It's only been in the last few months and via complete luck on YouTube that I appear to have discovered the missing piece of the jigsaw (two way pick slanting) - had I known this when I was 18 I would have been of a much higher level. Being 45, having old bad habits to overcome and the demands of a family with 4 kids and a chronic bad back means I don't have the time to devote to the improvements I'd love to make, but from my experience, I know that "practice" is not enough, it needs to be the right practice, and sometimes that means a subtle nuance which is not apparent to some, maybe for years. I've helped some of the kids I teach in a similar way, with them then "getting" an idea they've not understood for a long time, so there needs to be more analysis than simply "practice", in my opinion.

What's weird about dance is what looks natural and elegant to the observer is a rather contorted and sometimes painful position for the dancer.

As a generalisation (take with pinch of salt), the classic Japanese method does not have lots of explanation - teacher demonstrates, teacher works with student, can be quite hands on with corrections to body posture etc, but not typically lots of explanation. There are also exercises shown to develop body conditioning, and awareness. These include exercises such as standing, or slow deep walking, which initially are not obvious as to what is happening and why. The students who take these on trust and go off and do them in their own time are the ones who make progress. There is also quite a lot of focus on "mitori keiko" - training by watching, so training people to become more observant about what they are seeing and then be able to take that understanding or images and apply it to their own training.

Western students tend to require more explanation. They ask "why should I do this (apparently boring) exercise?". There can be a tendency to pursue acquisition of technique rather than fundamentals. They are less likely to take things on trust and work it out for themselves. Of course there are plenty of great Western practitioners and plenty of poor Japanese ones.

As a teacher I found my tendency was to try and explain too much. I find I get better results when working with people and making them feel things. I have seen my main teacher in Japan work on someone for 5-10 minutes and extract out them very signficiant improvement in that time - and he has done that to me. He can give people a taste for a new level and inspire them, but the challenge then is to go off and do the personal work to really own that new level or those insites. That is a goal for me to be able to do the same for my students.

My main teacher in UK was a contemporary dancer for his working life, and with his contacts etc has inspired quite a few dancers to come to the dojo. It has been interesting for me to work with them over the years, and understand how varied dance training can be. Some dance training seems to be more about the externals - make a move look a certain way, without worrying about the internal mechanics of the body. And yet of course other training is at a deeper level, training awareness. I realised over time the distinct difference between someone who is very flexible, and yet can feel relatively "hard" - just due to their background and the focus of their training to that point.

I found Josh Waitzkin's book on learning about his experiences as a chess prodigy and then learning and competing at Taiji Push Hands to highest levels. He writes about deepening his awareness, and also the sheer time spent in practising and analysing his techniques and failures etc.

MOOC's are a step in the right direction, but far, far from a Young Lady's Illustrated Primer idealized vision that I would like to see.

I recommend Shinichi Suzuki’s lovely little 1969 book about “talent education”, Nurtured by Love, https://amzn.com/0874875846

The fact is, at a certain level of playing, you stop asking "is this correct technique?" and you start asking, "does this make the music I am playing better? am i bringing attention to what i want to bring out of the piece? does it make it easier to play?" Preoccupation with correct technique as a separate existing thing from external authority becomes a hindrance. You want to learn about your art from those around you, and have them learn from you. If you don't feel ready or capable of being independent in this regard, that's fine. But not everyone is an amateur, and no one claims to ever stop learning, so what are they doing differently?

e: What most interests me about the article is that this comment section is filled entirely with people, like myself, who's opinion on the matter has not been changed one iota by the article

[1] http://www.keithfrazer.com/interview.htm

Do you remember which video it was that made you "get it"? I'd like to watch it too!

Malmsteen himself is better when he slows down; he really should keep the triplet cheese grating to a minimum. Its effectiveness is inversely proportional to the size. A good example is the "I'm a Viking" guitar solo; there is heap of shred notes at the beginning as an intro, but then it goes slow, with just some connecting speedy bits here and there.

Most of the material I saw online just had some basic recipes to improve right hand technique, there are very few systematic and rigorous explanations. I think that's where a good teacher can make a massive difference.

On the other hand I also have first-hand experience with nature vs. nurture - I play music with my wife and kids and I'm clearly the least talented although everyone brings something unique to the family band.

As always, the truth is a combination x * talent + y * nurture so I'm glad to see the discussion turning that direction.

(say, extended guitar playing techniques)

An open question so far.

Swordmasters in the renaissance studied each others' books and teachings, much as physics students might study the publications of others in their discipline. The insights they each made might not have all been in technique itself, but sometimes in new ways of teaching it, or describing the nuances of what their masters ("no, do it THIS way ...") had told them in a different way which made it easier to teach.

For many physical endeavors, it seems like there are often a few Good ways to do something Right -- shoot a bow, hold a calligraphy pen, etc. You MIGHT stumble upon the best way to do it on your own, but it seems a little ridiculous to scoff that someone is "not creative enough" to figure out what nuance of technique they have been missing.

That's correct!

Like Isaac Newton said - if I have seen further, it is by standing on ye shoulders of giants.

Link: http://digitallibrary.hsp.org/index.php/Detail/Object/Show/o...

But the point is that it was one specific (and subtle) technique that I missed, and everyone else missed, or didn't instruct people to do - that completely stalled my playing. And I know I'm not the only one!

I have met two fine young bassists who were both crippled by trying unorthodox techniques, to the point where it interfered with their careers: For instance they had to curtail preparation for critical auditions.

Meanwhile, I have consciously stuck with the stodgy classical technique that I learned as a kid, and at age 52, can still play a four hour gig on the one instrument in the band that never gets a break.

The method involves 6 factors that have to be adapted to the specific skill:

* 1. having specific goals

* 2. getting slightly out of your comfort zone

* 3. focus and concentration during practice (ideally close to 1 hour)

* 4. feedback

* 5. practising a sufficiently developed human activity

* 6. having a teacher/coach (and keep getting a better one, adjusted to your current level)

* 7. (additional point: starting early in life)

Point 5 is the difference between practising, say, the violin (for which we have literally centuries of the best performers teaching the following generations, always improving, up to a near threshold) to practising say skateboard which is a few decades old of serious practice or any recent boardgame, say. No one knows what are the best tactics and strategies. Even sports: consider how many world records from some years ago would not qualify you for the olympics today. Naturally if you're not learning the violin but something else less developed, you just try to find the best current method and mental representations, and discover better ones to gain a decisive edge on your competion (with perhaps less practice time or talent (eg, height)).

I also agree with your point on metacognition, but that's an even broader subject to discuss.

[1] https://smile.amazon.com/Peak-Secrets-New-Science-Expertise/...

An interesting counterpart is that our current education systems are trying their best to suppress creativity and give fish instead of a fishing rod.

As a schoolboy I studied the trumpet. My teacher was an excellent trumpeter. He gave me exercises every week and said "Just play these for an hour a day and you'll have no problems".

I would go away and put in my hour a day practice and get no where. I wanted to play the high notes like those jazz bands but I would get no where.

I'd go back to my teacher and he'd give me another set of exercises. Diligently I go away and repeat the same process.

Other students of his seemed to do well, but not everyone. It seemed really rather random.

He was a great player but I believe he had very little introspection and didn't really know what made him great in a pedagogical sense. He was likely making minute movements with the muscles of his mouth that he had no idea about but he just stumbled across with his hours of practice.

After this experience I realised how skill in a topic and teaching ability are quite different. Sometimes a person has both at a high level and is really an excellent teacher, but often there are times where someone is a player, not a teacher.

In ballet, it is often said that the best dancers are the worst teachers.

The very best teachers are the ones who had no talent and spent insane hours trying to figure out which muscles to use, at what moment and with what intensity. They are the ones who will tell you that you need to push the opposing arm in the turn in order to have enough force for multiple turns without falling over.

The best dancers will tell you to "just turn". They have a natural sense for balance in turns and don't understand why you keep falling over.

He says that the route to optimal performance is "deliberate practice" and that one of the components of deliberate practice is supervision by a coach who can provide feedback and personalized challenges.

I think that kind of fits with your idea, except that he suggests that the source of feedback should be another person.

* Incidentally, he also debunks the whole "20000 hours" thing and seems not too keen on Malcolm Gladwell.

I would also add to that curiosity, which leads to desire, which makes mastery that much easier.

Other hypotheses are much more easily testable, and certainly more inspiring to the newcomer, and haven't been scientifically exhausted yet.

If everyone just said "it's probably not in my genes" they wouldn't even try, disregarding tons of historical factors that may have stopped their ancestors from creating a record.

I also think that learning or solving problems is not deterministic algorithm, it's a heuristic. If it's heuristic there are lots of random elements and tuning.

Obviously, everybody have their own "hardware" limit determined by genes but often people make big mistake thinking they already reached their limit by simply getting stuck in some topic without seriously and very fundamentally reconsider their whole approach to the problem or learning process itself.

I think often in these situations, possible limit is much, much, much higher than one might think.

The technical term for these tiny unspoken things is, I believe, "alleles."