About Having a Roadmap

New musicality video:

With the seemingly endless fountain of resources available for the self-taught musician, it can be hard to weed out exactly how to approach your learning journey. https://www.musical-u.com/learn/about-having-a-roadmap/

In this episode, we discuss the idea of the musical roadmap, how it can lend structure to your learning, and how we use them here at Musical U to give members a way to keep themselves moving forwards in a way that is tailored to their musical goals.

https://www.musical-u.com/learn/about-having-a-roadmap/

Let us know what you think! Email: hello@musicalitypodcast.com

===============================================

Learn more about Musical U!

Website:
https://www.musical-u.com/

Podcast:
http://musicalitypodcast.com

Tone Deaf Test:
http://tonedeaftest.com/

Musicality Checklist:
https://www.musical-u.com/mcl-musicality-checklist

Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/MusicalU

Twitter:

YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/c/MusicalU

Subscribe for more videos from Musical U!

About Having a Roadmap

Want to see a musician smile? Invite them to a jam sessio…

https://www.musical-u.com/learn/musicality-means-jamming/
Want to see a musician smile? Invite them to a jam session. No other musical experience truly allows a performer to “let loose” and explore unknown realms of audio nirvana. https://www.musical-u.com/learn/musicality-means-jamming/

About Deliberate Practice in Music

You may be putting in the practice hours, but are you getting the results that your hard work deserves? In this episode, we take a look at the concepts of deliberate practice and purposeful practice, and how to integrate the two in order to make the most out of your practice time.

Listen to the episode:

Enjoying the show? Please consider rating and reviewing it!

Links and Resources

Enjoying The Musicality Podcast? Please support the show by rating and reviewing it!

Rate and Review!

Transcript

Have you ever felt frustrated or disappointed by the results you get from your music practice? Like you’re just not making the progress you feel you should, for the time and effort you’re putting in?

What if there was a way to get dramatically better results without spending dramatically more time?

The answer is what has become the “gold standard” for how to acquire skills quickly: deliberate practice.

Deliberate practice is a particular way of spending your practice time which can be applied to almost any skill. It applies in fields as varied as medicine, sports, and of course music.

It was developed by Professor Anders Ericsson who we spoke with on our last episode, in collaboration with his research team over the years, and has become a universally respected model for how we should think about getting the most from our practice time.

There are a number of aspects to deliberate practice which we’ll be talking about but if I had to sum it up in a nutshell it would be: practice the hard things. Of course by definition that’s going to require more effort from you, but this change alone can transform the results you get from your music practice.

The biggest cause of wasted practice time is that we fall into the bad habit of letting practicing really just be “playing”. Meaning we have our agenda of what we’ll work on in each practice session but those are actually just things you intend to play through, generally several times in a row. Unless you are in a lesson with a teacher the chances are you play, you make mistakes, there’s plenty of room for improvement – but then you just play the same thing again or move on to the next item.

Playing is not practicing. And it’s certainly not deliberate practice.

There’s a fantastic example of this given in Professor Ericsson’s book Peak. Once you reach a satisfactory level of driving ability, your skills typically don’t improve beyond that, no matter how many years or decades you drive for. The average 20-something is going to make as many mistakes and have the same chances of being in an accident as the average 50-something driver – even though one has spent 30 years more driving each day. The reason is that repetition by itself does not lead to improvement.

So those hours spent with your instrument in hand will not necessarily produce any improvement at all. That’s why it’s essential to really think about how you’re spending that practice time and make sure it’s practicing, not just playing.

So the quick description I like to give of deliberate practice is that you spend most of your time working on just the things that you can’t yet do and a minimal amount of time doing the things that you can already do. So supposing you have a 2-minute piece you’re working on. Typical practice habits would mean you play through the piece a few times. Deliberate practice looks more like: play through the piece, notice a few sticking points where you aren’t quite playing it correctly or fluidly enough, then spending a few minutes just practicing that first particular bar or two that was problematic, trying different approaches to fingering or phrasing, slowing it down, picking it apart, and really just drilling into that problem spot. Then once you feel like you’ve found a solution or practiced that spot to the point where it’s more fluid, you move on to the next problem spot. 90% of your time is spent on the 10% of the piece that causes you the most trouble.

To pick another common example, often musicians will have a set of scales they’re working on. Every practice session they play through every scale. Often there are one or two tricky ones and the rest are okay. Instead of playing all the scales equally each practice session, a musician using the deliberate practice mindset would instead spend all their scale practice time on just those one or two scales they know are causing them the most challenge. Or even just the particular note or two or the fingering that they know is the problem spot.

I’ve been talking so far about instrument technique because this is traditionally how most musicians spend most of their practice time. Scales, exercises and repertoire on the instrument. But this all applies fully to the “inner skills” and ear training we talk about so much here on the Musicality Podcast too. For example, supposing you’re learning to recognise different types of chord by ear. You’ve got the hang of major and minor chords but you know you mix up augmented and diminished. The naive approach to practicing would be to continue to do exercises which feature all four triad types, so that probably about half the questions you do will feature major and minor chords. You’re wasting half your time! Instead you need to focus in on the chords which really trip you up. If you confuse minor with diminished, spend your time practicing just those comparisons. This is a big part of why we always talk about the flexibility of our training system at Musical U, because you need that flexibility in which aspect of which topics you spend your time on if you’re going to maximise the results you get from your time and effort.

So far what I’ve been talking about is actually not quite deliberate practice. It’s what’s called Purposeful Practice. And it’s a lot better than the standard, naive, purely-repetitive practice approach. There are a few factors that set it apart.

The first is that purposeful practice has well-defined, specific goals – meaning when you spend time working on a piece there’s a particular problem you’re trying to solve, or a particular aspect of how you play it that you want to improve in a particular way. It’s a provable thing, not just “play this piece well” but something more like “Play this piece at full tempo without playing any wrong notes.”

Purposeful practice is also focused. Often during music practice our minds will wander. Have you ever realised after a practice session that you’ve essentially autopiloted your way right through it? You’ve gone through the motions but what you were doing wasn’t even practice, let alone purposeful practice. So you need to stay focused. This makes it hard! Like I said at the start about this being about working on the hard things, focused practice is tiring! Especially compared to the semi-braindead autopilot repetition style of so-called practicing. You’re going to be tired after a purposeful practice session – and that’s a good thing!

Purposeful practice requires feedback. You need to be doing something where you can tell if you’re getting it right or wrong, if you’re improving or not. If you’re doing ear training exercises like we provide at Musical U that’s simple enough, you can do interactive quizzes and get immediate, clear feedback. When working on instrument technique it can be less clear-cut, but if you feel like you don’t have clear feedback on how your practice is going, that can be a good sign that you don’t have specific well-defined goals.

And finally, purposeful practice means getting out of your comfort zone. You could construct well-defined, specific goals, focus in on them and get feedback – but for a skill or activity that you can already do easily! So you should be selecting the targets of your purposeful practice to really push your ability. If you can currently play the first half of a piece but not the second, it means not playing through the first half every time you try to play the second half, but just really spending your time on the part you find hard.

If you can already play a whole piece well then it probably means trying to push a particular part from “okay” to “excellent” – or moving your attention to another piece. This is a really common one in fact, where a musician preparing three pieces for an exam will divide their practice time equally across the three, even if it’s only one that they’re really struggling with and need to improve!

If you’ve mastered recognising 1-4-5 chord progressions by ear then it means moving on to songs which involve other chords too, rather than continuing to practice with more songs that are just 1-4-5s. If you’ve realised that rhythm is your weak point that holds you back from collaborating with other musicians even though your rhythm seems good enough when you just play a piece solo – well then, it means working on tightening up your rhythm skills.

Okay, so that’s purposeful practice. We’re going to set specific, well-defined goals that push us beyond our comfort zone, focus our attention on them during practice, and make sure we have clear, immediate feedback on how the practicing is going.

Now I said that this wasn’t quite that gold standard of “Deliberate Practice” yet. So what’s missing? What could we add to this which would transform it to be even more effective?

Well, what we’ve laid out is clearly a recipe for making sure that the work you do, by yourself, on a skill you want to develop, will be time and effort well spent. But in a lot of fields, including instrument technique and musicality training, there’s actually a ton of knowledge out there about what you should be aiming for and how to get there.

So instead of burying yourself away and trying to figure it all out through sheer force of effort, why not leverage all of that accumulated knowledge gained by others who’ve done it before you?

Deliberate practice builds on purposeful practice in two ways. The first is to recognise that for some fields, including music, there’s a clear track record of individuals achieving expert performance – an objectively higher level of skill than others. You can compare your current skills with a clear target level you’re trying to accomplish. And the second is that there are teachers available who can provide input that streamlines and accelerates the progress you make with your purposeful practice. Their input can let you shortcut the learning process compared with trying to figure it all out yourself.

For example: If you want to learn to recognise notes by ear so that you can play melodies on your instrument without needing sheet music. There is a “brute force” way to do this, where you just try and try and try again, trial-and-error, making up your own examples. With purposeful practice you will make some progress. But what if instead you did a little research, discovered there was a method called “solfa” that provides a clear framework for learning this skill? That there are specific advantages it gives you and that there are clear steps for learning to use it? What if you sought out online training or an in-person teacher to help you learn solfa? Guess what – you’re going to learn to play by ear in a fraction of the time it would have taken you trying to figure it out by yourself, even if you were applying the principles of purposeful practice rather than naive repetition.

So deliberate practice is about leveraging what we as a culture already know about learning a particular skill efficiently, and takes advantage of personal input and guidance. Clearly this is why instrument learning has always primarily been done with in-person lessons with a teacher. I think a lot of us have forgotten that a bit in today’s self-serve internet age with all the tutorials and courses available online. Those let you leverage society’s knowledge but you’re missing that crucial personal input that can save you wasted time experimenting with various approaches to find a solution by just providing you with the most relevant and effective tried-and-tested solutions for any given problem you encounter.

That’s why we built unlimited personal support and guidance into Musical U – because we’d seen firsthand how even the best ear training resources kept failing students because however purposeful their practice might be, it was just too much trial and error and too much pressure on the student themselves to figure out how to get past sticking points. Things got so much simpler and more enjoyable for our students once we brought all the training into an environment where we could provide that personal support and guidance – answering questions, giving advice, helping them keep moving forwards. Have you ever gone through that yourself, where you’re working on an app or a course and you hit a sticking point and it just feels like you’re banging your head against a wall for ages trying to get past it? Having the personal input from an experienced teacher can help you leap every hurdle right away, instead of stumbling around blindly in the dark.

So those are the principles of Purposeful Practice and Deliberate Practice. Let’s run through them again, and as I do I’d like you to ask yourself which of these you’re successfully using already in your music practice, and which you could usefully add to accelerate your progress.

Purposeful Practice means:

  • Setting specific, well-defined goals.
  • Choosing goals and activities that push us beyond our comfort zone.
  • Focusing our attention on those goals during practice, and
  • Making sure we have clear, immediate feedback during practice.

Deliberate Practice has two additional characteristics:

  • You take advantage of the existing knowledge about how the target skill is best learned, and
  • You get specific personal guidance from a teacher who is experienced in helping people like you learn a skill like this.

Now that we’ve talked through how the traditional naive, blindly-repetitive practice compares to purposeful practice and deliberate practice I know you’re going to see each practice session in a new light. You can go further with a short amount of time spent 100% focused on deliberate practice than vastly more time spent unwisely doing autopilot playing that only mimics true practice. That means making a lot more progress from the same amount of time spent practicing. So if you’ve ever felt frustrated or disappointed by the progress you’ve made with your practice, take some of these ideas and start applying them, for your instrument technique and your musicality training today!

Enjoying the show? Please consider rating and reviewing it!

The post About Deliberate Practice in Music appeared first on Musical U.

How to Avoid Guitar Injuries

Learn how to spot red flags, respond in time, and prevent harm so you can keep on rockin’ non-stop.

“Almost all accidents and injuries happen when an individual is not being present and not paying attention to what they are doing.”
― Tobe Hanson

image8

You love music.

You’ve watched many of your musician heroes out there playing the living hell out of an instrument to the point that it wails like no banshee has ever done before.

Somewhere in the back of your mind, you adopted these figures as a reference, as something to aspire to, as role models.

As such, you start feeling that it would be nice to play to that level, until one day you decide to go all-in: you get yourself an instrument and start practicing day in and day out.

That sounds great… up until the moment you hurt your wrist and get your arm confined to a cast for two months.

image1In addition to hurting, you now have trouble doing your chores, maybe even working, which ends up being quite an expense…

Your case might not be so extreme, but are you already at risk of hurting yourself?

There is only so much punishment our bodies can take before snapping. Although it might seem that playing an instrument is fun, your body doesn’t understand fun – all it does know is contraction and relaxation of the muscles, together with tension in the joints and pressure in the cartilage.

This means that while you are having fun, your body is being exerted, and too much of a good thing usually ends up being pretty bad.

In this article, I’ll show you what you need to know about prevention of injuries while playing an instrument, including how to know when enough is enough, and how to push the envelope as safely as possible.

While you can use these tips for most instruments, I’ll be focusing on the guitar, which is my area of experience.

Remember what the Scorpions taught us not too long ago:

“No pain, no gain.”

However, it so happens that:

“Enough pain, enough gain.”

Once you reach that enough spot, maybe you should try again tomorrow.

This article will be in support of an answer I wrote on Quora a while back, which you can check out right here.

Let’s dive right in.

Good vs Bad Technique: is there even such a thing?

It’s 125% likely you’ve heard or read the term “good technique” before.

Maybe you encountered it in a video, while reading a book, or your teacher told you about it.

In more classical/old-school settings, “good” technique is often enforced on the student, and there’s nothing more to be done about it.

Usually, the basis of what makes “good” technique is a mixture of postures of the whole body that will add to your performance potential, in addition to not causing too much stress on the body.

On the other hand, “bad” technique is considered to be everything else. Sometimes there’s no set rule of what actually makes bad technique, and other times there’s only rough guidelines.

This is what good hand position looks like on the guitar neck:

Good hand position on guitar neck

This is achieved by placing your thumb on the back of the neck, while keeping the knuckle line parallel to the neck.

I don’t usually play that way, and instead my usual position looks like this:

A natural position on the guitar neck

A little different visually, but a huge difference in feel. Of course, this position would be considered a no-go in any classical context, apart from making me a fine candidate for failing the course…

Needless to say, I’m not the only one that plays in this manner.

So, why is the first hand position considered “good” and the other one considered “bad”?

The Truth About Technique

Here’s my ultimate answer to this, after years of playing guitar by myself and live, and because it’s a very tough thing to say, I’m going to ask Ozzy for a little help:

Good or bad technique

I know this might seem totally contrary to what many say out there, but hear me out on this one.

I very much prefer to frame it in the following manner:

If what you are doing works for you, then it’s good technique.

If what you are doing does not work for you, then it’s bad technique.

Why do you think I, like many other players out there, chose to play with the “bad” hand position on the guitar?

Is it because Jimi Hendrix did it too? Maybe.

Is it because it looks cool? Very likely.

Is it because it’s comfortable and works for me, so that I can play what I want to play well? Damn right it is!

Of course, I don’t mean to say that the classical technique is not effective; far from it. It’s just that I do not believe you should be encased into thinking that is the best and only way to play.

You might be asking yourself:

How can I tell what works for me and what doesn’t?

If you did, kudos to you, Padawan!

The ultimate answer to this question is that you are the one who can ultimately tell whether something works or not for you, although there’s a caveat to this, which I want you to be wary about.

As a beginner, you should always follow your teacher’s guidelines and technique.

As a newbie there’s so much you need to take in that you don’t really know what will ultimately work, even though you might have a gut feeling of it, or even if you momentarily feel something provides you more comfort.

The classical way in which all instruments are taught is a tried and true method that works for most players and is relatively safe to play without risking injuries. This is why you need to learn this form at first.

If you’ve been playing for a year or more, it’s likely you already have enough experience to start trying out alternatives for yourself while knowing what you are getting into.

Learn the rules first, break them later.

Doing that in that specific order is paramount, because knowing the rules will teach you important lessons so that, when you decide to break them, you know which ones, how, and most importantly, why.

Needless to say, this applies to all instruments.

Soreness vs Pain: what’s the difference?

Are you a gym-goer?

If you are, you most certainly know the difference between feeling sore and feeling pain.

You are not really working your muscles if you are not feeling some soreness. You know the feeling – it’s that tingling sensation in the muscles and joints that often makes those body parts feel a little hotter than the rest due to increased blood flow.

When you are feeling sore, even though you can feel it, is usually does not inhibit your movement. You don’t feel a deep stinging sensation when moving the muscles or joints.

I will say that I even enjoy that feeling of soreness, since it’s usually a sign that you did something right. This sensation is, in the case of working out, a sign that you are growing stronger, because it means that your muscles have suffered microlesions that, once rebuilt, will grow the muscle bigger and therefore stronger.

Pain is quite different. Pain is usually felt suddenly, unlike soreness that develops much slower.

You know you’ve made a mistake when you kneel to pick up something and suddenly feel a sharp pain on your back. You were just fine a second ago, and suddenly you almost can’t move anymore because of the excruciating pain.

Pain develops when some part of your body is definitely damaged. This means that there is a significant lesion to the tissue, unlike the microlesions that bring soreness. The problem with pain is that it lies very closely to injury, which means that if you are in pain, you are very close of developing a serious condition.

Whenever you feel pain, there’s the additional problem of residual pain. Because there’s a significant damage to the tissue, it feels painful even if you don’t move the body part anymore. This is very uncomfortable.

I know that you must have heard phrases that praise pain tolerance like “embrace your pain”. The problem with that is that you can only do it so much.

You might think that practicing until it hurts makes you grow stronger much faster, but that is, in the best-case scenario, highly arguable. You don’t want to get injured and then have to recover for a month, which will prevent you from practicing your skills adequately.

For all intents and purposes, instead of talking about good or bad technique as I was arguing before, I prefer to talk about the safety factor of a technique, which is the next topic of this article.

Technique’s Safety Factor

This concept of Safety Factor (let’s call it SF) I’ve minted is a measure of how sustainable is a technique in time.

There are two main factors that add to the SF:

1. Strength and stamina requirement

Each instrument has its own intricacies. When it comes to guitar, although you use pretty much all the arm up and including the shoulders, there are specific hot spots that are especially exercised during performance.

Although these hot spots depend greatly on what and how you are playing, the wrist and thumb muscles are almost always being used pretty intensely.

The more strength and stamina required to play, the more taxing it tends to be on your body, so it’s a definite concern.

Exerting too much effort can hurt you up to the point in which you can develop injuries like strains or sprains, neither of which are pleasant or fun.

2. Exertion intensity

Apart from how strong your muscles need to be, there’s also the issue of the joints’ movement.

Even if you are not exerting any effort, if your wrist is fully bent, there will be a lot of tension on the tendons, which can even compress the nerves. Needless to say, this is not a good place to stay for long.

Pushing your joints to the limit is a dangerous road to go down, so the closer you stay to the relaxed position, the safer it is for your body. Failure to do so can result in nasty injuries like the infamous carpal tunnel syndrome or tendinitis.

A Tale of Two Techniques

The higher each of these factors is, the less safe the technique becomes – please avoid any technique that forces you into an intense and exerted position!

As an example, let me show you two very eloquent examples of guitar techniques that are very close to me, since I’ve had to deal with them myself many times.

1. The Banana finger position

This is a pretty common technique used by guitar players whenever we need to play two (or more) notes on the same fret in adjacent strings. We will often use one finger making a small barre like so:

The banana finger position

Notice how the joint of the ring finger’s phalange is bent outwards? This is the issue with this technique.

Although it’s very efficient to use a single finger to play two or more notes like this, we are applying pressure on the finger joint in a way that is in direct opposition to the natural bending motion of the joint.

This technique will hurt your finger sooner rather than later if you use it often.

Also, if you are playing on an acoustic guitar, you’ll likely need to apply quite a bit of force in this exertive position. This is a recipe for injury, as both the exertion intensity and the strength/stamina requirement are high – and therefore, so is the overall SF.

One possible way to alleviate this is by turning the wrist position and placing the thumb over the neck like so:

Corrected technique

Notice how the finger is now much straighter than before? The unnatural curve is gone, and now this technique is much safer to play. You will still need to apply the same amount of force, but the position is much more comfortable, which results in a much lower SF.

2. The Twisted Wrist

No, this is not the name of a glam rock band from the 80s (sorry, Dee Snider).

This is a position of the fretting hand that is very common among rockers. The main cause of this is the coolness factor, I’m afraid.

You can’t be a rockstar if you look like a loser, right? Because of that, rockers tend to hold their guitars pretty low-hanging, because it looks much cooler than having it high up close to your chin.

It’s quite funny, especially since the higher you hang your guitar, the more comfortable it is to play and the safer it is to your wrist. It just so happens that we’ll do just about anything to look cool…

I’m pretty sure you’ll know this guy:

Slash of Guns 'n' Roses

This is Saul Hudson, a.k.a. Slash. Look at how low his guitar hangs; it’s past his crotch. Looks cool.

On the other hand, take a look at this other musician:

John Petrucci

This is John Petrucci, guitar master. Look how high his guitar is. He holds it pretty much against his chest.

Now, seriously…

Like I said before, the lower your guitar hands, the more you have to twist your wrist upwards in order to have access to all strings. Even if you are not playing any notes, the position of the wrist holds closer to the maximum range, which results in quite a lot of pressure on the wrist, and is a major risk factor for developing carpal tunnel syndrome.

There is no definite way to alleviate this. Looking cool does come with its drawbacks. However, one thing you can do to straighten your wrist as you bring your guitar lower is to push your thumb over the neck instead of keeping it on the back.

How much is too much?

If you are not playing guitar, I’m still certain you will still be able to identify many of these red flags.

We’ll see how to push the envelope as safely as possible later on in this article.

I know I said that you should never practice until you start feeling pain. So how can you tell when enough is enough?

image4It was Muhammad Ali that said the following phrase:

“I don’t count my sit-ups; I only start counting when it starts hurting because they’re the only ones that count.”

Don’t take it too literally, because I really believe he did not mean to use the word “hurt”, but “sore”.

If what you are practicing or training does not bring some form of soreness into your body, then it’s probably not producing the effect you are looking for.

I say “probably” because it’s true. Just because you feel sore does not mean you are getting better, but you can’t get better if you don’t feel soreness.

In logic, this is what’s called a “necessity but insufficient” condition.

Have you ever heard of the term “overtraining”?

Whenever we practice a skill, like playing an instrument, our bodies have to adapt before we can get the hang of it. Adaptation takes time.

Some Giveaways

There are no set rules as to how you can identify this threshold of overtraining, at least not that I’ve been able to find out, but I can give you a couple of pointers on how you can learn to calibrate yourself, that have worked for me:

  • No soreness

Not enough practice. Keep going.

  • Feeling sore after a considerable amount of practice

This is the sweet spot.

How much is a “considerable amount of practice” is a highly subjective term, but I would say that at least 20-30 minutes is a good ballpark figure.

  • Feeling sore after a short practice:

This is a red flag.

If you’ve been playing for 5 minutes and you are already feeling sore, it’s highly likely that either you are doing something with too much effort, or playing with a technique that is exerting yourself too much.

If you are in this situation, I would recommend that you analyze if you are playing in a safe way, or if you are suffering from an incipient condition that may result in injury. You might even want to consult with your Doctor to be safe.

  • Feeling pain

By this time this means you’ve gone too far, so stop immediately.

If at any point you start feeling pain that does not go away even after resting for days, it’s a major red flag, and you should consult with a Doctor ASAP.

Last, but certainly not least: never underestimate the need for rest.

Soreness is good, but you’ll need to rest or else you’ll never grow stronger with the instrument.

Just how much you can practice before resting requires experience, as long as you don’t reach the point of feeling pain. Additionally, you should not practice again if you are still feeling sore, and instead rest and try again later.

Rest is so important that I always recommend taking at least one day off per week, to make sure that you give your body and brain a good rest, which also helps setting in the skills practiced.

Pushing the envelope safely

By now we’ve seen what happens as we practice.

We’ve seen how our body responds when we start pushing it to its limits.

We’ve even seen how to tell if we are taking it too far.

The next logical question is:

How can I push forward even if I’m using a risky technique?

Well, the answer to this is that you just can’t. Yes, I’m sorry about that.

Not the answer you were looking for? What would be the point of having a risky technique if you can do it without hurting yourself?

If combustion engines could be made to not use fossil fuels, then what would be the point of using fossil fuels in the first place?

Yeah, I know, I’m not looking to include any conspiracy theories here, but now that we are talking about engines, there’s something we can take from technology to give us a hint of how we can make small tweaks that can make a big difference, without sacrificing much of the original technique.

Look at it this way… our engine can still run on gas, but be more efficient and use less gas for the same mileage, right? Can we apply the same principle to our instrument’s technique?

Let’s find out, shall we?

Adjusting for Efficiency

I’m going to focus on the guitar hanging height that we already saw before as a blueprint on how you can be smart and make practically the same with a different outcome.

Once again, I’m going to use His Highness Slash as a model, so that you can see that this really works even at high-level playing.

Take a look at this photo:

image13

Apart from the fact that he looks very cool (as does Myles Kennedy), you can see that his guitar hangs on his crotch, with the neck slightly turned upwards. This results in a position of the wrist that is twisted, with his left palm pretty much pointing upwards, which in turn contracts the muscles in the forearm just by holding the position, without playing any notes.

This is not a good position to keep for a long time. It will hurt you.

Now, check out the next one:

image7

Notice how the guitar’s body pretty much hangs in the same position, but because the neck is turned upwards, now his left palm is actually pointing horizontally. By playing this way, you are eliminating much of the tension that is required to maintain the position when the neck was turned horizontally.

This is a definite win. Moreover, he still looks as cool as a rocker can get in 10 lifetimes.

Of course, you don’t need to have your guitar pointing upwards into the sky, you can have it in a more relaxed position, such as in the following pic:

image16

Notice how the left wrist is practically straight, palm facing horizontally?

Yet still retaining all the rock n’ roll spirit that is required to stand out in a crowded scene.

This small tweak removes some of the movement on the wrist, leaving it much closer to its relaxed position.

Like the engine, it’s still running on oil, but it’s now a little more efficient.

So, what do I mean by this example?

In most cases there’s some small tweaking you can do that will make a huge difference in comfort and, in turn, reduce unnecessary tension that could hurt your body.

I can vouch that for playing guitar live, this is a must to learn, especially when you are having your first gigs. It’s one thing to practice in your room while sitting down, but it’s a totally different experience when you are out there standing up onstage.

Of course, not the same variations apply if you are playing piano, trumpet, or any other instrument, but the principle does.

Final Thoughts

Even though I’ve been approaching the subject with humor, it should not be taken as a joke.

Here’s the thing, guys…

We are all in this musical journey because we like playing. Some of you might also like performing live (if you have not yet done so, you definitely should).

There’s no point in burning out quickly. It’s better to take it slower at first, and to know what you are doing, so that you will be able to keep your music career going for years to come.

I can think of very few things that would be as much of a pity as an emerging star having their career cut short because of an injury, and this comes from a guy whose favorite guitar player is Jason Becker. If you do not know his ALS story, definitely check him out.

Having an impressive image is part of giving a good show, so even though I’ve tackled the fact of looking cool in a fun way, it should not be taken lightly either. That’s why it’s called a show, not an audition, because you are setting a performance in a specific ambience where not only the music plays a role, but the image, and even the vibe.

To play the part, you also need to look the part. However, there is no reason that you can’t do this while playing comfortably and being kind to your body.

And with that said… thanks for reading, and keep on rockin’!

Max Chiossi is a guitar player and engineer with a laser-focused approach. He have been playing in bands and gigs for over 10 years.

If you want to read more from him about effectiveness, psychology applied to the guitar, and how he can help if you are struggling, visit his website, or send him an email.

The post How to Avoid Guitar Injuries appeared first on Musical U.

You don’t have to be a skilled musician yourself to teach…

https://www.musical-u.com/learn/music-life-musical-resources-for-home-schooling/
You don’t have to be a skilled musician yourself to teach music in your homeschool classroom. Discover the benefits of music in your homeschool classroom by incorporating fun and educational music activities into your daily routine. https://www.musical-u.com/learn/music-life-musical-resources-for-home-schooling/

Singing is everybody’s first instrument, at times it can …

https://www.musical-u.com/learn/find-singing-sweet-spot-7-song-choice-tips/
Singing is everybody’s first instrument, at times it can feel far from natural! A crucial part of being a good singer is choosing suitable songs. With unsuitable songs even the best singers will sound terrible! If you’re struggling to sound good singing, check if the songs are a good match for you. https://www.musical-u.com/learn/find-singing-sweet-spot-7-song-choice-tips/

Have you ever struggled with improving your musicality? E…

https://www.musical-u.com/learn/listen-and-sing-your-way-to-great-musicianship-with-donna-schwartz/
Have you ever struggled with improving your musicality? Explore 2 essential skills that will help you improve your pitch and tone with Donna Schwartz Music https://www.musical-u.com/learn/listen-and-sing-your-way-to-great-musicianship-with-donna-schwartz/

Are you considering majoring in music? While some may arg…

https://www.musical-u.com/learn/5-reasons-that-taking-a-music-degree-rocks/
Are you considering majoring in music? While some may argue whether or not this is a worthwhile pursuit, there are many great things that you will learn in music school. The Musical U team compiled 5 of our favorites. https://www.musical-u.com/learn/5-reasons-that-taking-a-music-degree-rocks/

The Truth About Talent, with Professor Anders Ericsson

This episode was a really exciting one for us because we got to speak with Professor Anders Ericsson, the leading academic researcher on the topic of “talent”.

If you’ve been listening to the Musicality Podcast for a while, then you know we have a particular perspective on “talent”, and we’re often asking our guests their opinion on how important talent is to become a great musician and learn the skills we associate with being a “natural” in music, like playing by ear, improvisation, song writing and more.

So for a long time we’ve been wanting to speak with the man who’s done more serious research on this topic than probably anyone else.

Professor Ericsson has been researching talent for over 30 years and has become famous for two things: the so-called “10,000 hour rule” for becoming an expert, and the idea of “deliberate practice”. We actually did a whole episode of this show on the 10,000 hour rule, and deliberate practice is an idea that runs through all of our teaching at Musical U. So you can imagine what a treat it was to get to talk to the man himself!

He recently published a book titled Peak sharing the biggest findings from that research, co-authored with Robert Poole, and if you enjoy this episode then you must check it out, it is packed full of more information, explanation and examples of everything we talk about today.

We were determined to make the most of this conversation and we asked Professor Ericsson the big questions we knew that you would be interested to hear the answers to…

Questions like:

  • Is there such a thing as musical “talent”?
  • If you don’t have talent for music, will that affect what you’re able to accomplish?
  • Do you need perfect pitch to become an expert musician?
  • What’s the most effective way to spend your practice time – especially considering the vast abundance of tutorials and other resources available at our fingertips online these days?

His answers were just as fascinating as we’d hoped. We were looking forward to this interview for ages and it did not disappoint.

We should mention there’s a brief section towards the end where we have some noisiness on the audio. We apologise for that, we had real technical issues on this one but Professor Ericsson was really gracious and patient and in the end it turned out really well apart from that one glitchy section.

We hope you’ll enjoy this episode and feel encouraged and inspired by the proven truth about musical “talent” and what it really takes to develop your musical skills.

Listen to the episode:

Enjoying the show? Please consider rating and reviewing it!

Links and Resources

Enjoying The Musicality Podcast? Please support the show by rating and reviewing it!

Rate and Review!

Transcript

Christopher: Welcome to the show, Professor Ericsson. Thank you for joining us today.

Prof. Ericsson: It’s my pleasure. I’m really looking forward to talking to you.

Christopher: So I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your book, Peak, that you co-authored with Robert Pool and it’s packed with so many insights and surprising tips for more effective learning that I know I’m going to struggle to pack all of my questions into this conversation. There’s so much I want to share with our audience so let’s just dive in and I’ll ask you the big question that I think is front-of-mind for anyone listening after I’ve introduced the kind of research you do. Is there such a thing as talent in music?

Prof. Ericsson: Well, you know, what I find very interesting is that different people have different ideas of not just what it is but how you would know if somebody has it and I think when we started our work, I guess I was brought up in a family where my parents were endeavoring to work hard and find the right kind of teachers. You know, there was basically nothing that I wouldn’t be able to do. So that’s kind of like the backdrop that I had when I started doing research and I basically encountered a lot of people, especially about 40 years ago who basically had this view, you know, that talent is scarce and part of basic education is actually identifying those scarce individuals who have the talent and can be successful.

Now when we actually did our research what we found that was really compelling to me was how professional musicians start out very early on and are guided by teachers and actually spend a considerable amount of time, you know, maybe like 20, 25 ours a week, you know, basically working by themselves trying to refine their skills, you know, being helped here by their teacher who directs them to what they need to do. So once you start seeing here that there’s this development then the question is, how would you be able to to know if a four or five-year-old is talented? And when you actually look at the kinds of things that people argued was evidence for that, it was sort of that a child would be actually enjoying listening to music.

Now when people actually did studies asking that now parents of children who eventually became very musically skilled and sort of even professionals versus other families, that type of thing that children were listening to music, that’s not unique for those children with talent and over time, you know, we basically have been focusing on more here is, is there really any evidence that really in some ways is compelling that some individuals can do something that somebody else wouldn’t be able to do if they got the right kind of instruction and practice. And I guess the thing that seemed to be really striking was this idea that, you know, some musicians — and it’s kind of interesting is that not all musicians have perfect pitch and in fact when I’ve talked to professional musicians, you know, I mean, obviously in some cases it’s a real advantage if you’re singing, you know, basically without having somebody accompanying you on a musical instrument but essentially that perfect pitch doesn’t seem to be as key as basically relative pitch, which, you know, all musicians do have and once you track, you know, basically what is it that allows somebody to actually develop perfect pitch, I guess the research seemed to be very consistent, here.

An early start, basically, training, that kind of thing of recognizing notes when you’re quite young seemed to be sort of the common factor and over time now people have actually done experiments where a guy in Japan in particular actually brought a group of students of that age range and then basically was able to show here that with practice they were all able now to achieve that kind of criteria for perfect pitch. It turns out that apparently at age five children start kind of moving over to a different way here of basically encoding tones so you actually are now relating each other as opposed to this more absolute way where even a single tone can be recognized and categorized.

Christopher: Fascinating. There was so much there that I would like to unpack. I think what you said there about it being hard to even identify what people mean by talent or a gift is particularly interesting. I must admit I was quite surprised in a pleasant way when I came to the end of the book and you addressed that very question, you know, in the context of music. I’m sure people often ask you as they ask me, “Well, what about Mozart?” You know, clearly he was incredibly talented, he was a prodigy and you actually, for music and several other fields you’ve picked apart some of these case studies that people hold up as, you know, clear examples of talent and you analyze them and show that actually there may have been a lot more going on there than we like to imagine.

Prof. Ericsson: Right. You know, and I think many people don’t know that Mozart was unique in several ways. His father was a musician and actually a pioneer in actually starting with music training with young children and in a sense, here, Mozart and his sister were sort of almost like, you know, kind of pilot subjects here in his effort here to kind of initiate early training and I guess once you compare individuals who get Suzuki training today with what Mozart was able to do, it’s kind of remarkable here that when it comes to musical proficiency, of being able to play difficult music pieces actually the Suzuki children would actually perform at a higher level than Mozart would have. But at the time of Mozart, you know, he was unique and somehow it seemed to many people inexplicable how a young child would actually be able to play at a level of an adult basically who they knew had spent a long time training.

Christopher: So I’d like to ask you shortly about, you know, what Mozart’s training might look like or what would have resulted in him having such proficiency, but first I’d like to come back to something else you touched on, there, which was perfect pitch versus relative pitch, you know, this is a real quagmire for a lot of musicians. They get the notion in their head that all great musicians have perfect pitch and if they aren’t born with perfect pitch they can’t possibly develop it and you just shared one of the interesting findings covered in the book, which is that actually with the right kind of training young children who aren’t born with perfect pitch or at least wouldn’t be expected to have it can learn it at least according to these Japanese studies that have been done. Is that right?

Prof. Ericsson: No, that’s completely correct and once you start thinking about, you know, perfect pitch it’s kind of a surprising skill and it hasn’t very much to do with the music. You’re presenting in isolation one note and then basically asking people to name what that would correspond to on the musical scale. And most people would argue that music, you know, that would be a relationship between tones that actually now generate a musical experience.

Christopher: Absolutely. That’s very much the message we try and share here at Musical U, that the more useful skill for musical tasks is relative pitch, you know, that’s the way we naturally interpret and understand music as the listener and so it’s very useful to refine that skill but perfect pitch in a lot of ways is an oddity and it can be useful but it’s certainly not prerequisite for extraordinary musical ability.

So we touched on there one of the two really interesting aspects I think of this question of talent versus developing skills in a practical way that you cover in the book and it’s that we have the misconception that you need talent to get started, you know, “I can’t even get started with such and such because I don’t have a gift for it. I’m not mathematical,” or “I don’t have any languages.” There are all of these societal preconceptions about what you need inherently in order to develop a skill and we’ve clearly just tackled one of them talking about the ability to learn perfect pitch, something that a lot of people think you need to be born with.

Are there any cases, would you say, of where you do need some kind of inborn ability to have a chance of becoming good at a skill?

Prof. Ericsson: Well, you know, I’ve been sort of reviewing this now for about 30, 40 years, trying to find something where it seems to be necessary to be successful at some domain that really can’t be influenced by training, and that may be in fact kind of the interesting point here and I think you were talking about people more or less feeling like if they were really, you know, talented then, you know, they would actually have this ability and they wouldn’t really have to work to attain it but the really interesting question once you start looking and finding that those individuals who have certain types of abilities once you look back and see what they were doing there in the first five or eight years of their life you find that they were engaged in activities and that actually seems to be related now to their ability here when they actually are getting into activities in school age, but I think that idea here that, you know, it’s really kind of the training that is critical.

The one thing we know that you can’t train is actually your body size and height. So the length of your bones, I’ve been looking for any kind of evidence that you can actually change that through training even when you are young. For a long time people believed the reason why gymnasts, artistic gymnasts were so short was that they were kind of bouncing, you know, from heights on to the floor and thereby stunt their growth and basically that’s been shown now that there’s an advantage to be short because that actually makes certain kinds of movements easier and you’re not basically, you know, having to deal with the forces and basically the effects here of being very heavy when you’re making, you know, jumps and other kinds of things but basically height seems to be preprogrammed, you know, genetically.

But once you start going beyond that, I’m not saying that we will never find genes that actually will give you a sort of a head’s up on your success but what I would say is that basically so far I’m not seeing any compelling evidence and people have now been, you know, mapping out the DNA for hundreds of thousands of people, trying to actually see how maybe the best long-distance runners might have different genes from those who are far less successful and so far, as far as I know, and this is based on other people who are actually doing the research. We actually have not found even a single gene that actually would be of useful value to kind of help you know whether you’re going to be successful in long-distance running or sprinting or whatever.

Christopher: Mm-hm. I think that would surprise a lot of people. That example of height and physical attributes I think is a good demonstration too of the other aspect of this question of talent versus training which is, “Okay, maybe you don’t need a gift to get started and maybe you need to put in hard work but surely talent is what limits your potential. Surely everyone has kind of a built-in maximum they could reach and I’m only ever gonna be an okay musician and that guy has, you know, better genes or better upbringing and so he can become an amazing world-class musician.” What’s your opinion on that? Is there some kind of talent factor that affects how high you can rise with a given skill?

Prof. Ericsson: Well, I think this is a really important, interesting question and my view is that basically individuals who try by themselves to acquire highly technical skills, they may actually end up basically at a place here where the way they actually learn the skill will actually constrain them from making further progress and I’ve talked to actually a fair number of coaches and musical teachers who tell me that this individual is quite able to do what they’re doing but they’re actually selected to do fundamentally things that actually they would have to unlearn in order now to be on track for actually being able to make this increased control and changes that would be associated with the highest levels. So I think that’s an interesting reflection here on the need here to have teachers if you really want to get to the very highest levels. If you want to basically achieve other levels then maybe, you know, just, you can be self-trained and then get your teacher to help you improve but there may be now terms of achieving the highest possible level of control.

Christopher: Interesting. So your research hasn’t shown that there’s an inherent limitation in the potential to develop a skill. It’ s more that the methodology of the training or the particular way they go about developing that skill may lead to a plateau or a tailing off of progress. Is that right?

Prof. Ericsson: You know, and I’m actually quite interested so if people actually could identify now something that would be that firm limit where you could actually identify that somebody reached this limit but can’t do anything beyond that, that I think would be very interesting. I’ve met a lot of people who basically would decide here not to continue on a professional career but they would pretty much not say that they couldn’t get better. It’s just that some other people seem to be so far ahead of them that basically they didn’t see how they would be able to catch up with those individuals. And I think that’s a different kind of issue than — basically that they — if they had unlimited resources and basically access to the best teachers — wouldn’t be able to reach a similar level to those that they were basically mentioning.

Christopher: That’s such an important point, yes. There’s such a real psychological factor, isn’t there, that, you know, if you’re considering pursuing it as a career or you’re aiming to, you know, be on the Olympic team for a sport you really need to factor in how everyone else is getting on and your relative position to them whereas if we’re talking more, you know, of someone learning a skill for their own enjoyment, that limitation, it could be entirely avoidable or irrelevant because as long as you’re making progress and you’re continuing your development that may be enough to enjoy the skill.

Prof. Ericsson: And I think that’s one of the general areas that I think is really important to think about is that if you look at the performance historically in domains, and I think music is just one good example here of basically what people at the end of the 1800’s were able to do. You know, basically some people said, “It’s impossible. Nobody can actually,” you know, “consistently play this,” and now it’s part of general repertoire so — and I guess in sports it’s even clearer how, for example, in the marathon now basically you could have won a gold medal around basically 1900 in the Olympics and now all you can get is actually just being allowed to run in the, you know, Boston Marathon or New York Marathon. So these kinds of tremendous changes strikes me to be really showing here that this idea of absolute limits and that people invariably end up here at the limits of their own natural ability is just not a very well supported view.

Christopher: So I think we’ve probably tantalized the listeners by explaining that, you know, you don’t need talent to get started and become good and talent doesn’t need to be a limitation and we touched a few times on the importance of training and how you go about it. So what does the right kind of training look like and maybe before you answer that I could just ask you to touch on something that I think you are particularly well known for even though it wasn’t a phrase you coined which is the ten thousand hour rule. This was made popular in Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Outliers. Could you just share for the audience what that rule or what that supposed rule says and what the reality is and then maybe you can explain, you know, what those hours of practice could or should look like.

Prof. Ericsson: Yeah. I think, you know, Gladwell read about our research with violinists at a music academy in Berlin, where I did some research and what he noticed was that at age 20 basically the average of the very top group actually had, the average was higher than 10,000 hours of actually solitary practice so we kind of asked them, “How much time do you spend where you actually are practicing by yourself?” because that seems to be a good kind of activity in the sense that people wouldn’t really practice by themselves because they typically enjoy playing with others if you’re really more interested in making music but if you’re really trying to improve then basically what you do here when you’re actually practicing by yourself may be a much more effective way of proving.
So he kind of then coined this term here that, you know, you need 10,000 hours of practice to be an expert and I guess one point that I want to make here is, you know, there’s nothing magical about that 10,000 hour number. I mean, it sounds good but how would the body know if you basically engaged in 9,000 or 10,000 hours? I mean, that doesn’t sort of make sense. Besides, if you want to win the piano competition I estimated that you probably need, like, 25,000 hours because most pianists would be in their early to mid-30’s when they actually win these competitions so basically that’s like, 12 to 15 years more than what required on the average 10,000 hours.
Also, you know, there was quite a variability here and we don’t know whether that has to do with the error in the estimates if they’re individual differences but I guess a key difference was that it wasn’t the hours per se and I think one of the reasons why people got so excited about this 10,000 hours — and I’ve had numerous people coming up to me and telling me that, “You know, I’ve been a salesperson here for 8, 530 hours and basically I’m just looking forward to in a couple of years I’m gonna reach 10,000.” Now, basically that’s so fundamentally different from the activity that we talked about where you’re working with a teacher who identifies now things that you can’t do and then you go off and engage in training that allows you now to reach that and if you’re looking at that type of training, that I think is really key but there is no magical amount and it very much depends on the particular activity that you involved in.

So for example Olympic skydiving. You can apparently win an Olympic medal with, you know, maybe 800 hours because, obviously if you have to pay, you know, thousands of dollars here every time you skydive with your instructor, you know, that’s gonna set some limits on how much you can skydive and also how much money you need to be able to do it. So basically that idea here that it’s critical to distinguish when you’re engaging in known and reputable activities that are known to actually improve certain aspects of your performance versus just engaging in something for whatever other reason.

Christopher: You had a couple of really elegant examples in the book. One was that, you know, someone who’s been driving their car for 40 years isn’t necessarily an incredible driver after those 40 years of practice, as it were and also that actually in a lot of cases you can identify that someone’s skills decrease over time. I think there were medical examples where someone who has just freshly completed their training could have better diagnostic skills or surgical skills than someone who is a few decades on and is maybe not so up-to-date on the latest training.

Prof. Ericsson: Yeah. Exactly, that — if you have a doctor who is actually diagnosing heart sounds when they’re graduating they will actually be listening now for all sorts of pathological cases but when they go out and practice, you know, they may not encounter any of these cases and if they were to encounter one of those cases ten years later, well, there is evidence that they’re no longer as capable as they used to be in diagnosing that. But now, actually, they have week-long seminars that allow these doctors to come in and actually now listen to high-fi recordings of heart sounds and then they can be asked to make a diagnosis and then you can give them immediate feedback, you know, “This case was clearly diagnosed with other methods to really have this heart problem.” So now, basically, in a weekend they can actually get back their accuracy and thereby, you know, perform in a way that, you know, would be desirable here for their patients.

Christopher: Fantastic. So I think we’ve painted a bit of a picture of what doesn’t constitute good practice and maybe what would be more effective training so let’s get specific because the other thing you are very well known for is the concept of deliberate practice which I think at this point a lot of musicians have heard of and maybe know a little something about. Could you tell us a bit about what defines deliberate practice and maybe also the related concept of purposeful practice?

Prof. Ericsson: So when we actually started our research looking at musicians we found that there was a consensus here between students and teachers that the way that you can actually become better was actually this activity where you were consulting with your teacher about things that you want to improve, specific things, and then also you had specific training activities that basically through history have emerged as very effective means to achieve that improvement.

So if you’re actually now being helped by the teacher, the teacher can do a couple of things. They can basically look and see how you as a unique musician, what is it that you should change and what are the things that you are capable in changing in a couple of weeks of training so — and also maybe give you good expectations here about how much training should you engage in. You know, is it good to spend a hundred hours a week basically practicing?

Well, our evidence when we looked at the best musicians was, you know, maybe three or four hours a day was the amount of time that you could actually productively engage in this focused training. So if a teacher is a critical part here in guiding you to these effective training activities, that we would call deliberate practice but there are a lot of domains there were you can actually improve your performance by yourself, so like in darts or bowling where you actually have that ability of repeating things and getting immediate feedback as to whether you’re able to basically hit, you know, the cluster that you’re basically presented with and we call that purposeful practice.

We also claim here that there’s a lot of other activities that are cold practice so if you’re practicing with an orchestra you’re really not focusing in on trying to improve your specific skills. You’re basically assumed to kind of do, you know, that by yourself and also what we’ve found in a lot of domains, especially in sports, is that actually the engagement of playing in matches doesn’t seem to improve. It’s more that you’re actually trying to do your best but basically it’s not a good time to kind of try to change something and do something where you would need many trials here to basically improve it up to the level where it really is effective in supporting your performance. So when people perform professionally in front of audiences they typically are just trying to do their best so it’s not, you know, where they are actually trying to change anything and actually view that as an opportunity to make improvements.

Christopher: Mm-hm. And coming back I guess for a second to the 10,000 hour examples you talked through the case of the Beatles, which, I think, is one of Gladwell’s examples and you explained that, you know, them spending that many hours performing wasn’t necessarily the kind of practice that actually leads to expert performance.

Prof. Ericsson: Especially not, you know, basically technical skill as musicians. And I don’t think that the Beatles really were known for being superb instrumentalists. I mean, they were I guess famous, legitimately famous for being able to produce music that really had a tremendous impact but I don’t know of any of them being, you know, used as studio musicians to help other performers, you know, with their recordings and I think it’s kind of important to distinguish now that the practice that we’re talking about is actually providing you now with the tools so you actually increase your chances here of, and your arsenal of ways in which you would be able to produce a musical experience and now that basically being popular obviously is something that — so to compose music that people would like, that’s a different activity and I would assume here that there are ways, you know, that you can engage in that in a deliberate way but that’s different from now just playing a lot of music together with the band.

Christopher: Absolutely. I think you touch on a couple of really fascinating areas in the book which we probably don’t have time to delve into today but you talk a lot about the brain adapting and how the brain responds to different stimuli and you also talk about mental representations and how, for example, it can be very helpful for a musician to have a vivid mental model of the music they’re trying to create so that when they go into practicing that piece they aren’t just, you know, trying to get the notes right in a robotic fashion. They have a very clear representation in their mind of what they’re aiming for so that they can then have that feedback of “Am I getting it right or not?” and know what to work on.

Prof. Ericsson: You know, I think that’s probably one of the most important things is this kind of idea that when you have a musician, and a really skilled musician seems to be able to actually almost read the score and actually hear the music in their head which obviously now there’s no physical input directly here with the sound which really kind of shows here their capability.

There is obviously the question, how do you actually get that ability of actually being able to, you know, read the score and produce an image or listen to somebody else performing a piece and then mentally being able to say, “You know, I could do it this way and that way and that would make it sound so much more interesting,” so that would be one representation of that way of mentally almost kind of creating that experience before you’re able to do it but then also being able to translate if you have an image of what you want to do how can you actually get that basically realized on your instrument.

And then one thing that I think at least to me was a real interesting realization, being able to listen to the music that you’re producing because there’s been now a fair amount of research showing that young students who are basically doing their lessons when you videotape them it’s almost like they just keep doing the same mistakes over and over. They can’t really hear what they’re doing and obviously if you can’t enjoy the music that you’re producing it will put you at a real disadvantage to the vast majority of those music students who actually have that ability of being able to create music on the piano where they’re actually exploring new things and hear what that sounds like and now be able to use that as a stimulus, you know, maybe for their interpretation or maybe even if they’re composing.

Christopher: I have to say it was really reassuring and encouraging to me as I read through the book to find that a lot of the way we approach things at Musical U is well aligned with the results of your research in the sense that, you know, we focus a lot on solo practice and training where you get immediate feedback. “Did you identify that chord right or wrong?” that kind of thing, but we also recognize the value of having an expert guide, you know, at least for now I don’t believe that I can play that part and so there are limits to what a software training system can do for you, I think and so, you know, we’ve really made sure that our team is there on hand to answer questions, provide support, provide encouragement and, you know, help our members when they hit a hurdle or they’re not sure why they’re getting stuck on something.

I’d love to hear your perspective though in this day and age where there are so many people trying to go it alone in terms of, you know, going on YouTube looking at tutorial after tutorial. They kind of feel like with all of the educational material out there that surely they can just teach themselves. What does — I was about to say, deliberate practice, but I suppose more generally it would have to be purposeful practice. What does that look like differently if you are, say, learning on your own versus learning with an app or a software tool versus learning with a human teacher?

So these kinds of internet resources, they’ve only been available now for a relatively short time and what I’m particularly interested in is if we can get a larger number of people really documenting how they progressed learning-wise so we would be able to follow individuals who acquire musical performance either using a teacher or through the internet and basically identify what the challenges are with the various, especially the options here of doing it by yourself.

Now one thing that I’ve found is that especially for those individuals who start early I think a teacher is going to be very helpful and important and I think in some ways I think that, you know, the focus on really putting in the effort and mastering technique and producing music that having an adult spending as much attention and effort listening to you and helping you, I think that actually creates sort of a chance here to develop the right foundations.
Now obviously I think also similarly if you’re maybe, you know, an adult being able to actually interact now with a music teacher who has seen the challenges that you as a musician if you’re trying to improve are coming up against. And I guess I find that very often having the correct expectations here it would have took for other individuals that started out from the place that you did to get to a point that they wanted to get to having a realistic assessment here of how much they actually invested and what level of weekly involvement that they had because sometimes — or I’ve even talked to researchers who have been looking at older individuals who start up with music and I think they have very incorrect beliefs here about how much time it would typically take to reach the level that they want to achieve — so giving a scientific answer here that would allow them to adjust their expectations and maybe settle for something that wouldn’t be as high-level but at least getting now, sort of, affirmation here about what’s possible.

Christopher: Definitely. I think in our experience, anyway, there is such importance to the mindset and expectations for a student’s continuing motivation, and particularly with adult learners who may be coming to it with a lot of preconceptions and emotional baggage in some cases from past experiences. As you say, you know, resetting those expectations can set them up for much greater success as can being paired with a teacher who’s, you know, not to overstate it, but who’s seen it all before and can help them quickly and efficiently when they encounter a sticking point.

Prof. Ericsson: Well, and that certainly would be my, you know, emphasizing those considerations and maybe, you know, we’ll also be able to have what I’ve seen now, you know, video interactions where basically the interaction with a teacher may be long-distance and then basically the individual would send videos of their music but also videos of them playing so the teacher actually would be able to identify things that they’re doing that may actually, you know, be problematic that they wouldn’t be aware of and also this idea here that if you’re gonna learn you need to refine all your representations so maybe this training, ear training, so you can actually hear the difference between what you’re doing and basically what you might want to do or people that you admire are doing, being able to kind of refine your mental representation here to assess that while you’re playing. Those are the kinds of things that I think, you know, having interaction with a teacher might be particularly helpful for.

Christopher: Absolutely. Well, I think it’s clear that it’s a very exciting time to be a music learner but there are definitely still challenges and unanswered questions about the best way to go about it. I think the research you’ve been doing is incredibly valuable both, you know, to the state-of-the-art and, you know, music educators like myself but also to the individual in designing their own practice and figuring out the best part for them. I think I would highly encourage anyone listening to check out the book, Peak, co-authored with Robert Pool for a lot of detail and fascinating, inspiring case studies and examples of everything we’ve been talking about as well as big questions like, how do you maintain motivation, what do you do if you hit a plateau and a lot of detail on why this kind of deliberate practice is so much more effective than just kind of plugging away at it mindlessly year after year.
Thank you again Professor Ericsson for joining us today.

Prof. Ericsson: It was a real pleasure talking to you. Thank you.

Enjoying the show? Please consider rating and reviewing it!

The post The Truth About Talent, with Professor Anders Ericsson appeared first on Musical U.