18,200 Repetitions Per Month

[Loren]

I’ve spent the better part of the last 40 years teaching people physical skills - primarily martial arts, boxing, fencing, rock climbing, and weight lifting - and one of the things that comes up really often is students stating they are less talented than someone else, or that they aren’t as physically gifted. My experience has been that this simply isn’t true, what is true is that the people who work the hardest and smartest miraculously become the most talented.

Today I ran across a short video of one of my former teachers talking about Bruce Lee’s dedication to training. This instructor, Chris Kent, had copies of Bruce’s training log, and in the video Chris talks about counting up the number of punches Bruce PRACTICED (not simply threw) within a random one month period. And yes, you guessed it 18,200 punches PRACTICED in a month. That is likely to make one extremely “Talented”.

As Chris mentions in the video, most of us have lives and can’t reasonably do that sort of practice, but I do think we tend to ascribe too much weight to “natural talent” and handicap ourselves to some extent by not realizing just how much our potential is in our own hands, no pun intended. And that being the case, we work towards our own low expectations.

Whether it’s struggles with embouchure, breathing, those pesky upper hand rolls, or any other playing challenge, we can become as good as we would like to be, if we practice in a focused, intelligent and engaged way, on a consistent basis.

Here’s the video for anyone interested, it’s just a few minutes long: https://youtu.be/SPcJayMww50

[Sedi]

I couldn’t agree more! It reminds me of an interview with Hilary Hahn I saw a long time ago, when she was already famous but still very young. The interviewer asked her, if she thinks, talent plays a big part in her success. If I remember correctly, she said, she practices 8 hrs a day, so talent plays a miniscule part, if it plays one at all.
Aother thing that comes to mind is in Quantz’ flute instruction from 1752 which I am currently reading. He believed that people who think they are talented (maybe even do have talent) will often come less far in their endeavours because they think they don’t need proper training and practice as much as other “less talented” people do.

[BKWeid]

Talent Code: Greatness Isn’t Born. It’s Grown. Daniel Coyle

The research supports your theory. Work and effort move people toward greatness. Those with, “talent” often fall behind those with work ethic, over time.

I sure wish my left hand rolls were better. Back to work?

[Mr.Gumby]

we can become as good as we would like to be, if we practice in a focused, intelligent and engaged way, on a consistent basis.

In the case of technical skills, yes, mostly and up to a point. But there’s more to music than technical/mechanical skills isn’t there?

[Loren]

@Mr.Gumby

we can become as good as we would like to be, if we practice in a focused, intelligent and engaged way, on a consistent basis.

In the case of technical skills, yes, mostly and up to a point. But there’s more to music than technical/mechanical skills isn’t there?

You know, it’s funny, as I was finishing up my original post I thought to myself “Peter is going to comment that there is more to music than technical skill”, but it was late and I was tired, so I figured I’d just wait for it.

Yes, there’s more to good music than shredding the tone holes like some crazed Uillean Piper
but every aspect of good music making can be taught, learned and improved with proper practice.

Once you start breaking down and focusing on what makes a thing danceable, or beautiful, or powerful, or emotionally moving, you see that artistic expression comes down to developing tools and attributes which then allows for the “freedom of expression”, and the choices that come with it, such as style, which may or may not be enjoyed by others

Do you disagree Peter? Do you believe that there are necessary skills for playing music well, and with good style and taste, that simply can’t be taught, learned, and improved through proper practice? Or, were you simply making the point that purely focusing on technique will not make you a good musician, which I would hope most of us already realize?

[Mr.Gumby]

You can teach all sorts of things and to a point things can be learned. Yet, I often hear people playing who can roll off any tune with all the right bits in the right places and they sound uninteresting. _‘A string of notes’, ‘a few yards of reels’_or as a friend of mine put it some decades ago when asked about some playing ‘they sound like they’ve been taught’. At other times you come across someone who may be out of practice or with limited technique and as soon as they strike up their music is compelling, you can’t but listen and engage. The old people had terms for that ‘she has great heart in her music, doesn’t she’?', ‘he has the touch, doesn’t he?’ that sort of thing. Some people have it and when you hear it, you will know. Whatever that is, it can’t be taught. I can’t even tell you what it is.

I agree with you there’s an awful lot you can work on and if you have the hunger and the dilligence that will take you a long way. ‘It’s dark and lonesome work’ as Jackie Daly put it. And it is something everybody has to do to make a fist of it, to put in the work. But that little bit extra that makes a great musician special, I am not so sure that can be learned or taught. And for that reason I don’t think everybody can be as good as they want to, you can only do you’re best and get as close as you can.

[Loren]

@Mr.Gumby

You can teach all sorts of things and to a point things can be learned. Yet, I often hear people playing who can roll off any tune with all the right bits in the right places and they sound uninteresting. As a friend of mine put it some decades ago when asked about some playing ‘they sound like they’ve been taught’. At other times you come across someone who may be out of practice or with limited technique and as soon as they strike up their music is compelling, you can’t but listen and engage. The old people had terms for that ‘she has great heart in her music, doesn’t she’?', that sort of thing. Some people have it and when you hear it, you will know. Whatever that is, it can’t be taught. I can’t even tell you what it is.

I agree with you there’s an awful lot you can work on and if you have the hunger and the dilligence that will take you a long way. ‘It’s dark and lonesome work’ as Jackie Daly put it. And it is something everybody has to do, to put in the work. But that little bit extra that makes a great musician special, I am not so sure that can be learned or taught.

I absolutely agree, there are plenty of people who are technically quite proficient, but their playing doesn’t move you - “you argue well… but you do not persuade” so to speak.

Where we differ is that I am quite clear that those who have that something special have simply developed, or developed to a higher degree, certain nuances of playing/performing that others simply haven’t put the effort into mastering. This could be due to laziness, ego, or most often perhaps, a simple lack of awareness - one can’t add,modify, or remove from one’s playing what one is unaware of. This is where a good teacher is invaluable, and lacking that, the development of your own listening and imitating skills.

My grandfather was an artist and the director of art education (back when we still had such a thing) for the Philadelphia public school system, one of the largest in the U.S. My grandmother taught piano at a very high level and was associated with one of the most prestigious U.S. music schools. I don’t say this to brag or attempt to impress, only to explain that from a young age I was exposed to the teaching of music and fine arts, at a very high level. With regards to music, my grandmother had a baby grand at the house and had students over for lessons on a regular basis when I was visiting, I listened or at least heard even when trying to block out how she coached students through the nuances of upper level piano performance for important recitals - dynamics, rhythmic and timing subtleties, the use of a sustain, and so forth, all meant to add up to that “something special”, because once you get to a very high level, everyone has massive chops and those alone get you nowhere if you can’t make the listener feel something (they enjoy). Ultimately you have to identify the nuance skills and attributes, learn and gain command of them, then choose to employ them in an effective (meaningful to the listener) way.

It’s the same with Art, seems like a big mystery to the non-artist but the further you go down the rabbit hole of how great artists were produced back in the day, the less it seems the Michelangelos and Da Vincis had something special, they simply became special through focus, motivation, and hard work within a system that provided good instruction and plenty of talented peers to set a high bar if you were going to get work to feed yourself.

In the traditional/folk music world, one has historically been left to listen and develop on one’s own, which is a bit of a hit or miss approach that relies heavily on a person being extremely motivated while simultaneously having a naturally high tolerance for frustration. That’s changing thanks to the internet and the proliferation of instruction in traditional music as a “thing”. I believe we are already seeing more and better instruction, leading to a larger number of better players. Some will only be technically accomplished, however those that have teachers
who understand what makes for good music at a deeper level, will end up having the extra “something special”, if they apply themselves.

Of course not all teachers are going to be good at, or even aware of all the more nuanced elements, and how to teach these things. Understanding what you and other good players do, and then becoming good at teaching those “soft” skills to others is, in and of itself, a whole other skill set.

[Mr.Gumby]

Where we differ is that I am quite clear that those who have that something special have simply developed, or developed to a higher degree, certain nuances of playing/performing that others simply haven’t put the effort into mastering. This could be due to laziness, ego, or most often perhaps, a simple lack of awareness - one can’t add,modify, or remove from one’s playing what one is unaware of. This is where a good teacher is invaluable, and lacking that, the development of your own listening and imitating skills.

I am really talking of the few who have a voice, whether they develop it extensively or not, that’s another matter but some people just have something that sets them apart. That aside, I don’t think we’re in heavy disagreement.

In the traditional/folk music world, one has historically been left to listen and develop on one’s own, which is a bit of a hit or miss approach that relies heavily on a person being extremely motivated while simultaneously having a naturally high tolerance for frustration.

I am not sure that’s overall true. Not all musicians (and I am talking of previous generations) received extensive tuition but there was always an awful lot of mentoring or dropping of hints involved and extensive contacts and exchanges between musicians. People would actively seek out other musicians who had something, music, technique or what have you, that they wanted. And I have often been surprised at the depth of knowledge among musicians about a large range of players and there repertoires and specific settings, techniques etc they had. They didn’t lick it off the stones, as they say. Which is exactly what you said above, having the focus, dedication or as they say here ‘the hunger’ to seek out and apply knowledge and skills.

I believe we are already seeing more and better instruction, leading to a larger number of better players. Some will only be technically accomplished, however those that have teachers
who understand what makes for good music at a deeper level, will end up having the extra “something special”, if they apply themselves.

You know, UL (Limerick) is turning out an awful lot of very well taught young people. Opinions are quite divided about that. Technically brilliant and full of insight not everybody would agree better music comes out of there. Although some very fine players emerged from the programme, it’s considered a mixed blessing at best, by some at least.
I think they’re walking a fine line and shouold be wary of turning traditional music into a classical like performance style. Loosing what makes this music what it is along the way.

[Loren]

Yes, it sounds like we are essentially in agreement.

With regards to developing one’s own voice, I’m with you on that, and it is certainly an additional…ingredient shall we say? I believe that it comes down to a combination of influences - who you’ve listened to and learned from - as well as your life experiences, personality, and perhaps what you’re trying to accomplish, along with having a desire to NOT sound exactly like someone else. I suppose I view this as being both an ongoing developmental process, as well as being the final piece of the puzzle as it were. I believe this can be coached to a certain extent, but not taught. You can point out to someone that they are sounding a bit too much like their favorite players, you can coach for creativity, you can direct students to other players and styles to listen to, and so forth, but ultimately one develops a focus and heads in a direction, which might be the road well traveled or off the beaten path. Picasso turned his gaze away from classical painting towards that which led him to cubism, and ultimately what made him unique.

I’m not suggesting we can purposely set out to create the next musical Picasso’s, nor should we.

As for the UL grads, yes, they seem to be coming out quite technically proficient. It will be interesting to see where they take those playing skills in the years to come. I live quite close to one of the most famous music schools in the U.S. Berklee in Boston. It has a reputation of turning out very capable musicians, but they are getting students relatively early in their musical development and only have so much time. Amazing musicians from multiple genres have come out of that school, but many merely play well and sound as if they need some “finishing”. But, to bring it back around, those famous Berklee grads, when you read or hear interviews with them, it becomes clear that they went above and beyond what their peers at school did with regards to study, practice, listening, transcribing,seeing every live show they could, taking every gig that came their way and on and on.

At any rate, my purpose for posting this thread was to provide encouragement, as well as a bit of perspective, for people who wish their playing was better, but who, for whatever reasons, feel a lack of natural talent is holding them back. It’s not. Everyone has the potential to play well and in a musically pleasing fashion, one just needs a good plan, perhaps some proper instruction, and then the motivation and persistence to play and practice properly on a consistent basis, even if that’s only 15 minutes a day. But the devil is in the details and if you’re working at it and not making progress, then you need to seek some help to get you moving forward.

[Loren]

I should add that I was also trying to make the point that people often expect results too quickly, we see that all the time here on the forums.

Having problems with embouchure, rolls, rhythm, learning tunes, etc. etc.? Well, How many good reps have you done??

[Peter_Duggan]

@Loren

how she coached students through the nuances of upper level piano performance for important recitals - dynamics, rhythmic and timing subtleties, the use of a sustain, and so forth, all meant to add up to that “something special”

It can be a double-edged sword. Of course teachers need to teach/nurture interpretation as well as technique, but I sometimes felt with some of mine they were teaching their interpretation as much or more than the actual instrument. Whereas I remember the last piano teacher I had (who taught me far more than that) commenting on some little timing thing I did to say it was a really musical thing to do…

[Loren]

@Peter_Duggan

@Loren

how she coached students through the nuances of upper level piano performance for important recitals - dynamics, rhythmic and timing subtleties, the use of a sustain, and so forth, all meant to add up to that “something special”

It can be a double-edged sword. Of course teachers need to teach/nurture interpretation as well as technique, but I sometimes felt with some of mine they were teaching their interpretation as much or more than the actual instrument. Whereas I remember the last piano teacher I had (who taught me far more than that) commenting on some little timing thing I did to say it was a really musical thing to do…

Well of course this is a great point you make Peter, and I would say that certainly in the classical world many teachers are quite strict and it’s a “my way or the highway” sort of thing, the assumption being that the teacher is the teacher because they know what you don’t.

In other genres of music the teacher often takes on a somewhat different role, particularly when students aren’t being coached for competitions.

Regardless, I do think it’s incumbent on the student to pay attention to the effect different style related elements have on the music, regardless of whether you’re specifically being coached on how to play more musically, or simply being told how to play a passage based on what your teacher wants. Either way you learn to understand the impact of each little change, so that you can later apply that learning to your own music.


It’s different coaching/teaching styles for different endeavors though: Classical performance in the recital hall for auditions vs learning to play trad/folk, pop, or rock for one’s own enjoyment. Certainly my approach to boxing classes is quite different for those wanting to step in the ring vs. those boxing purely for fitness.

Regardless, a teacher can be putting it all out for you, but often the student is not picking up what the teacher is laying down. Sometimes it takes years for the lessons to hit home, although that needn’t necessarily be the case, depends on the student, and the teacher. In both cases some are better than others.

[Peter_Duggan]

@Loren

Regardless, I do think it’s incumbent on the student to pay attention to the effect different style related elements have on the music, regardless of whether you’re specifically being coached on how to play more musically, or simply being told how to play a passage based on what your teacher wants. Either way you learn to understand the impact of each little change, so that you can later apply that learning to your own music.

Yes, I think this is key too. I’d say the best teaching, rather than simply saying ‘slow down here’, ‘place this note/chord’ or whatever, asks ‘what do you think about a little more room here?’, ‘what does this do for the music?’, ‘why might you do this?’ etc. And the best teachers have it and the best students learn from it!

[jim_stone]

This discussion reminded me of this beautifully wrought video. I post it not by way of argument but because it is charming. Bach agrees with Loren, Frederick the Great is less convinced.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&ei=UTF-8&p=bach+meets+frederick+the+great&type=E211US0G91477#id=1&vid=dff404ecdda0b1811287241fbd0aabb7&action=click

[jim_stone]

This discussion reminded me of this beautifully wrought video. I post it not by way of argument but because it is charming. Bach agrees with Loren, Frederick the Great is less convinced.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&ei=UTF-8&p=bach+meets+frederick+the+great&type=E211US0G91477#id=1&vid=dff404ecdda0b1811287241fbd0aabb7&action=click

[Nanohedron]

Great thread, guys.

[tstermitz]

@Loren I mostly agree with your points.

I can think of some counterfactuals to the idea that persistence and practice can always succeed.

The most obvious is learning a foreign language. We all know many foreigners with strong accents, but only a few with almost no accent. It is obvious to me that factors other than training inhibit success. Some aspects of language patterns are wired very early in the brain of toddlers. Older language learners clearly have more difficult than younger ones. I traveled South America in my 20s, and speak (when in practice) with minimal accent. Learning “on-the-street” or inside another culture is part of the answer.

Getting back to music, as an older learner, I can testify that I learn slower (but hopefully with more persistent) than young whippersnappers.

One interesting thing that ties music back to language. Many non-native speakers with minimal accents are often musicians.

[Sedi]

@tstermitz

Getting back to music, as an older learner, I can testify that I learn slower (but hopefully with more persistent) than young whippersnappers.

I think that is mostly a problem of time (besides physical factors like the fingers/neck/shoulder aching faster than when younger). I often have to force myself to stop playing flute and work (damn it ). I am self-employed and work from home – the advantage: I can play flute whenever I want. The disadvantage: I play flute whenever I want .
When I was 17 I learned guitar – I didn’t have to worry about paying bills and I didnt’t care about my school grades, so I practiced 3-4 hrs a day. Today I am lucky when I can play for 30 min to 1 hr.
But considering – learning when younger. When exposed to the music as a kid, you simply suck it all up like a sponge. I will probably never forget the melody of all the tunes I learned as a kid – when picking up a flute, I can play those mostly instantly from memory with maybe a few wrong notes.
Far from it when trying to play Irish tunes. I have to work for hours/days/weeks to even be able to play them with a certain mediocrity. And I forget them rather quickly when not practicing them constantly.

[Mr.Gumby]

The most obvious is learning a foreign language. We all know many foreigners with strong accents, but only a few with almost no accent. It is obvious to me that factors other than training inhibit success. Some aspects of language patterns are wired very early in the brain of toddlers. Older language learners clearly have more difficult than younger ones.

The link with various aspects of language seems fairly obvious. Spending time with Micho Russell during the eighties it was clear to me his music had the same patterns as his speech, it was a reflection of how his mind worked. It is also clear that some people who grew up with this music have it internalised in quite a different way from late(r) learners. Some fifteen years ago I was teaching the pipes to a young girl who grew up deeply immersed in a musical environment: her mother one of the top whislteplayers and also a fine fluteplayer. Lots of coming and goings of all sorts of musicians in that household. I was teaching her Willie Clancy’s version of The West Wind on the pipes, which she picked up on the second pass. While we were running through it she threw a variation into the thrid part that was absolutely brilliant, When I questioned her about it she was completely unaware what she did, or that she did anything out of the ordinary at all. That sort of thing came perfectly natural to her. And that’s one of the things that can’t be taught. You can develop a good sense of variation but I have yet to meet a later learner who has the insight and freedom to navigate through a tune the way some people who learned through early immersion can. I am pretty convinced people who have learned their music through lifelong immersion store and retrieve their tunes in a different way from later learners.

[david_h]

I get Loren’s main point from the OP and the video.

However, the discussion has widened but I don’t know enough about martial arts practice, and I’m not clear from the video, whether that was 18,200 repetitions of a technique and if it was in isolation, with feedback from a trainer or with the need to respond to something external (an opponent?).

An external element is implicit in Mr Gumby’s points about immersion and tstermitz’s about language. The first time I tried to play a tune with others it fell to pieces because I needed to do something other than what I had diligently practised. Would even more repetitions earlier have made it harder to adapt?