3 ms·

> (ie the Beatles example is complete bullshit, gigs are not practice) Why doesn't that count as practice?

ghaff 4y ago
Because you're doing the same thing over and over and don't have a lot of latitude to experiment. Mind you, there can be some value in repetition starting out especially if you make regular minor adjustments. But for someone already at a high skill level, just doing the same old activity probably won't help their skills much.
- myheadasplode 4y ago
  Playing as a dance/cover band as they did (compared to, say, classical music), they had plenty of space to experiment. The critical aspect that's different from practicing with your band in a rehearsal space vs on stage is that you get to see how an audience actually responds to what you're doing, which is the whole point of the game. Every audience is different. A musician who's played 100 sets of songs alone in a room will have nowhere near the same level of insight as a musician who's played the same number of shows for an audience. As an instrumentalist, I can choose to play my part ahead of the beat, behind the beat, right on time, I can choose to embellish my part or play it as written, I can improvise a solo vs play something pre-planned, I can subtly vary the intensity of my playing, all while my bandmates are tweaking their performance in real time, too. There's also the telepathy you tend to develop with your bandmates when you're unable to stop a show and yell about mistakes or forgotten parts :)
huimang 4y ago
Performances aren't practice. Practice is sitting down and working on what needs development, and doing self-introspection. Performances are where all of those get put together for an audience.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
thebricksta 4y ago
I studied a number of books in that field last year, and much of this entire thread is missing some key points. The learning psychology field often differentiates practice from deliberate practice, where practice is just about anything and deliberate practice is focused learning. In deliberate practice, you have to work at near your skill level, you need to apply proven learning methods, it should take maximal effort, you need a feedback mechanism to course correct, etc. A great deal of focus goes into creating effective mental models and intentionally removing ineffective mental models. It requires good coaching. As you progress in expertise, your practice should involve more risks and failures. (And there's still much more to be said here) Gigging and noodling aren't going to make for efficient practice as it likely won't be full concentration, won't involve feedback, won't involve challenging material at your skill level, etc. Also, you can spend 10,000 hours jamming alone in your bedroom on same set of guitar tabs and make shockingly progress compared to someone who spends just a few hundred hours intensely studying music books with a metronome and tape recorder.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
kashunstva 4y ago
I think that one has to define terms first. Anders Ericsson - whom Gladwell relied on so heavily - was focused almost solely on a form of practice he called "deliberate practice"; and he set about defining its characteristics. Playing a gig wouldn't meet many of Ericsson's criteria. Mainly the goal, in the moment, isn't systematic improvement. That said, if we loosen the criteria, there's no reason we _can't_ count playing a gig as practice. After all, some neuromuscular/cognitive development is taking place.

Because you're doing the same thing over and over and don't have a lot of latitude to experiment. Mind you, there can be some value in repetition starting out especially if you make regular minor adjustments. But for someone already at a high skill level, just doing the same old activity probably won't help their skills much.

myheadasplode 4y ago
Playing as a dance/cover band as they did (compared to, say, classical music), they had plenty of space to experiment. The critical aspect that's different from practicing with your band in a rehearsal space vs on stage is that you get to see how an audience actually responds to what you're doing, which is the whole point of the game. Every audience is different. A musician who's played 100 sets of songs alone in a room will have nowhere near the same level of insight as a musician who's played the same number of shows for an audience. As an instrumentalist, I can choose to play my part ahead of the beat, behind the beat, right on time, I can choose to embellish my part or play it as written, I can improvise a solo vs play something pre-planned, I can subtly vary the intensity of my playing, all while my bandmates are tweaking their performance in real time, too. There's also the telepathy you tend to develop with your bandmates when you're unable to stop a show and yell about mistakes or forgotten parts :)

huimang 4y ago

Performances aren't practice. Practice is sitting down and working on what needs development, and doing self-introspection. Performances are where all of those get put together for an audience.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

thebricksta 4y ago

I studied a number of books in that field last year, and much of this entire thread is missing some key points. The learning psychology field often differentiates practice from deliberate practice, where practice is just about anything and deliberate practice is focused learning. In deliberate practice, you have to work at near your skill level, you need to apply proven learning methods, it should take maximal effort, you need a feedback mechanism to course correct, etc. A great deal of focus goes into creating effective mental models and intentionally removing ineffective mental models. It requires good coaching. As you progress in expertise, your practice should involve more risks and failures. (And there's still much more to be said here) Gigging and noodling aren't going to make for efficient practice as it likely won't be full concentration, won't involve feedback, won't involve challenging material at your skill level, etc. Also, you can spend 10,000 hours jamming alone in your bedroom on same set of guitar tabs and make shockingly progress compared to someone who spends just a few hundred hours intensely studying music books with a metronome and tape recorder.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

kashunstva 4y ago

I think that one has to define terms first. Anders Ericsson - whom Gladwell relied on so heavily - was focused almost solely on a form of practice he called "deliberate practice"; and he set about defining its characteristics. Playing a gig wouldn't meet many of Ericsson's criteria. Mainly the goal, in the moment, isn't systematic improvement. That said, if we loosen the criteria, there's no reason we _can't_ count playing a gig as practice. After all, some neuromuscular/cognitive development is taking place.