# Practice doesn't always make perfect?



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

We all know about the 10,000 hour rule as the gold standard for practice from Gladwell's 2008 book _The Outlier_.

This is part of the nature vs nurture debate in psychology and as such there has been some debate about this.

Brooke Macnamara has been one of those involved on the other side of the debate. Her 2014 paper is one example. The reference quoted includes links to the data.

Anybody who plays an instrument will be aware that there are times when taking a break and allowing for reflection will produce far greater gains than sustained practice. There is considerable discussion about the Czerny style of practice (playing scales mechanically while reading a newspaper for example) which may encourage mechanical technique rather than musicality.

What interests me, however, is a comment on recent research as reported in the British press. One critic said:



> there were no objective differences between Macnamara's best and good violinists, so no surprise they put in the same amount of practice.


There are a couple of other items in a similar vein - the idea that you can tell the winner of a piano contest by watching *without* the sound and the blind tests between top-class modern violins and Stradivarius instruments.

So, we seem to have two questions - is there innate musical talent or is it merely practice and can we actually recognise musical excellence in isolation.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

_'So, we seem to have two questions - is there innate musical talent or is it merely practice and can we actually recognise musical excellence in isolation.'_

Personally, I don't see that the fact that some blind tests didn't bring up a difference between good and best violinists brings into question the idea that there is such a thing as innate musical talent.

Has anybody ever tested somebody who had no musical talent - i.e. couldn't hold a tune, or tell whether something was in tune, saw no difference between violin tones etc - and then had them do ten thousand hours and see if they were as good as someone who had also done ten thousand hours but was recognised as a virtuoso?

Would anyone without musical talent ever want to do ten thousand hours, or stick it out?

Has anyone tested a stradivarius against a cheap starter-pack fiddle?

My opinion that there is such a thing as innate musical talent and that it takes more than sheer hours of practice to make a good player remains unchanged.

I do see, though, that saying a particular violinist is excellent is much more of a subjective opinion than has been allowed previously.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Taggart said:


> We all know about the 10,000 hour rule as the gold standard for practice from Gladwell's 2008 book _The Outlier_.
> 
> This is part of the nature vs nurture debate in psychology and as such there has been some debate about this.
> 
> ...


Quality of tuition is a huge factor I would say.

10,000 hours of practice under mediocre guidance is going to produce a worse player than the same with a better teacher.

Students know this which is why come teachers are in very high demand and others not.

This is one factor in the equation - maybe the most important.

Then there is quality of practice.

Murray Perhiah once said he did not start practising properly until he was 15. This is probably not too uncommon - it must take enormous discipline to stay focused and purposeful over a 3-4 hour session of practice - and it may take some maturity to do it.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

From what I've seen and experienced over the years, I believe that great musicians are born (innate potential and genius) and made (countless hours of study, expert instruction and practice). I've never seen one without the other. Talent is not enough. Even genius is not enough. It will fail without support, opportunity and luck. Its development is driven by the musician's own creative will that, do or die, seeks expression. Practice does make perfect if the potential exists and the hours are put in. The idea is to be able to compose or play exactly what you hear in your head.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I tend to agree with the innate talent concept. As a court reporter, in school we had to do the same thing as pianists, practicing drills, repetitive phrases, and all that. I wasn't a natural talent; I had to practice very hard. There was another student who was a natural; she never practiced and partied on the weekends, but the technique came naturally to her. We both ended up graduating together, so that proves the value of hard work on my part. 

Of course, the natural talents can apply themselves and perfect their technique. The ones who do live captioning on TV and sports events fall into this category. But I think to reach the highest level, there has to be an innate ability there first.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Yes, it takes time, and no amount of practice, even under the guidance of the best teacher can overcome the handicap of a brain not wired for it. What no one has mentioned is that you must start young.every world-class violinist started when they were a toddler. A 12 year-old beginner may become a decent player, but never great no matter how many hours of practice are put in. Some people of genius have gotten around it; Aram Khachaturian didn't start studying music until he was in his late teens. Decades ago I was talking to the great harpist Susan MacDonald about learning to play it, and she was quite blunt: if you don't start when you're very young and grow up playing it, you'll never master it. This is why it is so important that young children are given the opportunity to learn an instrument at a very young age - it's too late later on. 

And then there's another aspect: what examples of a great player has the student heard? And recordings don't count. Has the student heard the great masters of a particular instrument, or just some hack?

When I practice, I don't practice long - 30 minutes top. But it's quality practice for me. No TV, phone, radio, dogs - no distractions. Maybe it's that I've been playing for so many years, but I just don't seem to need it like years ago when 2-3 hour sessions were the norm. And I do take breaks, sometimes several weeks. Then I go to practice and pick up right where I left off.

I know some players who when they were younger, hoping to get into a good orchestra, put in eight or more hours a day - and it didn't get them the gigs. After a couple of hours the law of diminishing returns sets in really fast, at least for me.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

mbhaub said:


> Yes, it takes time, and no amount of practice, even under the guidance of the best teacher can overcome the handicap of a brain not wired for it. What no one has mentioned is that you must start young.every world-class violinist started when they were a toddler. A 12 year-old beginner may become a decent player, but never great no matter how many hours of practice are put in. Some people of genius have gotten around it; Aram Khachaturian didn't start studying music until he was in his late teens. Decades ago I was talking to the great harpist Susan MacDonald about learning to play it, and she was quite blunt: if you don't start when you're very young and grow up playing it, you'll never master it. This is why it is so important that young children are given the opportunity to learn an instrument at a very young age - it's too late later on.
> 
> And then there's another aspect: what examples of a great player has the student heard? And recordings don't count. Has the student heard the great masters of a particular instrument, or just some hack?
> 
> ...


I think those who will rise to the top have that stamina for long quality practice. I have heard that some on the violin - do 2 hours of scales before they even start on studies then pieces - its a different world at the top - which is why so few get there.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

stomanek said:


> I think those who will rise to the top have that stamina for long quality practice. I have heard that some on the violin - do 2 hours of scales before they even start on studies then pieces - its a different world at the top - which is why so few get there.


Also the physical toll of all that practicing. Not everyone has the kind of tendons and nerves that can stand that kind of overuse continually.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

mbhaub said:


> .
> 
> And then there's another aspect: what examples of a great player has the student heard? And recordings don't count. Has the student heard the great masters of a particular instrument, or just some hack?


I think another thing instrumental in a student's development is playing with those who are mature in their skills. I was self-taught, so I learned all the technical aspects of my instrument, but it wasn't until I sat for long playing sessions between two extremely talented people that I learned how to be a musician: just by listening to one I learned the concept of sound and projection, and the other showed me what can be done with technical skills.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Lets consider the highly talented Hillary Hahn, since she represents the highest talent in violin virtuoso today. 
She hasa YT upload on her channel where she explains how she has many options in approaching a work. Very complex stuff. 
So innate , at birth talent combined with serious amounts of practice. 
Both are necessary, yet innate talent is the essential qualification for greatness. , If this genius is not there at birth, its highly unlikely the artist will be any more than above average. No matter how much he/she practices. 
Its obvious Oistrakh was given a violin at birth, or a few days afterwards. 
Piano talents might be a bit different, practice may have more weight in the process to greatness. 
Well, perhaps not, as some pianists in Debussy in their 2nd recording, are not much better than their 1st, but not always the case. If the 1st recording was when they were still in development stage, then of course the 2nd Debussy recording will be superior. 
.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> Yes, it takes time, and no amount of practice, even under the guidance of the best teacher can overcome the handicap of a brain not wired for it. What no one has mentioned is that *you must start young.every world-class violinist started when they were a toddler*. A 12 year-old beginner may become a decent player, but never great no matter how many hours of practice are put in. Some people of genius have gotten around it; Aram Khachaturian didn't start studying music until he was in his late teens. Decades ago I was talking to the great harpist Susan MacDonald about learning to play it, and she was quite blunt: if you don't start when you're very young and grow up playing it, you'll never master it. This is why it is so important that young children are given the opportunity to learn an instrument at a very young age - it's too late later on.
> 
> And then there's another aspect: what examples of a great player has the student heard? And recordings don't count. Has the student heard the great masters of a particular instrument, or just some hack?
> 
> ...


I recalled something that Sibelius said that would support your idea. I looked it up:

_My tragedy was that I wanted to be a celebrated violinist at any price. Since the age of 15 I played my violin practically from morning to night. I hated pen and ink - unfortunately I preferred an elegant violin bow. My love for the violin lasted quite long and it was a very painful awakening when I had to admit that I had begun my training for the exacting career of a virtuoso too late._

I definitely wouldn't say that Sibelius had a lack of musical talent.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

> If I don't practice one day, I know it; two days, the critics know it; three days, the public knows it.


It does seem that practice was important to Heifetz.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

There appear to be three factors in making a great player:

Talent - without that you cannot be a great player how hard you try - I could practice all the hours I am given but could never be more than average if that. I simply haven't the talent, any more than I have the talent to be a great runner or a great ball player. You can improve with practice but you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Dedication and discipline - that is what realises your talent. Talented people have gone to the wall through lack nor dedication. So Heifetz's maxim applies.

Temperament - having the right temperament to show your talent off in public.

I would also add luck to get you noticed - being at the right place at the right time.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

DavidA said:


> There appear to be three factors in making a great player:
> 
> Talent - without that you cannot be a great player how hard you try - I could practice all the hours I am given but could never be more than average if that. I simply haven't the talent, any more than I have the talent to be a great runner or a great ball player. You can improve with practice but you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
> 
> ...


I've never seen talent. I've taught a lot of piano. You've given us two factors. There's also deficits, which are subtle, but can almost always be pointed out.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Luchesi said:


> I've never seen talent. I've taught a lot of piano. You've given us two factors. There's also deficits, which are subtle, but can almost always be pointed out.


Actually, since DavidA believes there is such a thing as musical talent, along with many other people including me and the people who run Music Schools, he *has* given us three factors - well, four, if you include luck.

I don't understand how you can see deficits but not see talent. Is music different from other human skills?

When I taught English, I could see that some students had a flair for using words - some seemed to have great percipience when discussing poetry or other literature - some pupils had spelling or comprehension problems - almost all pupils had imagination and so on.

But you have never seen a pupil with a special talent.

Fair enough, though of course that could be as much about you as about them.

So are you saying that anyone can be a virtuoso who starts young, has the temperament to show off their prowess, and does lots of practice?

My view is that those conditions would produce a competent player in most cases, but not necessarily a great player.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

musicians will soon be replaced by robots, so no need to torture your 3 years old children with dressage


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Luchesi said:


> I've never seen talent. I've taught a lot of piano. You've given us two factors. There's also deficits, which are subtle, but can almost always be pointed out.


Conversely, I've seen immense talents. One in particular, a pianist in my year at my Alma mater ended up selling pianos at a department store in London.
His ability to play at concert hall standard was not in question, his luck, life and any other extenuating circumstances had other designs upon his future. It's a given that 4-6hours a day for many years went into that career in retail.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

mikeh375 said:


> Conversely, I've seen immense talents. One in particular, a pianist in my year at my Alma mater ended up selling pianos at a department store in London.
> His ability to play at concert hall standard was not in question, his luck, life and any other extenuating circumstances had other designs upon his future. It's a given that 4-6hours a day for many years went into that career in retail.


Right - and I know of a violinist who prefers to work at a high end violin dealer in London. When I heard him play I said - wow - what are you doing here? He said - I tried being a concert violinist - but all that practice - nah!


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> Actually, since DavidA believes there is such a thing as musical talent, along with many other people including me and the people who run Music Schools, he *has* given us three factors - well, four, if you include luck.
> 
> I don't understand how you can see deficits but not see talent. Is music different from other human skills?
> 
> ...


Talent in music is an innate ability or proclivity that someone is born with. If this is a good description of the myth then these people are able to rudimentarily express themselves in the musical harmony of their culture which they've never heard.

I've been interested in this question since I was young. I grew up in an affluent community and it was rare if the household didn't have a piano. My friends and their siblings were what I observed. I wanted to learn about what was going on having known a lot of kids taking lessons. How did one person become able to impress us with their ability (such as it was) while others were totally left behind (and eventually stopped taking music altogether)?

I think about the similar childhoods of Mozart, Chopin and Brahms. We can read about the failings they had in other areas of their lives.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The talent of students is one thing; the talent of the world's greatest musicians is something else entirely. It's not the same. Mozart started reaching up to the piano, while his sister was playing, at the age of three. Not only was his sister a musician but so was his father, and his father knew other great musicians that Mozart eventually studied with with hard work to further develop his potential. So obviously it was Mozart's destiny to profit from those circumstances, and that very much has to do with the timing of his birth and the opportunities that would be there to help him develop himself. It's not enough just to talk about the average music student; there may be similarities between the typical music student and the world's greatest musicians, but there's something else that comes into play with the greatest musicians in the world, not only with the depth of their own potential but with their desire to develop it through the power of their own will. Everything is heightened in intensity with those who become truly world-famous, starting with the innate potentials they were born with.

Yuja Wang at 9!






As an adult:






I have never heard her make a technical mistake at any age.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Luchesi said:


> *Talent in music is an innate ability or proclivity that someone is born with. If this is a good description of the myth then these people are able to rudimentarily express themselves in the musical harmony of their culture which they've never heard. *


Yes to the first sentence. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the second.

Talent is not independent of environment or culture, in my view - it's merely that a person with talent will go further than someone without, given the same work habits, cultural environment or opportunity.

To produce great art, in my view, requires an innate gift - the physical equipment in the brain and the mind-set to make use of the talent. Culture and opportunity and hard work are also required.


----------



## Aloevera (Oct 1, 2017)

From my experience, the way in which practice is the most important element. I don't know if it saying its more important than actually practicing because if you don't practice at all, obviously there won't be results. Many people are put into music lessons at an early age, and I suspect that the majority of people at that age, don't have the self awareness for their playing nor an independent will to really be that thorough in their practicing and posses the discipline to correct themselves after making a mistake and the psychology in tackling difficult sections . Unfortunately the restraint attitude of modern music and the strong emphasis of rank already determines whether youll go on to be a conceret musician or a hobbyist musician even sometimes by the age of 10 as the habits have already developed. Its a bit like handwriting, why do some people seem to be born with the ability to have good hand writing and others not. At the fragile time of developing, there are groups of people who cared enough to try to perfect it and others did not. In this sense taking breaks and coming in with fresh like the OP said is essential to see the instrument in new perspective and not fall into repition of bad habit. Being able to totally fix yourself after a bad start is unfortunately more rare than it potentially needs to be.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Luchesi said:


> Talent in music is an innate ability or proclivity that someone is born with. If this is a good description of the *myth*


Why deny talent? Is it a fear that you might make some of your students feel bad? If you tell your students that there is no such thing as talent they will feel better about practicing more, because anyone can be the next Mozart with enough practice?!

Maybe it helps you feel as though all humans are completely equal in all aspects of life? And somehow that seems more 'fair' to you?

I'm just curious as to why some people lie to themselves like this.

By the way the sky isn't blue, grass isn't green, fire isn't hot and water isn't wet. These too are just myths.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

annaw said:


> I recalled something that Sibelius said that would support your idea. I looked it up:
> 
> _My tragedy was that I wanted to be a celebrated violinist at any price. Since the age of 15 I played my violin practically from morning to night. I hated pen and ink - unfortunately I preferred an elegant violin bow. My love for the violin lasted quite long and it was a very painful awakening when I had to admit that I had begun my training for the exacting career of a virtuoso too late._
> 
> I definitely wouldn't say that Sibelius had a lack of musical talent.


I contend that performance art and creative art differ in terms of ability/talent/genius. We generally think of Sibelius as a creative artist. He wrote equally well, it seems, for instruments he didn't play as well as for the violin which he was proficient with. I suspect one could be a good composer, maybe even a great composer, without having much ability on any particular instrument. If one knows something of music theory and the nature of instruments, and then that someone has creative gifts for musical lines (melodies, harmonies, motifs, orchestral color, etc.) he/she is likely to succeed as a composer, a creative artist.

Same goes in other arts. Many great playwrights are lousy actors, many great actors are helpless as playwrights. We can't all be Sam Shepard.

I wonder how the 10,000 hour rule works with a composer. They say Hindemith, primarily a violist but competent on other orchestral instruments, could play anything he wrote for orchestra. Had he spent 10,000 hours practicing on each of those instruments, he'd probably never have found time to compose. Some folks got it. Some folks don't.

I practice my ol' geetar relentlessly, usually while sitting out on the porch on warm evenings, and I've put in well over 10,000 hours … but I still struggle even _thinking_ of those Villa-Lobos etudes. Some folks got it. Some folks don't.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

SONNET CLV said:


> I contend that performance art and creative art differ in terms of ability/talent/genius. We generally think of Sibelius as a creative artist. He wrote equally well, it seems, for instruments he didn't play as well as for the violin which he was proficient with. I suspect one could be a good composer, maybe even a great composer, without having much ability on any particular instrument.


But - very often composers display their lack of understanding of instruments in the way that they write for them. Sibelius is actually one of the most obvious. The oboe part in Kullervo is notorious for being unidiomatic and unplayable. Sometimes you run across music where the composer writes for notes not even on the instrument - like low A or A-flat on bassoon! Franz Schmidt really annoyed harpists with the way he notated that part in the 4th symphony, and the violin part of the 2nd is one of the most ferociously difficult things in all music. Even great orchestrators like Dvorak and Tchaikovsky had their moments of faulty writing and conductors like George Szell had no qualms about correcting it, or at least trying to make the parts more reasonable. There were several great composers who were extremely well informed about instrumentation and rarely made errors: Elgar (who played violin, trombone, piano, bassoon) and Rimsky-Korsakov (who wrote a book on the subject). Brahms also wrote extremely well for everyone and so often I see players get in trouble because they think they know better - like the first trombone part in the 2nd symphony - it was written for alto trombone, but most players use a tenor and then screw up the finale. Shoulda trusted Brahms.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Saw this posted on an organ console once:

Amateurs Practice Until They Get It Right; Professionals Practice Until They Can't Get It Wrong


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> I contend that performance art and creative art differ in terms of ability/talent/genius. We generally think of Sibelius as a creative artist. He wrote equally well, it seems, for instruments he didn't play as well as for the violin which he was proficient with. I suspect one could be a good composer, maybe even a great composer, without having much ability on any particular instrument. If one knows something of music theory and the nature of instruments, and then that someone has creative gifts for musical lines (melodies, harmonies, motifs, orchestral color, etc.) he/she is likely to succeed as a composer, a creative artist.
> 
> Same goes in other arts. Many great playwrights are lousy actors, many great actors are helpless as playwrights. We can't all be Sam Shepard.
> 
> ...


I'm in agreement with a lot of this by Sonnet CLV. I can tell you that I personally have probably done the 10,000 hours over the years as a composer. One difference for a composer when learning is that often, a vast amount of experience in terms of studying and practising theory (as indeed one would practise scales etc.) is needed to find a way that suits the artistic temperament - this does not include the vast subject of orchestration which, like all other techniques, a lifetime's worth of study.
It can take a lot longer than the 10 year mark to find a mature style but conversely it can take a lot less and less study may be required, depending upon the conviction and standard of the natural talent.

There is no magic formula for teaching composition, one has to get stuck in and find what techniques suit one's inner sense of creativity. The more one does learn however, the more one begins to sense what is possible for themselves - handling the raw material of music via study and practice helps one to find and understand their proclivities.

I'd go so far as to say that innate ability is more relevant and even essential when creating from nothing, but all the study and practise in the world can't guarantee a popular opinion of quality in any music produced. But what it can do is enhance the efficacy of personal expression to the best it can be.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

tdc said:


> Why deny talent? Is it a fear that you might make some of your students feel bad? If you tell your students that there is no such thing as talent they will feel better about practicing more, because anyone can be the next Mozart with enough practice?!
> 
> Maybe it helps you feel as though all humans are completely equal in all aspects of life? And somehow that seems more 'fair' to you?
> 
> ...


I was aware of these questions many years ago when I was watching my peers and wondering if I would ever play the piano. I knew they were good questions, but I didn't have any desire to teach so the characterizing answers to such general questions didn't interest me at the time.

"By the way the sky isn't blue, grass isn't green, fire isn't hot and water isn't wet. These too are just myths."

These aren't myths because we understand them using the reliability of repeatable evidence. Very early hardwiring in children we don't understand well enough yet.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

mbhaub said:


> But - very often composers display their lack of understanding of instruments in the way that they write for them. Sibelius is actually one of the most obvious. The oboe part in Kullervo is notorious for being unidiomatic and unplayable. Sometimes you run across music where the composer writes for notes not even on the instrument - like low A or A-flat on bassoon! Franz Schmidt really annoyed harpists with the way he notated that part in the 4th symphony, and the violin part of the 2nd is one of the most ferociously difficult things in all music. Even great orchestrators like Dvorak and Tchaikovsky had their moments of faulty writing a...


Perhaps the problem lies not with the composer, but with the instrument for not having enough notes, or with the performer for lacking the third arm or the eleventh finger necessary for pulling off what the composer "hears" in his mind's ear as he writes. Does a great piece of music have to fit into the narrow parameters of an instrument's range? Or a player's abilities? Wasn't it Beethoven who wrote for notes his fortepiano did not have, so somebody came along and built a new instrument, one with an increased range to make the Beethoven playable. Whether or not this story is true, the point remains that I won't fault Beethoven for writing the music he hears to write, whether it is playable or not. It seems, though, that no matter what challenges composers have provided for players, eventually it all works out. I'm sure a lot of good musicians looked at newly written scores such as, say, Stravinsky's _Rite_ and concluded that it was impossible to play, back in the day. The point remains, though, that it is the integrity of the music that matters, not its performability (odd though that may sound). If the music written by Sibelius, Schmidt, Dvorak and Tchaikovsky has integrity on the score page, then they've succeeded regardless of the limitations of players and instruments.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

DavidA said:


> There appear to be three factors in making a great player:
> 
> Talent - without that you cannot be a great player how hard you try - I could practice all the hours I am given but could never be more than average if that. I simply haven't the talent, any more than I have the talent to be a great runner or a great ball player. You can improve with practice but you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
> 
> ...


Good posting David A....good summation, IMO...Talent is the natural gift....practice is the application of it...temperament is important too....who has the drive, the commitment, the stamina to carry it thru..

I've known so, so many musicians - some were extremely talented, and practiced til the cows came home, have had great musical careers....some were talented, and did not practice much, or practiced wrong...a real waste in my book...others, not so talented, practiced like crazy and did very well for themselves, had good careers thru hard work and diligent practice and performance habits. there is an infinite variety of the mixture of talent and dedication. accomplished musicians come in all different shapes and forms.

musical talent may be equated with athletic talent, IMO...there are some people who are simply physically constructed to run super fast, or to throw a ball 100mph, or to do quadruple jumps off a balance beam....others may work furiously to achieve these things but they simply lack the ability to do so...same with music or any creative art...
no one can take credit for the talented they inherited...it is a gift - what one does with it, tho, is very much that person's credit and/or responsibility.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Practice (I know nothing about the 10.000 or 1.000.000 hours) certainly can HELP you on the road to perfection. But the most important is to have EARS to listen your mistakes (and your teacher). Practicing with repeating your mistakes drives you nowhere. Talent WITH discipline is also important. So my hierarchy could be something like this> Ears (teacher), Talent (with discipline), practice (with purpose and daily or weekly targets)


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Krummhorn said:


> Saw this posted on an organ console once:
> 
> Amateurs Practice Until They Get It Right; Professionals Practice Until They Can't Get It Wrong


I think this goes along with that other adage 'Practice makes permanent not perfect'


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Dimace said:


> Practicing with repeating your mistakes drives you nowhere. Talent WITH discipline is also important.


absolutely!! practicing wrongly, simply makes one proficient at making mistakes...so many times, when I taught, a student would come in, frustrated because they could not master a particular passage...of course, they practiced it wrong, so the mistakes were ingrained, and learned firmly thru repetition...
As teacher, I would guarantee them that by the end of the lesson, they would play it perfectly every time....of course, that meant slowing it way down, glacially slow, if necessary, to "unlearn" the error, and then re-program the correct pattern. SLOW, accurate, rhythmically, tonally correct with good intonation...of course the students would protest <it's not fast enough>> <<must go faster>> and so forth.....my reply - slow and accurate has great musical value...fast and sloppy has none....
so, sure enough, by lesson's end they would play it perfectly, time after time...slowly....then, they could increase the tempo, in small increments....as soon as mistakes intruded, slow down, go back to playing it perfectly...practicing in mistakes is a complete waste of time...actually a negative use of time...
practicing intelligently is an art form itself, an intense discipline that one must develop to make optimum use of time and energy available


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Listening to one's playing is also a big part of practising. Sounds obvious and Dimace has touched on it above, but it needs to be instilled into the learner who can often be too overwhelmed with practical difficulty to actually listen to tone, phrasing and shaping of lines, crescendos etc. Instilled early on, encouraging listening with musical intent during practise can be a great benefit.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

of course, listening to what one is doing is crucial to the entire process...


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> of course, listening to what one is doing is crucial to the entire process...


I know it sounds obvious, silly almost, but interpretation of the ebb and flow of say a long line is often missed by beginners, it's that sort of listening I meant. The earlier that musicality is encouraged the better.


----------

