Yes, i posted the list above, it was my reply to tormodg.MarkL wrote:Salvador wrote:He taught me 12 pieces to learn.
Is it possible to list those pieces? Would love to know what they were
We spend time in perfecting a piece, but at the same time we should also learn new pieces. If possible, harder pieces than the previous piece you are currently practicing.dtoh wrote:So I have a question. If the sole goal is to develop your skill as a guitarist as effectively and efficiently as possible, does it really make sense to spend time perfecting pieces. Isn't time better spent working on exercises or spending more time working on many more pieces but in less depth.
I think there are a lot of reasons for developing a repertoire or working to perfect a piece, but from a pedagogical perspective, is it really a good use of time? At a minimum there must be some point, where you pass the point of diminishing returns.
Curious to know what people think?
Suppose though that through correct practice technique, you can get to point A in 1 year instead of 2 years, and to point B in 3 years instead of 6 years, and to point B in 5 years instead of 10 years, wouldn't you then be willing to defer the gratification of playing something beautifully.Mr Kite wrote:I struggle a bit with the idea of someone whose sole goal is to develop their skill.
This is a hugely important point and one that a lot of people miss. Having spent years training rock guitarists, one of my own struggles includes getting students to master complete songs instead of just collecting cool riffs. Because once your technique gets past a certain point, you're overqualified for most gigs you're likely to get. Being able to play the music technically is often not the hard part it is memorizing the damn arrangement. Especially when you have to learn a whole show in 12 hours because somebody's guitar player got thrown in the drunk tank and they need a stand-in...Mr Kite wrote:My thoughts are that the skillset we are all looking to develop probably includes the ability to work a piece up to performance standard, and developing that ability may itself need practice - if so then it would obviously make sense to spend time polishing at least some pieces along the way. I read a Doug Niedt article recently which talked about habit strength vs momentary mastery. It implied much the same thing.
I don't know, I can't help thinking I'd be deferring the gratification until after I'm dead. After point C there is a point D, then a point E and so on ad infinitum. If there was a deal with the devil to be done, where I was absolutely guaranteed technical mastery in 5 years, in exchange for a following a very boring practice regimen, then yes I might go for that. But real life is less certain, and come to think of it, Beelzebub is not necessarily to be trusted.dtoh wrote:Suppose though that through correct practice technique, you can get to point A in 1 year instead of 2 years, and to point B in 3 years instead of 6 years, and to point B in 5 years instead of 10 years, wouldn't you then be willing to defer the gratification of playing something beautifully.
Most likely I was nit-picking about it being the sole goal and it is more a question of balancing the need to improve with the need to play for the sake of it, aka when exactly do you leave off a piece. My answer to this is not "when you can play it perfectly", because I know that's never going to happen - even if "perfectly" only means "as well as [insert name of favourite concert guitarist]". I think you do run into specific technical problems - like some of the finger issues you mention - that are not going to improve by going on practising that specific piece. I am happy to let those passages go. I think my answer to the question of when to leave off is "when I can consistently play the passages that are within my technical ability cleanly and with my chosen articulation, dynamics and phrasing". That said, the progress you describe is impressive.dtoh wrote:I'm in the middle of my second attempt to learn classical guitar, and I'm trying a "defer the pleasure" approach this time. I've noticed a couple of things.
First... If I had attempted to work on any given piece a year ago, it would have taken me a couple of months to play it as well as I am now able to play the same piece with literally only an hour or two of work.
Second.... without having first developed the necessary finger independence needed for a specific piece, trying to perfect a piece results in a lot bad habits. Specifically a) using the LH thumb and other LH fingers in order to lever the LH finger required for a note onto the required fret quickly, b) a lot of dragging and scraping your fingers along the string when releasing rather than cleanly lifting your fingers off the strings, and c) poor RH strokes because you're so busy concentrating on the LH before the RH has become natural and automatic.
Oh man...2handband wrote:Especially when you have to learn a whole show in 12 hours because somebody's guitar player got thrown in the drunk tank and they need a stand-in...
It's probably not a straight line. I feel like you definitely get more bang for the buck deferring gratification earlier in the process than you do later in the process. I think that's because progress in terms of technical mastery plateaus out after a while. Joe Satriani said he'd mastered technique after 3 years. (For someone old and uncoordinated like me, it's probably more like 30 years. )Mr Kite wrote: I don't know, I can't help thinking I'd be deferring the gratification until after I'm dead. After point C there is a point D, then a point E and so on ad infinitum. If there was a deal with the devil to be done, where I was absolutely guaranteed technical mastery in 5 years, in exchange for a following a very boring practice regimen, then yes I might go for that. But real life is less certain, and come to think of it, Beelzebub is not necessarily to be trusted.
A lot of Etudes work in specific things but are not particularly difficult for a beginner, so that's why we learn them. I learned Villa Lobos Prelude #4, Kemp's Jig, sor's B minor etude in the Segovia collection and maybe Bach's lute prelude that everyone learns and plays too fast.DTut wrote:I've been thinking about my goals as an amateur. My teacher has recommended that I work through some of the standard studies we all know of. What is the benefit of plowing through studies when your goal is to play pieces that you really like? Couldn't you just focus on the techniques required of that certain piece? If you're having problems with a section couldn't you just step back and work on some exercises that will get you through that piece. Again, I am not a performer or college student.
Thanks for any input. Dave
Users browsing this forum: Andrei Puhach, CommonCrawl [Bot] and 16 guests