The Upside of Quiting

[JeffD]

Me too. But in the meantime, I'm gonna go practice my driving.

[catmandu2]

I like all kinds of music. So, for the sake of the discussion, let's say that I want to be a complete mandolinist.

I think the question then becomes "How complete can you become in an hour a day?" This is really where questions of what to practice, and how to maintain what you practice, comes into play. I think that some of the trouble that people probably have is that they choose unrealistic goals.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..."

Lately, I have tried to address this by forcing myself to finish things. I have been learning tunes from Blues Fiddling Classics, and maybe I am being foolishly consistent by deciding to complete the whole book, but it is keeping me from being even more foolishly consistent tying to learn all genres at once.

It is more a matter of having a goal when you start--and finishing that goal before moving on--than completing whole books.

But let's go back to The Complete Mandolinist.

If I am a "hobby" classical player, with an hour a day to practice, should I skip "Exercises in Ab Major & F minor", learn it and then forget it until I need it for a tune, or learn it and maintain it?

I suppose one should also ask if The Complete Mandolinist is the appropriate book for the hobby classical player.

Another consideration is that practice routine (concepts, exercises) is a highly personal matter--varying as much as personal taste in music. Beginner pedagogy is (usually) more uniform in that one starts with fundamentals, which varies less than most other aspects of music and playing. The further you get from beginning pedagogy--the greater level of technical competency one attains--the more options are available for both study as well as playing. This is where one must begin to make deliberate choices in direction.

There's nothing at all wrong with a thread raising the issue of what to practice and why. Presumably, the cafe is a good place to raise such issues.

Not really knowing what your concept of "complete" mandolinist is, I can infer some things. I may have similar goals with my bass and woodwind playing: my goal is to be able to contribute meaningful musical ideas in any musical context I find myself in. This means improvisation. I do not have a goal of playing in orchestra pits or community bands, so I don't worry about practicing reading. I do read in working through various exercises, transcriptions and scores, but it's simply a tool I use for a specific purpose--sightreading is not something I care to spend time doing, as I play by ear.

In order to be prepared to play in any style in any context, one must practice a wide variety of musical concepts. I devise my own practice material, which are simply aspects of theory applied to whatever instrument I'm playing. I practice many of the same things on both bass and horns (scales, intervals, arpeggios). I don't structure my practice in the least (although I did so for many years with classical guitar); what I do is play musical ideas spontaneously whenever I pick up the instrument, or play along with music.

I infer from "complete" player--an ability to execute a musical idea on your instrument, in the moment. This is a lofty aspiration, and while you may be able to move toward this goal with an hour of practice a day, IMO it requires much more time than this. However, much of this study can be done away from the instrument: most of it is actually ear training. In order to improvise any music at any time, basic requirement is to be able to hear a note and play it on your instrument; proceeding from there--hearing intervals and knowing what those intervallic relationships are, and being able to execute them on your instrument.

So depending on one's working definition of "complete player," practice routines vary. For me, it entails studying theory--gaining familiarity with its elements so that I know what I am playing--and listening, so that I understand what I am hearing. IOW, upon hearing a tune, discerning what the chord progression is, and being able to contribute something interesting (meaningful) in context.

Here's an example of how to construct practice using theoretical concepts:

[Dale Ludewig]

I agree completely that it's a combination of ear and theory. And practice. I've found, curiously, that I work out tunes in my head at night while half asleep. Riffs. Whatever. I get up in the morning and can play them. At least pretty close.

Related to this, at least to me, is the difference between people that are pretty intensely involved with music and those that aren't. I've asked my not-so-much musical friends about what song they woke up with running through their heads last night and they look at me like I'm nuts. What do those people do inside their heads?

[catmandu2]

I agree completely that it's a combination of ear and theory. And practice. I've found, curiously, that I work out tunes in my head at night while half asleep. Riffs. Whatever. I get up in the morning and can play them. At least pretty close.

There ya go

Learn to visualize music; that is, understand what you are hearing--while you're driving down the road, say--and visualize how to play it on your instrument. Begin with simple intervals (familiar melodies of well-known tunes)

[JonZ]

Catmandu2--You are pretty close on what I aspire to (it's all good), but I do enjoy sight reading quite a lot too. I think it would be great to be able to dip into various fake books and effortlessly play what is on the page.

It is clear that deciding what to quit does depend on time; how much you can put toward practice each day, and how many days you have left.

[catmandu2]

Yeah, that's interesting Jon. It's actually an aspect I've struggled with, in a somewhat broader context, for years. And it took me years, for example, to finally and unequivocally quit nylon string guitar...and with it years of study in both technique and repertoire. I guess it's kind of what you're talking about here--since it entailed specific time and energy focused toward a particular outcome, which I ultimately gave up in the interest of pursuing other. For me, classical guitar was the reading and solo performance part of music that I gradually lost interest in--I grew up doing it, but only analyzed why I did it only after several decades! Then I realized that it wasn't very much fun!

So I'm an example of someone who practiced for years with little specific goal (very inefficiently). So I think it's a worthy discussion to have--for those who desire not to amble through music as did I. It's hard for me to imagine a more circuitous journey than mine...and I wouldn't advocate it, generally.

[jlavkuli]

The question for me is why do I play. I once had a boss who was the best leader I every met. He and I had a discussion about quality and he maintained that everything can and should be measured if you want improvement. I did not agree. Some things should be measured to improve quality. However, others should never be quantified and measured, like music. The simple act of measurement is likely to change behavior. Analyizing music sucks the life out of it. Most popular music is technically perfect, designed to prefection by suits who know the demographics of manufacturing music that sells. It works. But that msic has no soul for me.

I used to practice music. Now I never practice. I only play for fun. And I play more than I ever did. I play guitar and I just built an octave mandolin that I am just learning to play. I am missing half of my left pinky so chop chords are pretty much out. I don't care. I pick chord variations that I can manage and try to play with feeling. My wife is teaching herself to play the fiddle. She does not take lessons and is getting pretty good playing only for pleasure. As a bonus, our techniques are improving.

[JonZ]

There are some for whom analyzing music sucks the fun out of it, and others for whom it is part of the fun. To each his or her own.

[catmandu2]

Now I never practice. I only play for fun.

This is my approach as well on fiddle, mandolins, melodeons, banjos: I only "practice" tunes that I'm learning.

For bass and horns, I practice a lot--necessary for the music I want to play on these...it's why I call it "serious" music (less playing, more working...but fun)

[yankees1]

Quitting not in my vocabulary! What I lack in ability, I try to make up with determination!

[Perry]

I am very curious about what professionals do as the "maintenance" portion of their practice.

Professionals by definition play for a living thus need less warm-up time because they are playing for a living. Many times I have read pro's respond that they don't have a specific warm-up routine they just play what interests them.

[catmandu2]

Professionals by definition play for a living thus need less warm-up time because they are playing for a living. Many times I have read pro's respond that they don't have a specific warm-up routine they just play what interests them.

Well it may be sensible at this point to define the idiom of which we speak. In the classical realm--that Jon identified as one of his interests--there is much use of finger-busting exercises that "pros" use as warm up, between repertoire, and to refresh skills. I think this is what Jon is really inquring of: wht exercises do these folks drill between gigs? And I think much depends on what repertoire or situation, audition, concert, etc.--one anticipates next. Often, these exercises are sections of pieces themselves.

I used a lot of studies by Carcassi, Sor, Segovia and others...for classical guitar. i think sncerecorgi is an orchestra player and could probably tell us what some symphony players use between gigs..

[Alex Orr]

There are some for whom analyzing music sucks the fun out of it, and others for whom it is part of the fun. To each his or her own.

I agree completely. Thinking critically about why I like something often leads me to liking it even more, often through discovering new things I like about something or finding new connections to other things I like.

In terms of exercises, I wonder if the OP is slightly guilty of missing the forest for the trees. Playing an instrument should be, IMO, about being able to play music, not being able to maintain 100% accuracy and perfect memorization of every exercise (or even song) you ever play. It's also about having fun. If it's a hobby, then it shouldn't be a point of too much stress in your life - it should be a fun activity that is a break from stress inducing activities with some real consequences to them.

Also, if you're only playing an hour a day, perhaps you should be realistic. You really may not ever become a "complete mandolinist". You may not ever have a memorized repertoire of classical pieces that you can perform with near-perfect technique, a firm grasp on a variety of jazz-based improvisational styles, a deep power as a blues musician, control over all thing choro and bossa, and the ability to play pro level bluegrass at the drop of a hat. Sorry to tell you, but that's probably the case. Pro musicians often spend years (decades even) playing 4-8 hours a day. I recall reading an interview with Del McCoury who said that when his band is not on the road, they practice 8 hours a day, five days a week. They treat it as a job and show up at 9 and leave at 5. That's a bit of what it takes to be Ronnie McCoury.

Also, you almost always talk about the books you're working out of...maybe you should find a good instructor. Have them devise a plan and give you feedback. It may be less stressful for you and give you the feedback you seem to want on your playing and your progress.

[barney 59]

I am very curious about what professionals do as the "maintenance" portion of their practice. The idea that someone has an hour routine that covers all the bases is intriguing and puzzling. It just seems that, after a year of doing that same routine, you could switch to every other day without any loss. My guess would be that a different maintenance routine for every day of the week would be more effective.

And by the way, there is no downside to quilting. Its social and artistic, and you end up with a usable product.

I read about Pablo Casal's practice method. He started off early in the morning everyday doing exactly the same exercises and scales that he had done since he first began to play, you know, like lesson "1" !. He would progress to a series of Bach fugues and after some hours of that he would be ready to start practicing. After a few hours of that he would be ready to play.
I suspect he did this NOT so much for the music but that he understood that nobody likes a quitter!
I am thinking about giving up the mandolin and taking up quilting -it's a good way to meet women.

[jlavkuli]

The question for me is why do I play. I once had a boss who was the best leader I every met. He and I had a discussion about quality and he maintained that everything can and should be measured if you want improvement. I did not agree. Some things should be measured to improve quality. However, others should never be quantified and measured, like music. The simple act of measurement is likely to change behavior. Analyizing music sucks the life out of it. Most popular music is technically perfect, designed to prefection by suits who know the demographics of manufacturing music that sells. It works. But that msic has no soul for me.

I used to practice music. Now I never practice. I only play for fun. And I play more than I ever did. I play guitar and I just built an octave mandolin that I am just learning to play. I am missing half of my left pinky so chop chords are pretty much out. I don't care. I pick chord variations that I can manage and try to play with feeling. My wife is teaching herself to play the fiddle. She does not take lessons and is getting pretty good playing only for pleasure. As a bonus, our techniques are improving.

[Brent Hutto]

An hour a day guy talking about classical musician practice methods is like a homeless man asking Warren Buffet for investing tips. Those dudes warm up for an hour just to get ready for their three hours of scales to get ready for practice to start...

[jlavkuli]

There are some for whom analyzing music sucks the fun out of it, and others for whom it is part of the fun. To each his or her own.

You make a good point JonZ. I can understand how analyzing music can be fun. I think that people like me, who have limited talent, can still get great enjoyment from playing if we don't worry too much about what we can't do. I am getting to an age where there are a lot of things I can't do so I am learning to really enjoy what I can.

Sorry for the double post. I'm not sure how that happened.

Sorry for the double post. I'm not sure how that happened.

[AnneFlies]

How do you determine what you need?

I need whatever I need to play a particular piece or style. I'm pretty simple, so I don't need much. Tremolos, hammer-ons, pull-offs = don't need. Plain old picking through a tune = need. If I need something in the future, I'll learn it then.

[mandomiser]

Don't forget to wear your hemet!

[JonZ]

Given limited time, a big part of the decision is how much old repertoire to maintain versus moving forward with more challenging pieces.

My kids have taken a traditional violin path, with a teacher, and method books that systematically advance. The focus is definitely more on building technique than on building repertoire. It is all about the "next piece". As a result, they can play more complicated pieces, whereas I know many pieces.

Alex--Thanks for your insights. I did not realize that I was stressed out and not having fun. I will try to be more like you going forward.

[jaycat]

I too have only an hour a day to give to the mandolin. So, sometimes I practice written pieces, sometimes I try to learn new songs, or chord voicings or solos, sometimes I improvise to the best of my limited ability -- and sometimes I just play and sing songs I like. I think, given only an hour, you might as well just do whatever you feel like in the moment.

As far as the goal of becoming a "complete" anything, I think you're setting yourself up for failure. A more realistic goal might be to be able to play a little bit better than you could the day before. Or, as mentioned above, just enjoy yourself.

[catmandu2]

This begs the question: "which method yields the most joy?"

Jon should maybe retitle the thread, "the downside of playing"

[JonZ]

I too have only an hour a day to give to the mandolin. So, sometimes I practice written pieces, sometimes I try to learn new songs, or chord voicings or solos, sometimes I improvise to the best of my limited ability -- and sometimes I just play and sing songs I like. I think, given only an hour, you might as well just do whatever you feel like in the moment.

As far as the goal of becoming a "complete" anything, I think you're setting yourself up for failure. A more realistic goal might be to be able to play a little bit better than you could the day before. Or, as mentioned above, just enjoy yourself.

I think that completing The Complete Mandolinist is a reasonable goal in the hours I have left. I would feel rather complete, if I did that.

Catmandu2--"Which method yields the most joy?" begs the question, "do you find joy by seeking it?"

Oh, and I did think of a down side to quilting: who gets to keep the quilt? Lots of potential for conflict there. At a jam session, it's understood that you leave with what you brought.

[jaycat]

I think that completing The Complete Mandolinist is a reasonable goal in the hours I have left. I would feel rather complete, if I did that.

Then go for it . . .and best of luck to ye, lad!

[catmandu2]

"do you find joy by seeking it?"

Well I gotta say ... my new bass (which I've been seeking for years, and finally acquired) has been providing me immense joy

now enlightenment...that's another matter