&feature=related BTW, I'm 57, but in good health. Many thanks I've seen that video before. If you just want to learn that specific song it might take you a year or two. This would be a good application of GuitarPro. You get the tab and learn the song one bar at a time, played slowly and get it up to speed over time. It would take you several months to learn the whole song and then a year or two to get it up to speed. Practice just that every day for an hour. Q: "How do you eat an elephant?" A: "One bar at a time." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members runnrdad Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 In fairness to the OP, he just started the thread a few days ago. Perhaps he's waiting for more info before he decides what advice to accept/reject. There's so much good advice already, I know it would take me a bit to sift through it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members runnrdad Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 Virgman,You are such a kind person, and always ready to be supportive and offer such good advice, I'm not surprised you would suggest a way to tackle any problem. To be honest, though, I meant that one as a joke from someone who will NEVER approach that level of playing. I could spend my 10,000 hours on that song alone! And my wife and family would leave me in the process But, again, it's great that you think anything is possible--that is why you're one of the best assets this forum offers. I think I should adopt more of your "can do" attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jasco Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 Awesome.Shawn Lane says on a video/interview that he had all his skills by 16.A prodigy. Did not take 10,000 hours. A lot of what Shawn Lane says is BS. He may even believe it, but that doesn't make it true. He wasn't always fast and didn't have all his skills by 16, despite his claims. If you listen compare the video clip of him while he is young to him at later stages you'll hear a lot of skill level difference. Also, he was notorious for not wanting to record because he was practicing so much that he thought he'd be able to play the songs better after the recording date. You also mentioned earlier about Paul Gilbert always being fast. I hung out with him quite a bit a long time ago, and he'd be the first to tell you that all speed is built through slow accurate practice, including his own speed. Another thing I can say about Paul is that he is (or was then at least) a practice-aholic. He always had his guitar in his hands working on something. Therefore, both of those examples to me reinforce the idea that skill level is mainly a function of work hours, not innate talent. Some just start their work hours at a younger age, and some put in a lot more hours than other. In fact, all the cats I know who are montser players have one thing in common, they live, breath, eat, and sleep guitar. Additionally I'd theorize that the quality of one's practice time plays a role, as does the 'density' of hours per day (i.e. 10 hours per day for a year will get you further than 1/2 hour a day for 20 years.) And one other factor in developing high level music skills in my opinion besides training hours is hours actually spent gigging and recording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Virgman Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 A lot of what Shawn Lane says is BS. He may even believe it, but that doesn't make it true. He wasn't always fast and didn't have all his skills by 16, despite his claims. If you listen compare the video clip of him while he is young to him at later stages you'll hear a lot of skill level difference. Also, he was notorious for not wanting to record because he was practicing so much that he thought he'd be able to play the songs better after the recording date. You also mentioned earlier about Paul Gilbert always being fast. I hung out with him quite a bit a long time ago, and he'd be the first to tell you that all speed is built through slow accurate practice, including his own speed. Another thing I can say about Paul is that he is (or was then at least) a practice-aholic. He always had his guitar in his hands working on something. Therefore, both of those examples to me reinforce the idea that skill level is mainly a function of work hours, not innate talent. Some just start their work hours at a younger age, and some put in a lot more hours than other. In fact, all the cats I know who are montser players have one thing in common, they live, breath, eat, and sleep guitar. Additionally I'd theorize that the quality of one's practice time plays a role, as does the 'density' of hours per day (i.e. 10 hours per day for a year will get you further than 1/2 hour a day for 20 years.) And one other factor in developing high level music skills in my opinion besides training hours is hours actually spent gigging and recording. Well, I said Paul Gilbert probably was always fast. Why didn't you chime in earlier instead of letting me put my foot in the bucket?? I'm just theorizing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Virgman Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 I should have posted this before. http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2275008 Posted by Marshredder: "One of my lecturers is one of the guys that lead some of the the original studies (following Ericsson's research) into the whole 10,000 hours thing, and sorry to burst your bubble but its been twisted a lot for all these selfpsycho babble books, most of them just cite the Ericsson article ignoring completely how invalid it was to the world. If you told him you read its 10,000 to be a master at your art he would laugh at you. 10,000 hours is the amount of time it takes to become an expert if a VERY precice pattern of practice is purposely carried out over a timeline of approximately 50 years. It would take precise practice routines with timed reinforcement and rehearsal activities, it also depends on "Natural talent," Cognitive ability and many other environmental context's. I'll get the original journals for you tomorrow from the department library. And dont get smart and pull out the Ericsson article either, read a few peer reviews and you will find out its very very low on real-world validity due to the samples he used." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jasco Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 I'm just theorizing. Same here. And I'm probably too opinionated to be completely objective about it.The reason I want the "10,000 hour theory" to be more correct than the "innate talent theory" is two-fold:1. The innate talent theory lacks the accountability of actions that the 10,000 hour theory has. I want to believe that effort is rewarded on a fairly equal basis.2. The innate talent theory makes for good excuses for the lazy. "I won't ever be able to play like so-and-so, so why even try." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 Same here. And I'm probably too opinionated to be completely objective about it. The reason I want the "10,000 hour theory" to be more correct than the "innate talent theory" is two-fold: 1. The innate talent theory lacks the accountability of actions that the 10,000 hour theory has. I want to believe that effort is rewarded on a fairly equal basis. 2. The innate talent theory makes for good excuses for the lazy. "I won't ever be able to play like so-and-so, so why even try." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Virgman Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 I hear you. People are too concerned with getting to the end of the race. The finish line is not really important. Worrying about "getting there" all the time takes the pleasure out of the experience. Learning and playing music should be a fun experience. It is natural to feel that way though. It's like looking forward to retirement. So you finally get to retirement and then you drop dead a year later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 As for the violinists example, what I basically got out of that is: 2nd chair violinists practiced more than 3rd chair. That's why 3rd chair violinists are where they are. 1st chair violinists practiced more than 2nd and 3rd. That's why they're 1st chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Virgman Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 As for the violinists example, what I basically got out of that is:2nd chair violinists practiced more than 3rd chair. That's why 3rd chair violinists are where they are.1st chair violinists practiced more than 2nd and 3rd. That's why they're 1st chair. Well, based on the excerpt from Marshredders post above, it doesn't look like that is really the case. There are too many variables to pin all the results on time practiced. Some people are just better like some people can run faster. Like Jeremy's story about his childhood experience running with his friend. All men are not created equal. Everybody has strengths in different areas. I'd rather be a great chord player quite frankly. But that is where I am weakest. However. it stands to reason that the more you practice the better you will get. Whether you become the next Eddie Van Halen is another question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 Well, based on the excerpt from Marshredders post above, it doesn't look like that is really the case. How much talent do you really need though to learn a piece of sheet music and execute it at the speed your musical director wants? If the 3rd stringer practiced as much as a 1st stringer, he/she would be sitting in the 1st string section. Now if you're talking about a concert violinist vs. a 1st-string section violinist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 Whether you become the next Eddie Van Halen is another question. I don't play any music that requires me to be like Eddie. For jazz, the most speed I'll ever need is the for the ability to execute a fast bebop head like Donna Lee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm8HUqRSfHY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Virgman Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 How much talent do you really need though to learn a piece of sheet music and execute it at the speed your musical director wants? If the 3rd stringer practiced as much as a 1st stringer, he/she would be sitting in the 1st string section. Now if you're talking about a concert violinist vs. a 1st-string section violinist... I don't know. Politics might enter the equation. Maybe the director is banging the 1st string violinist. Maybe the 1st makes fewer mistakes. Has better tone. 1st might just flat out be better. Maybe the 3rd is inexperienced. Can't handle the pressure as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 I don't know. Politics might enter the equation. Maybe the director is banging the 1st string violinist. Maybe the 1st makes fewer mistakes. Has better tone. Having played in community orchestra myself, I don't discount the possiblity of politics determining placement of violinists. Our music director was male and married... Our 1st string section had as many male violinists as female... btw....If the 2nd/3rd string violinists use this as an excuse to not practice, then I guess they weren't really meant for this music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 BTW, skill requirement for 1st-string violinist in orchestra is not the same as for concert violinist. You do not need to be Joshua Bell/Emily Whatshername/Midori/etc. to be a 1st string violinist in orchestra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jeremy_green Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 I stand by my earlier it that "top speed" is a natural position. Some people are JUST faster naturally. I also think that the ability to WANT to practice all the time is a skill we dont all have. I LOVE practice. I NEVER see it as work. I can work on the most routine crap for hours at a time and never get bored or run out of things to work on. I am kind of obsessive that way ... about many things I dive in head first and HARD. Is that not a natural skill as well? Is work ethic taught ... or can you just love something so much that it never feels like work? So would I with my 82% speed - working my ass off end up faster than the 98% guy if he was a slacker? I suspect I would be. But if he had my work ethic he would blow me out of the water speed wise alone. It is possibly the combination of natural ability and work ethic that make these virtuosos truly rare. This is all hypothetical stuff but it is a curious topic isnt it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 I also think that the ability to WANT to practice all the time is a skill we dont all have. I LOVE practice. I NEVER see it as work. I can work on the most routine crap for hours at a time and never get bored or run out of things to work on. I am kind of obsessive that way ... about many things I dive in head first and HARD. Is that not a natural skill as well? Desire to excel at a musical instrument might be an inborn thing. However, the ability to use your practice time efficiently is a skill that can be acquired and pass on to others. Now that I think about it, there are a couple of other pieces of music that I want to play where actual speed is required: Bach Two-Part Inventions and Chopin Etudes (other than #3, Op. 10). But that's it. And the fact that there are musicians who can execute Bach/Chopin music faster than others is totally irrelevant. Other than being able top play fast bop heads in time with other musicians, speed in jazz is an option, not a requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jasco Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 I am kind of obsessive that way ... about many things I dive in head first and HARD. Is that not a natural skill as well?Is work ethic taught ... or can you just love something so much that it never feels like work? Good questions for contemplation and discussion. Really interesting thread all-in-all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted March 20, 2009 Members Share Posted March 20, 2009 Please can we make this oft-quoted advice a sticky and have it be required reading before anyone posts any question asking how to play fast. It'd save us all a lot of time going round the circle again and again and again... Might not be a bad idea. And people who ask this type of question can help themselves by giving more info, like what piece of music it is, exactly, that they are trying to play at a certain speed but are struggling (eg. "Tumeni Notes" by Steve Morse, "Flight of the Bumblebee", etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.