A thought provoking episode, Josh. I think people also need to distinguish between what I will call qualitative improvement and quantitative improvement. Qualitative improvement is where you refine, improve, and polish what you know, and quantitative improvement is where you learn new skills or techniques. Everyone, of course, starts by making mostly quantitative improvements, because you obvioulsy can’t polish what you don’t know how to do. But sometimes people fall into the trap of thinking that quantitative improvement is the only way to “get better,” and they wind up not being able to do anything really well. Unless you have essentially unlimited time to devote to your instrument, it might, at some point, be better to focus more on improving your existing skills and less on acquiring new ones.. You can get a lot of satisfaction, and impress a lot of people, doing something pretty basic, but doing it very very well. And it is well to keep in mind that qualitative improvement is a never ending process. Pablo Casals, perhaps the greatest cellist of all time, who clearly had nothing new to learn on the cello, was asked why, at age 83, he continued to practice four or five hours a day. “Because I think I am making progress,” he said.
Love that distinction. And I was just thinking about this topic! Specifically, how the best musicians are so because they are so good at the fundamentals, i.e. have spent a great deal of time and energy on making qualitative improvements. Bruce Lee said it well: "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times." I may use your comment as the genesis for a follow up episode. Thanks!
Once you say this stuff, I realise that it's obvious and I've know it all along - which, of course, is really saying that you are a fantastic teacher. Thanks.
spot on and interesting, as usual. having said that, i am a big fan on incremental improvement. for example, i may spend a large amount of time on a specific lick, knowing that in a jam i will be the only one who will notice it. the satisfaction is in the incremental improvements, which accumulate over time.
Thank-you VERY much for your videos and your book! Your description at the beginning of your book absolutely resonated with me! GREAT points (young wind instrument player who didn't play for decades picked up fiddle in '22 at age 58)! 🙂🎻🎼🧠
Being a sommelier would have to be like the best job in the world I would think! It`s fascinating to listen to these brainjo bites! Everything makes a lot of sense they way you break it down!
Wow! Thank you, Josh for this tremendous concept. You have just tweaked my musical direction and helped me feel so much better about my hankering to try multiple instruments. I just love to learn how the playing of different instruments overlap and diverge. I'm currently exploring, besides banjo, mandolin to fiddle to cello.
This makes sense. I recently watched Steve Martin and Earl Scruggs play on a late night TV show from back in the day. It honestly looked like Steve Martin’s intended audience was Earl Scruggs and vice versa. Neither of them seemed to care about the audience of the show. The banjo playing was technically amazing, but I didn’t care for the music they were making. Same thing goes with playing the banjo fast. Sure it’s neat, but at some point the musician is playing so fast that the sound is just noise to my ears. Certainly, more seasoned ears would appreciate the skill and speed, but my ears did not.
Interesting thoughts. You mentioned that more complex music doesn't mean that it's better, and I want to emphasize that. Something I really dislike is musical snobbery. Common in the classical world, but I've also seen it in jazz and I imagine it exists in bluegrass as well. "I can't enjoy three chord pop songs. My taste is too refined to be able to enjoy that cheap wine." (Borrowing your metaphor.) But that is a much too narrow view of music. If someone has dug down deep in one genre (let's say bluegrass), they've learnt to listen for things in the music that they won't find in another (let's say country). And it's not wrong to describe the genre of country as less complex and more commercial. But where some people go wrong (I'm not accusing you of that) is when they therefore think of some genres as lesser. You're just not as used to the genre, and not listening for the right things! There are some amazing musicians in every genre and those closing themselves off to what they think is "lesser" music is missing out on a lot! There are fun things to discover even in overproduced pop music. (Not wanting to listen to all music is fine. Someone digging deep in a particular genre is cool.) I want to keep learning, but I also want to keep my curiosity. TLDR: The choice isn't between getting better or not. It's between digging down in one spot, or learning different things. (As you also hinted at.) This comment is already too long, but I'll add one more thing: the very best musicians have never been the ones that are stuck in one genre. "This is how music should be." The big names in classical music history are the people that learned the skills but then applied them in new ways and were open to other influences. In jazz, Miles Davis was into both pop and hip-hop, and Michael Brecker (still generally considered the greatest sax player of all time) played on many pop and rock albums. And for bluegrass banjo... need I say more than Béla Fleck?
I get what yoir saying, but what's your advice for people with adhd, I am dissabled because of it,,, I just want to get the most out of practice and my memory, for some reason I can remember the music as I learn it but forget a lot in my everyday average life .
A thought provoking episode, Josh. I think people also need to distinguish between what I will call qualitative improvement and quantitative improvement. Qualitative improvement is where you refine, improve, and polish what you know, and quantitative improvement is where you learn new skills or techniques. Everyone, of course, starts by making mostly quantitative improvements, because you obvioulsy can’t polish what you don’t know how to do. But sometimes people fall into the trap of thinking that quantitative improvement is the only way to “get better,” and they wind up not being able to do anything really well. Unless you have essentially unlimited time to devote to your instrument, it might, at some point, be better to focus more on improving your existing skills and less on acquiring new ones.. You can get a lot of satisfaction, and impress a lot of people, doing something pretty basic, but doing it very very well. And it is well to keep in mind that qualitative improvement is a never ending process. Pablo Casals, perhaps the greatest cellist of all time, who clearly had nothing new to learn on the cello, was asked why, at age 83, he continued to practice four or five hours a day. “Because I think I am making progress,” he said.
Love that distinction. And I was just thinking about this topic! Specifically, how the best musicians are so because they are so good at the fundamentals, i.e. have spent a great deal of time and energy on making qualitative improvements. Bruce Lee said it well: "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."
I may use your comment as the genesis for a follow up episode. Thanks!
@@ClawhammerBanjo Look forward to it. No charge. 😁
Once you say this stuff, I realise that it's obvious and I've know it all along - which, of course, is really saying that you are a fantastic teacher. Thanks.
spot on and interesting, as usual. having said that, i am a big fan on incremental improvement. for example, i may spend a large amount of time on a specific lick, knowing that in a jam i will be the only one who will notice it. the satisfaction is in the incremental improvements, which accumulate over time.
Thank-you VERY much for your videos and your book! Your description at the beginning of your book absolutely resonated with me! GREAT points (young wind instrument player who didn't play for decades picked up fiddle in '22 at age 58)! 🙂🎻🎼🧠
You’re very welcome! Thanks so much for your comments.
Definitely buyin' the book! Thanks for yet another awsomely insightful vid!
You bet - thanks!!
Being a sommelier would have to be like the best job in the world I would think! It`s fascinating to listen to these brainjo bites! Everything makes a lot of sense they way you break it down!
Yeah, not a bad way to make a living!
And thanks!
Wow! Thank you, Josh for this tremendous concept. You have just tweaked my musical direction and helped me feel so much better about my hankering to try multiple instruments. I just love to learn how the playing of different instruments overlap and diverge. I'm currently exploring, besides banjo, mandolin to fiddle to cello.
This makes sense. I recently watched Steve Martin and Earl Scruggs play on a late night TV show from back in the day. It honestly looked like Steve Martin’s intended audience was Earl Scruggs and vice versa. Neither of them seemed to care about the audience of the show. The banjo playing was technically amazing, but I didn’t care for the music they were making. Same thing goes with playing the banjo fast. Sure it’s neat, but at some point the musician is playing so fast that the sound is just noise to my ears. Certainly, more seasoned ears would appreciate the skill and speed, but my ears did not.
My favorite one yet! Thanks so much for these, Josh!
You bet! Thanks, Michael.
Interesting thoughts. You mentioned that more complex music doesn't mean that it's better, and I want to emphasize that. Something I really dislike is musical snobbery. Common in the classical world, but I've also seen it in jazz and I imagine it exists in bluegrass as well. "I can't enjoy three chord pop songs. My taste is too refined to be able to enjoy that cheap wine." (Borrowing your metaphor.)
But that is a much too narrow view of music. If someone has dug down deep in one genre (let's say bluegrass), they've learnt to listen for things in the music that they won't find in another (let's say country). And it's not wrong to describe the genre of country as less complex and more commercial. But where some people go wrong (I'm not accusing you of that) is when they therefore think of some genres as lesser. You're just not as used to the genre, and not listening for the right things! There are some amazing musicians in every genre and those closing themselves off to what they think is "lesser" music is missing out on a lot! There are fun things to discover even in overproduced pop music.
(Not wanting to listen to all music is fine. Someone digging deep in a particular genre is cool.)
I want to keep learning, but I also want to keep my curiosity.
TLDR: The choice isn't between getting better or not. It's between digging down in one spot, or learning different things. (As you also hinted at.)
This comment is already too long, but I'll add one more thing: the very best musicians have never been the ones that are stuck in one genre. "This is how music should be." The big names in classical music history are the people that learned the skills but then applied them in new ways and were open to other influences. In jazz, Miles Davis was into both pop and hip-hop, and Michael Brecker (still generally considered the greatest sax player of all time) played on many pop and rock albums. And for bluegrass banjo... need I say more than Béla Fleck?
I get what yoir saying, but what's your advice for people with adhd, I am dissabled because of it,,, I just want to get the most out of practice and my memory, for some reason I can remember the music as I learn it but forget a lot in my everyday average life .
Focus on short but high quality practice sessions, and make sure the place where you practice doesn’t have any other distractions.