learning curve and purity

[keith]

wow, 4 pages of discussion about playlists and such!! :)

one topic that seems to be hot--how long it takes to learn a particular piece and what constitutes playing at a pure level (i.e., no mistakes, playing at tempo, etc.). jonny hotnuts has been leading the charge here--and thanks should be given for his input-- with us "others" leaning one way or the other. so let me pose these questions:

1. does previous, albeit non-classical, guitar experience help in learning classical (or flamenco) pieces?

2. what would be considered a fast, medium, and slow learning curve with respect to classical guitar (average, typical pieces most play)

3. what constitutes being able to play a piece with respect to mistakes, tempo, etc.

4. finally, related to #3, for those of us who do this for fun not for work, what is considered an acceptable level of "purity" or lack thereof--e.g., how many mistakes can be made, what deviation from professional tempo, etc.

[Jonny Hotnuts]

Brotha, please don’t get me wrong.
While it is true that I play the songs listed this in no way was intended to say that I play them all flawlessly. I do however attempt to learn them to tempo. And with every passing day the number of mistakes grows fewer. Most songs I have to read the music while I am playing to avoid getting lost. The only time I feel that I am approaching the point where I would feel comfortable in playing them live is when I have committed the song 100% to memory. And at this point I have only about 8 or so, growing more every time I play.

I would not recommend using me as an example or reference to model yourself or others learning curve too.
People learn at different rates, have different amounts of time to dedicate, different goals and so on.
I have always learned differently than others.
I taught myself the Spanish language in 3 months by watching Spanish TV (well enough to get by, that is)
Memorized Pi to the 50th digit one eve because we were given an extra credit point for every digit past 3.14 on a test when I was in school.
But will often loose my keys for a few hours and have them in my pocket the whole time.
Basically no too people are the same regarding how fast they learn.

I feel playing other styles of guitar (acoustic and electric) is very beneficial to playing classical.
And how much so is dependant on the styles of music and levels that one has achieved.
Broken down to its most basic form guitar playing is comprised of only two things.

1. The physical:
Being able to put you fingers where they need to go. Finger memory and strength. The only real difference between classical and electric is you have to deal with right hand techniques that are not involved in other styles. This is my biggest problem.

2. Mental:
Knowing where and when to put the fingers, for how long and with style and emotion. The only real difference here is that again, the right hand is used to pick multiple combinations of strings as apposed to using a pick to strum or pick.

So in essence playing other guitar styles is very beneficial to playing classical.
It is not possible within the amount of time I have been playing classical to do these things unless I have been playing for many years. Simply put someone that was a beginner within seven months could not be playing these songs. And the reason I can is because I have played Vai and Satch for years.

What is an expectable number of mistakes?
If you are enjoying what you are playing it does not matter. I only like playing songs I make mistakes because it gives me fire to play them again and this time perfect. I can play the same song 200 times in a row until I get it correct, but after I perfect it I get board with it and usually concentrate on something else or improvise on its theme (I am learning this is a sin to do in classical but WTF, I like it.)

My advice is to set almost obtainable goals and try like hell to beat them.
Play only when it is fun.
And don’t listen to other people like that a-hole Jonny Hotnuts.

:)

[vsuarez]

hello all. i've yet to introduce myself, so let me do so before i write what i hope will not be too incoherent of a reply to keith's questions.

i'm relatively new to playing classical guitar. i have however been playing other "styles" of guitar since i was 13 - i'm now 28. after 2 years at a music conservatory studying jazz performance i quit playing for about 5 years and since i started playing again, i've played mainly acoustic - a very short stint with steel-string, now exclusively classical. yes, yes boring stuff....i'll move on.

question 1: i'm one of those who likes to draw the parallel between learning music and learning a foreign language, or in this case, language in general. the affect of one's previous guitar experience on learning classical pieces is really dependent on the quality of those experiences. not "quality" in any snobbish "rock guitar sucks" sort of nonsense, but rather if one has developed "proper" left hand technique, reading skills, ear-training, etc. this listing of music fundamentals is simliar to knowing basic grammar and having a proficient vocabulary. in the languange sense, someone who can read and understand english prose will be better off at approaching english poetry than someone who is approaching poetry fresh, having only heard an english poem and perhaps only appreciated it phonetically.

example: imagine picking up a newly written classical composition and the first 4 bars is a flurry of 16th notes over a consistent half note bass line. for the complete beginner, the music itself isn't even a question. at this level, the notation is incomprehensible and there is a complete lack of physical coordination. but i'm sure keith wasn't talking about the complete beginner. so let's say there is a person who has decent technique, can read music and understands basic music theory. having this basic understanding of music "grammar" allows the individual to "see" the aforementioned 4 bars of music in smaller parts thus lessoning the burden of "learning" and/or memorizing. so instead of seeing 64 notes that seem to randomly fly by over a bassline that moves 2 notes per bar, the trained "eye" would see the 16 note melody line is simply decending 3rds following a I-vi-ii-V chord change with the bass notes alternating between the root and the fifth of the chords. in short, the better you can understand what is going on in a piece of music, the easier it is to learn. (i'm really sorry for babbling).

question 2: i'm curious to see other's response to this question.

question 3 & 4: i'll try not to be so long-winded in this one. :wink: i think this depends on who your "audience" is and to what level of playing you're trying to achieve. if your playing for friends or loved ones who aren't familiar with the music i think you can get away with alot. most will barely notice a wrong note (or series of notes) much less an error in tempo or form. if your playing for other musicians that's a different story. i think it comes down to your own ears. play to the very best of your ability at any given moment. if you can hear that something is "wrong", work to improve it. i'm of the opinion that if a given individual can't hear a mistake, that mistake simply doesn't exist. :D having said that, the more you play, the more developed your ears will become and the more "mistakes" you'll be able to discern. so in that sense, you'll never reach any acceptable level of purity when it comes to your own ears. so to keep your sanity in light of this seemingly unsurmountable task of learning "music", think of your audience and take comfort that most people really can't hear . :wink:

[keith]

4 questions does seem to be a rather vast forum. maybe should have kept to one question.

jonny hotnuts: i was not using you as the model for the questions--i mentioned you because you were the one the added the spark to the previous forum. it seemed that a lot of folks had various opinions of what constitutes knowing a particular piece and the time to learn it. the intent of my questions what to provide the means for discussion about learning our craft as non-professionals.

[portlandgreg2]

Keith,

Really interesting questions: I can be verbose on these subjects because I love talking about these things, but I'll limit my response to a couple of sentences each.

1: Classical guitar is my first instrument (I began at 32 and am now 35).

2: I'm not sure what fast or slow learning is, but here's a recent, personal example:
Passo e Mezzo by Galelei - Played through, memorized, and feel comfortable playing in front of someone within two weeks.
La Cathedral by Barrios - Played through movements 1 and 2 and 90% memorized within about a month, but will be at least another 6 months before I can perform it for someone.

3: Basically, I feel I can play a piece if I meet these oblique requirements: play at a reasonable tempo, with at least a little musicality, all without getting lost or making a major mistake that would stop the piece.

4: I recently played for a friend who plays drums in a couple of bands. He could tell I was frustrated with any mistake I made. His friendly response really changed the way I feel when playing for other people. He said, "Musical sound (in this sense, each individual note) is so temporary that a wrong note quickly dies and is replaced by another (hopefully correct!) note. My ears travel along with the music and doesn't linger on a wrong note. Besides, I can't play classical guitar and find the sound you produce beautiful."

Per vsuarez' response, we are the most critical of our own playing. I'm finding that in the amateur's realm, mostly on my couch or in the study and not on stage, people are there for the experience, not for perfection. Long live guitar playing simply for the love of it (ie amateuring)!

I look forward to reading other opinions.

[M. Stephenson]

I play for fun and it usually takes a month to learn an intermediate piece up to three pages in length well enough to play - two to three months to be able to feel comfortable recording it. However, the more I play, the quicker and easier the learning of new pieces.

When recording, I consider up to four minor mistakes acceptable (muffled note, exceptional string buzz, missed bass note or a weak chord, wrong bass or support note that does not sound dissonant). It really is a matter of the mistakes versus the spirit of the playing. If I miss an important note or whack the tempo, then I trash it and start over.

When playing for friends, I am happy if I make only a few noticeable mistakes and am able to keep the spirit of the piece intact.

I play to tempo, but work up to speed with the aid of a metronome. I also play pieces faster or slower depending on my mood. Some faster pieces take on new spirit when played slow, and visa versa.

Without a doubt, recording has radically changed how I approach playing. I have improved by leaps and bounds since I started regularly recording myself about 4 months ago. Now I can really play pieces from beginning to end with very few and sometimes no obvious errors. Much to my delight, the no error playing is happening with greater frequency.

[Jonny Hotnuts]

I agree with recording.
It is often so intense playing some songs that almost 100% focus is in used in playing the song and only when you can step back and listen with a clear head that you know what and where to improve. Sort of being your own teacher if you will.

It is truly too bad that most people dont know that the computer they have with a nice recording app replaces tens of thousands of dollars in studio equipment that was once needed.

As I have said before, less than 500$ will have you doing some really nice sounding work.