PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Beginners Forum What is the least difficult way to learn to play an Instrument?

Thanks, David

I think what you said is pretty accurate. Well, there are plenty of people who can sight-read note for note at speed.

In years past, I found understanding music theory from a guitar perspective difficult. I got a piano with the idea that it would help. It certainly was valuable because it is so visual. Drop the third by a half step, and you form the minor, for example. Where is the third on the guitar?

The more theory one knows the less trouble it is to guess what the next chord may be, especially if it stays in key. Melodies are discreet and pretty much unique, which is why we can copyright them. Learning a melody does not lend itself to interpretation. Change the melody line, and it is not the same song. Songs frequently have highly recognizable features other than melody. What I call "signature licks". In years past, we never played a lot of cover songs, but when we did, they were pretty close to the original. The lead guitar player and the keyboard would play their own solos but then come back to the original idea. We were lucky; both Lewis and Morrow could hear something one time and play it back note for note.

Perhaps one does not want to play "the same song," and on rare occasions, the new version is better than the original.

I am trying to discover what I actually know. For example, I played every chord in every inversion on the piano in the key of C just to see what I could remember. Then, I played the same in other keys. Some keys were easy, and some were not. To figure out a path forward, one needs to know where one is at.

It would be wonderful to hear something and play it back, note for note. Unfortunately, I can not do that, so I have to use some other method.

So far, sight reading is the only thing that has been very useful in filling in the notes I can't seem to hear and remember.

I know the answer, it has always been contained in the work I was unwilling to do...lol

Billy

This. I chose Deep Purple originals and then covers of songs that are shall we say, a bit more than the average level of difficulty.

In a forum for Cakewalk back in the old days, a couple of the folks there decided to do a cover of Lazy. They nailed it note for note. If you were in the cake forums over a decade ago you might remember that being posted.


HIGHWAY STAR




OR

BURN


<<<<< This one is especially interesting in that the drummer is a 12 year old girl who nails it. Ian Pace reaction:

I don't think this was sight read..... but I might be wrong. If you know how to listen and are at a high level of proficiency on your instrument, you can nail these songs.

Deep Purple has always been one of my favorite bands. Yes, I remember the Cakewalk forum and miss it. A number of very competent musicians came there.

This was likely my first encounter with Deep Purple Live.



Perhaps because I met Steve Morse in the airplane world and became friends before I knew he played guitar, he has always been one of my favorite Deep Purple guitar players.

Many musicians can hear and play back what they hear more or less note for note, but most of us can not.

I have discovered how to use something called Synthesia. While it has serious limitations, it has enabled me to learn to play a couple of descending piano/organ lines that I have struggled with for years.

I am mostly interested in the results. I am not overly emotionally connected to the method.

Billy

There is a gold mine of info in this thread, some real valuable stuff.

One perspective that hasn't been dwelt on is the role that repetition, practice and sleep play in the process of learning.

It's all about establishing and strengthening neural pathways.

Two quick war stories. While playing songs on my bass that I want to learn, sometimes my mind would wander off on some non-music topic. This is nothing new and if I didn't catch myself my playing would just collapse and I'd have to stop and start over. But recently for the first time, my mind wandered while I was playing and I chose not to "come back". To my surprise my fingers kept on playing and I didn't skip a beat. This may not be news to established musicians but for me it was astounding. Of course, I had been practicing the song for weeks, so the pathways were established and strong. I think folks refer to this as muscle memory. I know fingers don't have memory, but it sure did feel as if they did.

The 2nd story involves what your brain does during sleep; it clears-out toxins, plaque and metabolic waste and also organizes/compartmentalizes info learned during the day. Just before dozing off, thinking about what you're trying to learn can help your brain learn the material faster; a pre-sleep review can speed this up. Some people have pushed this to an art-form. I haven't, but I have partially solved some tough engineering problems in my sleep by doing a pre-sleep review of the material. Just another tool in the toolbox.

I wonder to what extent the musical giants have exploited this kind of stuff.

LOL...Steve...This reminded me of a bass player I used to play with. He would sometimes stick his flip phone under the edge of his hat and talk to his girlfriend while he was playing on stage.

My guess is that the "musical giants" have explored anything that they thought would be of value.

One of the differences between most of us and super-good players is the amount of time we spend with our instruments in our hands. Most "musical giants " have never been more than thirty feet from their instruments for 95% of their time.

It is my impression that mastering a particular skill takes around 7000 hours of diligent study for most things, such as becoming a pilot, a woodworker, or a bass player.

Billy

[quote=Planobilly.......................................
One of the differences between most of us and super-good players is the amount of time we spend with our instruments in our hands. Most "musical giants " have never been more than thirty feet from their instruments for 95% of their time.

It is my impression that mastering a particular skill takes around 7000 hours of diligent study for most things, such as becoming a pilot, a woodworker, or a bass player.

Billy [/quote]

Exactly! There are no short cuts. Yes there are programs that can help but in reality you must put the work in to become an accomplished guitarist, bassist, pilot, or actually any profession or hobby.

On the lower end of the equation, you can spend 20 minutes a day on a particular skill and in one years time be better than 95% of the people at that particular skill. That is about 120 hrs of time. (the 100 hr rule)
I'd heard that 10,000 hrs or the equivalent of approximately 5 years of full time work was the milestone to be a master of the skill. But of course.... practice alone doesn't make perfect as the saying goes. Only practicing perfectly makes for perfection in time and mastery of the skill.

I too have heard this "10,000 hour rule". Not sure if it's universal. Some may achieve mastery in less time and certain high-intensity professions like medicine may take considerably more time; 5 years won't even get you out of college and then there's the work of keeping up with the new developments.

In any case, having crisp goals that you hold yourself accountable for is valuable. Personally, I have a goal of learning and recording on my bass, 100 classic rock songs and 100 smooth jazz/ambient favorites. I'm only at song #7 on the rock songs but hey, the journey is as important as the destination

But it takes far less than that to learn a very limited set of skills that will lead to a well-defined output.

Let's say you want to be able to play a particular song on the piano. Not how to play every song on the piano, but a single song. Let's also say that you get a teacher to make sure you're no building in any bad habits as you progress through the process. That way, you can increase in speed as you memorize it, instead of getting locked up because your hand position is terrible, or the fingering is nonsensical.

There's a whole lot you don't need to learn. For example, you don't need to know the right fingering for all keys, or even the key the song is in - just the passages of that song. And so on.

I've met plenty of musicians who are mediocre at an instrument, but can play one song really well. It's little more than a party trick, and goodness knows how they learned that one song - probably because thought the song was really cool. But they learned it, and it's etched into their muscle memory.

And once you've got one song, you can move to the next. Certainly, you'll need time, but not 10,000 hours.

There's another element here that hasn't been mentioned: musicality. Because that transfers, and it's already part of your thinking.

When someone is first learning an instrument, they're focused on the mechanics of the music. That's why teachers tell students to focus on the music first and foremost, making everything you play feel musical, focusing on the timing, phrasing and dynamics.

If you play another instrument, hopefully that's already part of your thinking process. You already know how to feel the beat, find the groove, and use appropriate dynamics. You're not just playing notes and hoping you're hitting them at the right time - you're interpreting the notation into music.

The well-defined output to a very limited set of skills is the sudden stop that will kill you when you crash the airplane...lol

It is not funny, as it happens about once a week. After the NTSB investigates the "accident," the cause is generally always the same: "pilot error."

If "well-defined output" means one song someone learned by some method, that person would be highly unlikely to be able to articulate that song twice the same if there was any level of complexety.

What you get with that one song that you learned by whatever method is plausible music at best. Even untrained ears can hear the lack of proficiency.

There is no exact definition of correct finger position on a piano. There are excepted "norms" that apply to people whose hands are big enough to produce that fingering. Different fingerings, correct or incorrect, produce different sounds on the piano.

It would be doubtful that anyone who only spent the time needed to learn one song of any complexity could play it like the original.

Obviously, one does not need to study and practice for hundreds of hours to learn to play the three chord 1, 4, and 5 in the C key at 60 BPM.

Professional musicians get better year after year on their way to becoming great musicians.

You can not even hear the mistakes you are making when you start out.

Most of us play music because it is something we like to do, and we have no intention of becoming highly proficient musicians. We mostly only get good enough to get by if we are lucky. A huge number of guitars and pianos" get shoved in the corner, never to be used again." Next time you go to someone's house and you see a piano sitting there, ask them to play it.

I know many musicians who "think" they can play a lot of songs, but they can not play a single one correctly. They have limited hearing, no reading skills, and no writing skills and, therefore, are seriously unable to communicate or be communicated to by other musicians.

Welcome to the typical bar band, let's get drunk, have some fun, and play Mustang Sally.

There are other musicians who have worked diligently and gone to school to get an education. They have worked thousands of hours to try to perfect their craft. Many of those people are icons we look up to, and some are virtually unknown.

Billy

I once wrote an essay in college about all the benefits/disciplines involved in the task of learning music.
It was well received and the thing I remember most was someone stating they had never thought about it and give musicians a lot more credit than they did prior to reading it.

That statement made my day and the hours spent writing it worth it.
I told myself it may have been one of my best works and to never lose it, but I did. At least the electronic copy.
Hmm, wonder if I still have a printed copy somewhere.

Basically the executive summary was that musicians are reading a second language, expressed using various parts of their whole body with their instrument while not just articulating in the moment but thinking ahead so the next note(s) are properly placed in a group conversation that a larger group wants to hear.
It's never the exact same conversation and it is obvious when the topic becomes tiresome to any one involved because they are listening to each other and adapting the conversation at the same time, all in real time .. and for an experienced musician the biggest factor is the discipline of listening to each other while participating.
Only the paper took three pages to get to that <grin>

Nicely spoken.
If ever you find your paper, I'd like a copy if you would be so kind.

Not building bad habits. That is so true.

Not only in music but in everything. As many here know, I train my dogs to find human remains. I caution people who approach me asking me how I do it to not attempt it on their own but to find a mentor, someone with experience to help them avoid the rabbit hole and bad habits that they will develop on their own if they don't have that expert guidance.

It's a ZEN thing. A state of being that when you are in it, it's amazing. Almost magical. You can actually step back and watch yourself do this thing while you are doing it almost like an autopilot mode.

This can be achieved in performing and it's really amazing when you get in this mode while you are writing a song.

Well, I found it BT .. so here in all it's promoted glory is that letdown .. <grin>

Asking a teenager to define music will result in an answer much different than asking a senior citizen. However, both will stand firm in their feelings about music. It is such a deep felt relationship that most people have a very defined opinion of what music is and what it is not. An explanation of “good music” has caused heated debates among friends and generations, yet it is one of the most refined, studied and precise arts; this has led researchers to conclude that the art and study of music increases one's intellect and intelligence. It is such a personal, emotional and creative form of expression.

There have been many attempts made at describing just what music is. It's been said that music is simply sound with a rhythm. Webster's Dictionary gets a little more abstract in their definition, saying it is “the combining of sound and tones as a form of artistic expression.” That definition, by their own extension would include “any combination of sounds that is pleasing to the ear.” What is pleasing to one person may not be so pleasing to another, but everyone holds music dear. Whether it is a particular love song or a reverent hymn, music and song is understood by all. The theory and components that make up music are often not understood by the listener. There are many performers of music who do not consciously understand it either, but there are many tasks, languages and math computations taking place in even the simplest of songs.

Music is a language. It is written in a structure that only those who know the language can decode. Reading music is very much like reading a foreign language that must be studied, practiced and then put into use in order to become fluent. There is a unique complexity to this language because while learning it, the only way to comprehend it is to put it into action. It is unique in that it requires physical action on the part of the reader. To learn to read the notes, or musical alphabet, the reader must be able to hear what each note is saying. This is always done with some kind of musical instrument in hand. As the notes are read, and then played, a relationship develops between the eyes, the ears, and the hands. This learning process is very reinforcing; if done incorrectly the result offends the readers ears. The mistake is evident and compels the reader to do it over again to get it right. It is also a language that can be learned by people of all countries and native tongues, then applied to allow a heartfelt communication and expression. An even more astounding aspect of this language is that it is not one that is meant to be expressed singly and in turn. People conversing in the language of music all express themselves at the same time to create a harmonic blend of sound and rhythm that moves not only the artists but also all those within hearing distance. These audience members often have little understanding of all the expression and simultaneous listening going on by the performers. It is a very complex language, spanning many styles, genres, and cultures, yet it is absolute and strict, requiring an outcome as precise as a math equation.

Maybe that's because music also incorporates math. The rhythm of music is based on a count and a flowing subdivision of that count happening in time. The waltz is based on a count of three. A march is often in a count of two. The overwhelming majority of music is based on a count of four. These basic counts, or beats, are then subdivided in smaller elements in groups of three or four. When the subdivision happens in three it is most likely a swing or shuffle style of song. The division of four is more common and strict, being used for most modern music in this country for the last fifty years or more. A musician, one who can read and express this language, is doing these math calculations instinctively while reading the music and performing on their particular instrument. There are many artistic music pieces that are written in what is called odd-time signatures. These pieces can have a basic beat count of five, seven, eleven or even nineteen beats that need to be subdivided over time.
--
That can add up to some pretty complex math. No wonder the human brain excels when this art is studied over time. So far music involves reading a written foreign language while doing continuous math calculations and taking an action that results in a pleasing sound. Like they say in the infomercials- “but wait, there's more!”

As the study of music develops it becomes necessary for an artist to not only rigidly read what is written, but may also be required to improvise. This act requires a knowledge of the theory behind music. Note relationships, chord structures, and scale patterns are all necessary to become proficient at being a musician. The most amazing thing about the ability to improvise is that it requires this knowledge to be put to use in anticipation of the next note. Every true musician knows that when the time comes to play a note is not the time to figure out what note needs to be played. The note will inevitably be either a wrong note or played late. Since music requires these subdivisions over time it is very evident when a note is not played at the right time. It's now understood that musicians are reading another language, doing math at the same time, and actually thinking ahead to the next note while performing on their instrument. Some types of performances compound this by adding choreography into the mix.Most concerts contain some type of choreography. There will often be separate dancing, but when the musicians have to also physically perform timed actions it really complicates things. One example of this is the marching band. These musicians, often student age, are performing timed physical actions on top of everything else discussed above.

No wonder so many researchers have reached the conclusion that learning music can expand ones ability to learn other things. It also teaches a discipline of structure and practice that leads one to be diligent in getting the desired results through constant effort. The reward is that one precious possession everyone has: a favorite song.

Yes, nicely expressed.

One of the things I find interesting to me personally, is that whether I like a particuar piece of music can depend a great deal on my state of mind at the time. Some days I can listen to and love a particularl piece, another time I have to stop ... it's too challenging. Some days a simple piece will be fine, another day it'll be terminally boring.

rharv, I copied this to a Word doc so as not to have it lost a 2nd time

You hit the major points; it's a complex international language, it has rules, it's unique, it's mathematical, it's emotional, it has psychological, intellectual and learning benefits, and it's conversational via improvisation.

What you've written could be the preface to a college text book on music appreciation or theory.

Well done and thanks for sharing.

From now on should we start calling you Professor RH?

Just don't call me late for dinner

I find that a lot of the music that I didn't like when it came out, I have come to appreciate a bit more, now. Not saying I like it or that I would make it a regular listen..... But I appreciate the effort that went into it. And this is especially true if I have a chance to see a live performance of the music by musicians on stage.

Nothing like seeing the musicians perform it live

I started learning when I was 10. I can play most instruments, I have always, always found that practice makes perfect. I most of all can play the guitar, piano, and drums. I learned to read music at 11, but I can also play by ear. I'm now 58, so I've been playing a long time. The easiest way is just do it regardless of weather or not you can read music or not. Memorize every note and chord, it will come to you, that is how I learned to play motzart and all the classical giants, I can listen and identify most every chord because I have ever chord and note memorized that I have been able to learn in all my years of playing. Memorization is the absolute key.