Odd Learning Style

[Habanc]

Now, this isn't quite a "technique" topic, but regardless I'd like to hear some opinions on this.

For the next, oh, two years I suspect, most of the music I create will not be anything remarkable nor special. It's just a natural part of learning, nothing I can do about it except learn how to do it better.

Now, I understand that some of you may say, "Yes, get in as much practice as you possibly can," but I'm not sure if that's the best route for myself. I've been making music electronically from roughly Dec. 2011 through the end of April, 2012. However, I took the month of May off for finals and whatnot, so I could have more time to study and work on projects. And... Maybe a tad of Diablo 3...

After downloading the BP album yesterday (By the way, all those songs are freakin' awesome! Props to everyone who submitted, because I remember listening to more than 45 WIPs and Teasers, and they were all great!), I snapped out of my hibernation and remembered "Oh hey, that's FL Studio on my computer!" So, yeah, I've been anxious to start working on music again, but I still have some academic obligations to finish first.

Anyways, to get to the point, I've noticed that the majority of times I make any substantial leap in ability, for really any talent, it comes after a period of rest and reflection. For instance, I've been playing ice hockey for about twelve years now, and most noticeable skill changes just "click" in place after a zero hockey off-season, instead of attending camps and whatnot. It's like, my mind collects knowledge when I practice regularly, but it never gets applied efficiently until I take some time to sit back and mull over it. Same goes for writing and graphic design, although they've only been talents I've been working on for maybe four or five years.

So, while I'm sitting here, not quite focusing on my thesis paper, but rather of what to do when I once again begin working in FL Studio 10, I can't help but wonder if this is wrong, and maybe my hypothesis is incorrect. There wouldn't be the mantra of "Practice makes perfect", if it weren't widely applicable, and that's what has me on edge. I'm just curious of your thoughts on this.

tl;dr (I don't blame you): I feel like I learn by reflection more so than practice, but I view it as odd. Am I doin' something wrong?

[the4thImpulse]

I feel like I learn by reflection more so than practice, but I view it as odd. Am I doin' something wrong?

From my experience a combination will provide the best results, this likely changes from person to person but between me and my producer friends you need both. You won't make any music if you only 'think' about making music and how would you learn necassary skills like equalization if you only sit at you sequencer all day blindly plugging in midi notes.

Find the best way to do both efficiently and go from there.

[Versilaryan]

It's like working out. When you're actually pumping iron, you're building muscle memory and figuring out the best way to lift. But it's when you're resting that your muscles build. Or learning -- you do all the learning when you're studying, but you do all the retaining during sleep. Latent learning is definitely a thing and definitely something powerful. But be careful not to overdo the resting. =P

[prettiestPony]

Ooh, ooh, yes, this is one of my favorite subjects. You should look into expert performance studies. K. Anders Ericsson has done a lot of research in this area: here's a neat little paper (PDF) that summarizes some of it, though it's informal and geared a little bit towards managing/leading. Here's a longer, more academic paper (also PDF) that properly cites its sources. Anyway, particularly relevant is the distinction between any old "practice" and what Ericsson calls deliberate practice. Slogging away at something in a repetitive way isn't going to help you improve: deliberate practice involves constantly and consciously analyzing your own performance, identifying problem areas, and looking for ways to improve.

Ah, but I'm getting a little sidetracked, since your post was more specifically about practice time and resting. So, some of Ericsson's research has indicated that, past a certain point, "more practice" does not necessarily equal "better performance". In a study of top violin (I think) students, those with a practice schedule of about two hours a day separated into one hour chunks (e.g. one in the morning, another in the afternoon) tended to do better than those who spent 6-8 hours a day practicing straight. According to Ericsson, most experts in most fields don't spend more than 5-6 hours a day working with their chosen subject, and it's much more common for them to spend about 2-3 on average. (Though, Liszt, probably one of history's greatest pianists, reportedly practiced for at least 10 hours a day; and we should keep in mind that the hours an expert needs to devote to a field probably drops as their experience and knowledge grows, so we should be cautious drawing conclusions from already-established experts. Ericsson's also well known for establishing the "10,000 hours of deliberate practice" estimate for becoming an expert, and presumably, the more deliberate practice you could fit into a day, the faster you'd reach that point? If your brain can handle it without going numb.)

(By the way, this is mostly from memory, so I'm probably getting a few of the details wrong. I'm pretty sure the gist of it is right, however.)

Regarding the importance of rest in particular, there's also been a fair amount of research that links sleep to the acquisition of new knowledge and skills. See articles here, here, and here. More specifically, sleeping seems to help cement recently acquired information into place, enabling the brain to manipulate it more easily and adeptly later on. The second Ericsson article I linked to at the start of this post mentions other research that indicates expert performers get, comparatively, a lot of sleep, and indeed, apparently a surprising number take naps during the afternoon. (I hadn't known that myself until looking at this article just now, actually. WARNING SLIGHT LAYMAN SPECULATION AHEAD: suppose they practice during the morning and later in the afternoon--perhaps an early afternoon nap helps solidify what they practiced, after which they'd hold their second practice session, which in turn would be solidified by their regular night's sleep. Perhaps that's partially responsible for their ability to excel.)

I suppose "sleeping" isn't exactly the kind of hiatus-with-reflection you were talking about; but I assume it's included in such breaks, if your break away from music lasts for longer than a day. Even if we ignore the sleeping component, I think there's also some value to the common sense wisdom that your brain needs time to process things unconsciously, like Versilaryan said.

There wouldn't be the mantra of "Practice makes perfect", if it weren't widely applicable, and that's what has me on edge.

Well, yes and no. Even though many adages, maxims, and proverbs have a grain of truth in them, sometimes it's not much more than a grain. Here, let me quote the first Ericsson et al paper above:

To people who have never reached a national or international level of competition, it may appear that excellence is simply the result of practicing daily for years or even decades. However, living in a cave does not make you a geologist. Not all practice makes perfect. You need a particular kind of practice—deliberate practice—to develop expertise. When most people practice, they focus on the things they already know how to do. Deliberate practice is different. It entails considerable, specific, and sustained efforts to do something you can’t do well—or even at all. Research across domains shows that it is only by working at what you can’t do that you turn into the expert you want to become.

And here's another nice snippet:

The famous violinist Nathan Milstein wrote: “Practice as much as you feel you can accomplish with concentration. Once when I became concerned because others around me practiced all day long, I asked [my mentor] Professor Auer how many hours I should practice, and he said, ‘It really doesn’t matter how long. If you practice with your fingers, no amount is enough. If you practice with your head, two hours is plenty.’”

tl;dr: Science suggests you may be on to something.

[Whitetail]

You can't reflect if you don't have something to reflect on.

Either way the only way you're going to learn how to make music is by actually doing it, be it brute forcing constant songs or doing one every once in a while.

[Habanc]

You can't reflect if you don't have something to reflect on.

Either way the only way you're going to learn how to make music is by actually doing it, be it brute forcing constant songs or doing one every once in a while.

Well, there is something to reflect on, actually. I had been at work almost incessantly from January - April, where perhaps 90% of my time on the computer was spent on FL Studio. Looking back, I've begun to realize certain things to do better. One example would be to stop equalizing instruments based on their solo sound, but instead actively in the mix. That was a relatively large problem, I had trouble cutting away useless frequencies, that although may have given the sound some extra shape, were not crucial and could be freed up for other instruments' use. I mean, I DID cut away using the EQ, but not nearly as much as I should have. That very irritating, problematic area of 200 - 800 Hz was just muddling up my music and I didn't have the cojones to cut enough of that out.

@prettiestPony: Wow. Simply wow. I mean, I had always had this little theory but I hadn't realized the extent of research done on expertise and therefore relating to practice & learning. I'll admit I had never heard of K. Anders Ericsson before, but I read the "neat little paper" and I couldn't help myself from smiling during his "playing golf for the first time" analogy, because frankly I did the same myself.

Thanks so much for this, because merely hypothesizing does not really motivate one to act upon one's thoughts. But, now that I can see plainly in front of me that other people have theorized, tested and backed up the same thought as my own, it feels much easier to go out at do it.

@4thImpulse & Vesilaryan: Oh, I don't think there'll be a probably of only doing one and not the other. I have time now to work on music over the summer, so I can undoubtedly see myself at 3am still tweaking an oscillator or mixing a track.

However, I also work as a dishwasher (I know it seems random, but just stay with me for a second), and if you have ever been one, you've probably found it to be a dull, boring, mindless job. So, to fill the void of thought, I have become apt to think constantly while at work. Although it won't be a full five hours of straight "So, when I get home tonight, I should try X and Y...", but it's a nice excuse to ponder for and hour or two. Adding on the various trips and such that happens in addition, I don't feel too worried about balancing both sides out.

[prettiestPony]

Thanks so much for this, because merely hypothesizing does not really motivate one to act upon one's thoughts. But, now that I can see plainly in front of me that other people have theorized, tested and backed up the same thought as my own, it feels much easier to go out at do it.

Yay! Glad I could help. ^.^

Of course, none of this is to say that, somewhat regrettably, you won't have to invest a lot of time still; but you have a healthy awareness about that already, it seems.

I do wish I knew if there was any research specifically on alternating between longer periods of work and rest. Anecdotally, I've noticed that effect in my own life with, ha, well, online gaming. I used to spend a lot of time playing fairly competitive multiplayer games like Counterstrike and DotA, and sometimes it seemed like I'd get into a rut or stuck on a plateau of sorts; but after taking a break for a few days or a week, I'd usually do very well for a short span upon returning, like I'd been recharged, before kinda plateauing again.

Past a certain point, of course, too long a break gets you "out of practice", and you have to waste time getting back in the swing of things. I guess there's a fine balance there, where you don't want to spend too much time away from an activity.