Also see: Informal Survey: How much do you practice?
PRACTICE BOOKS/CHARTS:
Madeline Bruser,
The Art of Practicing: A Guide to Making Music from the Heart
Burton Kaplan,
Musician's Practice Log
Burton Kaplan, A Rhythm Sight-Reader:
Bk 1,
Bk 2
Burton Kaplan,
Practicing for Artistic Success: The Musician's Guide to Self-Empowerment
Stuart Edward Dunkel,
The Audition Process: Anxiety Management and Coping Strategies (Juilliard Performance Guides, No 3)
Margret Elson,
Passionate Practice: The Musician's Guide to Learning, Memorizing, and Performing
Jack Grassel, Power Practicing
Don Greene,
Audition Success (A Theatre Arts Book)
Don Greene,
Performance Success: Performing Your Best Under Pressure (Theatre Arts)
Question:
We are having a discussion on String_Teacher_Support about how much professionals practice—and I would love to hear what other musicians say about this.
There are so many levels of performance abilities, but I think that people who are preparing for public solo or chamber music recitals, concertizing musicians (professional soloists), and graduate students in doctoral programs practice virtually ALL the time.
In other words, six hours a day is about the norm, and this is *not* including any rehearsal time, lessons, or teaching. [This is the webmaster's opinion, and does not coincide with the views of other musicians, as the survey shows. Just because I want to work all the time, doesn't mean that everyone has to or needs to, or that I necessarily am accomplishing more than other musicians. This is a very interesting topic.]
Carol in our group thinks that two hours a day may be enough if the practice is efficient, and what Pamela Frank (for example) says she practices. The issue of practicing efficiently is certainly substantial (versus endless hours of inefficient practice). There is also the issue of having some sort of personal life (versus being chained to a practice schedule), so that the performance has emotional content.
From My First 79 Years, Isaac Stern (with Chaim Potok):
I was often asked, during those years, how I prepared myself to play, what my practice habits were. In my student days, they had been no different than those of any other student. By the mid-1950s, however, the work I put into learning a new composition and into the constant refining of often-played compositions was greater than before. With experience and knowledge, the goals grew higher, and one becomes aware of how much more can be done. By and large, my practice habits were governed by the amount of work I had to put into any given composition. When on tour, I didn't have a steady practice schedule, but I worked at all possible hours. During periods without travel, I would average about four or five hours a day.
Zakin's [Stern's pianist for decades] remarks cited in The New Yorker profile on me fill out another part of the picture: "Isaac practices logically. He has the great gift of selective absorption. He absorbs the good things and ignores the bad ones. He doesn't practice just because 'you have to,' as so many fiddlers do, but concentrates on special difficulties of intonation, speed, dynamics, bowing, and fingering. By using different strings, he achieves different tone colors. He accepts no fingering—not even from famous teachers or editors—but always devises his own. He learns fast; in fact, he needs less time to master a piece than any other musician I know." Zakin was perhaps too generous in his comments.
Whenver I studied a work, I would first look at the score to see it in its totality. With Zakin's help at the piano, I would play it through, to acquaint myself with its structure; then play it again, to hear its melodic line. Once I had a clear conception of the work, I would begin to study it technically. When necessary, I would work ten to twelve hours at a stretch, until I felt saturated with the composition. (pp. 132-133).
Joseph Horowitz, Claudio Arrau,
Arrau on Music and Performance:
Arrau: I used to go up to fourteen hours. That was, for instance, practicing Mazeppa. Even my aunt, who loved music, came in after the thirteenth hour and said, "Darling, please stop. I'm going mad!" And I couldn't have cared less. That's when I was eighteen, nineteen. Another time I got a bill from a neighbor who had to go to a nerve sanatorium for six months. That must have been in the late 1920s. Today I usually practice two or three hours. Sometimes, when I am relearning something, or studying something I have never played, five to six. But that's very seldom. (p. 107)
Emily wrote:
Chopin told his students to never practice more than 3 hours a day.
Apparently he did no more than that. I can't see how that's possible.
Guy wrote:
I practice as long as it takes. At this point I have been performing almost fifty years (YIKES!! I suddenly feel very old!). About a month ago I played piano in a performance of Mozart's G Minor Piano Quartet. Even though I have performed this work many times, I still found it necessary to practice some of the licks over and over for hours. I reached a point where I was glad when a student would miss a lesson because I would have an extra half hour of practice time.
For me the issue is not one of quantity so much as quality. As a teacher said long ago: "Practice does not make perfect; it makes permanent. Only perfect practice makes perfect." Add to this the difference between the amateur and the professional: The amateur practices until they get it right; the professional practices until they can not get it wrong.
How much do I practice? As much as I can! Now days most of my performing is as a conductor. Every free moment is spent studying scores, planning gestures to communicate meaning, practicing especially difficult passages so that when I go before the orchestra there is no wasted time. Professional players hate conductors who are not prepared!
A few weeks back I was called to fill in as a ringer in an orchestral second violin section. I had never played the works on the program and could only attend one rehearsal. I had planned on the hour before the concert start to do some woodshedding on tricky spots. The conductor instead called a rehearsal onstage before the house opened to go over some sections that were difficult for him. I resented that. He should have been better prepared. His lack of preparation cut into my rehearsal time. My playing suffered as a result because I could not spend that time doing what I needed to do. Instead, I had to sit mostly inactive while he rehearsed some difficult cues with other sections.
Bill wrote:
Many of my friends are concert professionals and they
often practice as much as 8-10 hours a day
particularly when they are adding new works to their
repetoire. I myself spend anywhere between 8 to 12
hours a day when I do not have students.
There comes a point that no matter how much one
practices it becomes a waste of time. When this
situation occurs ---it is time to lay off for a while
and come back latter----one often finds that one plays
at a much better higher level after this. The
principal behind this is the famous old Biology
Galvanni experment in which the muscles of a frog are
disected out and stimulated with an electric current.
There comes a time when no matter how much current is
applied--the muscles do not respond. But if allowed
torest a while they respond better than before.
Alyssa wrote:
When I was a performance major I practiced between 4 and 6 hours a day. I might have practiced more if I wasn't required to be in classes. Now that I have a permanent performance injury, I don't practice much ... maybe an hour or two. I ended up changing my major and becoming a general/vocal music teacher, but I still practice piano .. it calls to me from out of the mist.
Ann wrote:
It varies very widely. I think that it's true that some people do practice 6 hours a day (I know a few) but once out of school, the professional performer would have a hard time finding that amount of time to practice every day.
For a chamber music concert, part of the practice is involved with the other people, so the rehearsal time is part of the equation. I usually will rehearse anywhere from 8-12 hours in the weeks before a chamber music performance, and personal practice will happen outside of that time. For a solo recital I can manage at my maximum to practice four hours in a day-split up in two parts. This is separate from any rehearsals with the pianist or any other accompanying artitsts. This is only possible when I don't have any orchestral rehearsals or performances in those days. Otherwise, you just do what you can, when you can!
Yehlaina wrote:
My violin teacher's sister went professional for a while and she
practiced four hours a day. She eventually burned out and got sick
of it. If six is the norm, wow.
Karl wrote:
Six hours a day plus rehearsals sounds like too much to me. When I was
a full-time music performance student, I once figured out that I was
averaging about 5.5 hours a day of playing. I had symphony rehearsals
three times a week for 2 hours each, chamber music rehearsals once or
twice a week, a lesson once a week, and the rest was practice. So it
was more like 3 hours per day of practice. Certainly, professionals may
do more than that, particularly if they are preparing for a solo
performance or something. However, it's important to remember that the
brain and the muscles can't assimilate everything in 24 hours. So
certainly, one can over practice. My viola teacher suggested that I
work on one type of thing one day, and something else on the next day.
Say, fast technical passages one day, and lyrical stuff the next. It
seemed to work. Even now, I find that what I practice comes into play
two days later.
John H. wrote:
I think the only possible answer to this question is, "it depends."
And in the first analysis, it depends on what KIND of practice you
are talking about. There is "warming up," which any dancer, athlete,
or musician has to have a routine for, to literally warm up and
stretch the muscles you will be using, and to bring both your finger
dexterity and bow arm control up to whatever your maintenance level
is so you're ready to start playing.
Then there's maintenance practice, which would follow your warmups
and have the goal of making sure your maintenance level is where you
want it to be, and at the level needed to meet your professional
obligations. This would normally include both technical work and
interpretive solo work, and probably learning new solo material as
well.
And then there's practice with the goal of improving your playing and
raising your maintenance level. That's the most important practice
that students do, and is very necessary for anyone who wants to move
from where they are to a higher level of playing and a higher
maintenance level.
It would not, perhaps, be out of place to mention a few things about
George Bornoff. As a young man, with both concertizing and
orchestral credits already earned, he decided to prepare himself for
the highest level of certification in the Royal School Exams. (I may
have the terminology wrong, but our Canadian and UK members will know
what I mean.) He set himself a program, on top of his ongoing
professional commitments, of 5,000 hours of practice for that
preparation. (That's the way his mind worked, very objective and
very organized.) Finding that the traditional studies were taking
too much of his practice time, he began to look carefully at all the
traditional materials, analyze their effectiveness, strike out those
which seemed inefficient or had questionable goals, and expand upon
those which seemed truly useful by adding many bowing variations
among other things. When my parents first met him in the mid-1940s,
he was still using the traditional study books, but only with his own
careful editing.
The important point here is that he didn't do this triage work
because of some philosophy or theory, but for his own personal use in
preparing for his self-determined goal. Very practical, very
goal-oriented, and very much an engineering approach in his use of
time-benefit analysis and reinventing. And his own students then
benefited from the increased efficiency of his teaching. This is the
background out of which his own materials gradually emerged, and
which helped form both his philosophy of teaching and his methodology.
Bornoff also thought in terms of "pure technique" and "applied
technique." To oversimplify grossly, his pure technique had mostly
to do with tone production and quality of sound, and students brought
up in his teaching had highly developed tone and well developed
bowing and phrasing THAT DID NOT REQUIRE CONSTANT PRACTICE TO
MAINTAIN. His applied technique related to the more demanding bow
controls and fingering technique, which DO require practice to
maintain or to improve. (And which do gradually become part of one's
pure technique, I think. In this, as in many things, it can be
difficult for a mere human being to work through the many layers of
thinking that his own mind was perfectly comfortable with.)
Fast forward to me, a product of that upbringing. I play at
maintenance level, I'm aware of it, and I accept that for my life and
professional commitments that's as good as it's going to get. I was
never a performance major, even though performance has always been an
important part of my life. In grad school, when I had the privilege
of studying with Mr. Primrose, it was downright scary to walk into my
semester juries and see him sitting there along with Joe Gingold and
Janos Starker, but then someone would notice that I was a choral
conducting major and they became less ogre-like! I practice as much
as my classroom, conducting, arranging and other duties allow, which
is to say ZERO! My sightreading is excellent and my tone (pure
technique!) is always good, and I can work through most technical
challenges during rehearsals. I'm not a high-level professional
player, and I have the utmost respect for those like Nardo and Doris
Lederer who are, and who demonstrate what the instrument is capable
of.
>> In other words, six hours a day is about the norm, and this is *not* including any rehearsal time, lessons, or teaching.
For those within the rather narrow subset that you define, that would
not be unreasonable at all. I was a 9-year-old who memorized his
weekly assignments so I could play through them while reading a comic
book on my stand. Bornoff got me to promise to practice 4 hours a
day, and his assignments were so masterful and so demanding that I
could barely get through them in 4 hours a day.
>> Carol in our group thinks that two hours a day is sufficient, and what Pamela Frank (for example) says she practices. I don't think it's possible.
Well, it all depends on the kind of practice and on what your goals
are at a given point in your life. For a DMA student in viola
performance, it would be laughably insufficient. For a full time
teacher with a busy studio it might be barely enough to sustain
maintenance level, but all that's physically possible. For a
professional orchestral player it might sometimes be all that's
possible and other times not be enough, depending on the number of
services and other family commitments. There is, after all, a
certain level of masochism required for the successful mastery of an
instrument that is not known for providing instant gratification!
I've defined my own level of playing. I really look forward to
reading comments from the REAL professionals on the list.
Peter wrote:
I am a piano teacher and an amateur performer. I do 2 hours a day on average.
3 hours before I have a full recital. 4 hours a day is about maximum for me.
John K. wrote:
From what I have seen it all depends on the grade of automatization
that has been acquired by the player. The more of dexterity is stored and
managed unconsciously, the less time is necessary to practice - and vice-versa,
the more the player has to rely on his conscious will to achieve his goal,
the more time he will need to organize it all.
This again is a question of the type of memories each person has - and
in that respect, the mixtures are infinite, and every person is therefore
different. Those persons with pronounced tactile memories need less
practice time.
I dont believe one can make a rule - it is a very personal matter. Just
an example: I have seen good players that without half an hour warm up
play miserably out of tune. Others just walk out on the stage and play
perfectly well. If this is just a matter of bad technique is open for discussion - a good player who needs warm-up is supposed to have a decent technique, after all..
The diversity is too big - I dont see any ironfast rule for this.
Erik wrote:
Nigel Kennedy once said in a Strings Magazine article that he did about 3-4 hours of practice a day, and that his day would 'revolve around' this practice session. Nigel also said he would allot one hour of this practice to Bach.
Personally I feel 6 hours a day is too much for most people to handle on a regular basis. Keep in mind that some soloists are able to get away with just 3 hours of practice because they are repeating the same concertos over and over. After several years of playing the Tchaikovsky concerto, it's ingrained in the head and to get it back you might just need to warm up a little.
I personally aim for around 3-4 hours a day, and I try to aim for high concentration. I feel that's a pretty good number to aim for. If you are learning something on short notice you might need to do well over that each day, but if you practice consistently everyday you should be able to learn a recital's worth of material in a proper time.
Bradley wrote:
I rarely get in more than an hour or two of practice in a day, unless
it's within a week or so of the gig (when it's nice to get in one
three-hour or four-hour session once, if possible...plus any group
rehearsals). I can't remember that I have ever done anything
approaching six hours in a day, as to practicing by myself.
But then again, I'm not a fan of *listening* to performances that are
too heavily drilled to be mechanically even, too predictable. Maybe
it's just a difference of aesthetic expectations. There shouldn't be
any outright errors of notes or rhythms, but I like to hear all kinds of
flexibility and "going with the flow" such that every performance sounds
alert and differently nuanced, in the moment. That can be defeated by
over-practicing.
This might matter, too: I don't play instruments where there is a
requirement or expectation to perform the music from memory.
I tend to spend as much time analyzing the music at a desk, as working
any of it into my fingers at an instrument. If I mark enough of the
firm decisions first, before wasting time with too many play-throughs,
my fingers won't learn intuitive phrasings or articulations that don't
fit my analytical interpretation...and I won't have to unlearn automated
things in my hands. I try to pick fingerings that give exactly the
sound I believe the composition needs, even if it's not the most
immediately convenient fingering when just sitting down to sight-read.
The right phrasing is very important to me. Hence the need to analyze
the musical points to be brought out, *before* spending too much time at
the keyboard.
Then, if time allows, I try to play through the music at least once on
all three of harpsichord, clavichord, and organ, to see what the
different instruments contribute toward my conception of the piece.
Clavichord is the best for working out any truly tricky spots, because
it forgives nothing until the control is perfect and the music has been
thought about thoroughly. Clavichord sessions are the most exhausting.
Samples from my recent recordings:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/samples.html
http://www.last.fm/label/LaripS/
(Will be uploading the other albums there soon....)
Erin wrote:
I have heard that most professionals practice at least six hours a day, and I can think of a few who I have heard that play nine hours a day.
Nardo wrote:
I don't know any professional who begins to have that kind of time to practice every day. I would say two hours is more realistic and, more importantly, quite enough (if one can even find THAT amount of time).
Bonnie wrote:
It does seem that many young performers practice six hours or so a day, this becomes physically impossible for some, perhaps most people in their 40s and 50s. One of my former teachers, an active performer, said this quite unabashedly, I used to practice five and a half hours a day but I can't now. The same teacher, however, insisted that when you are at the age where it is
possible, exactly five and a half hours a day, no more and no less, is
what you should be practicing. He is quite convinced that it is
profitable up to that point but no farther, which I very much disagree with as
that really seems to depend on the person, for both physical reasons,
concentration reasons, and artistic process reasons. I have heard four
hours more often stated as the point after which it's no use. (Carol
Montparker, editor of Clavier magazine, says in her book A Pianist's
Landscape that that is the case for her.) In any case, though there are
plenty of people who practice six hours or more, and there is Liszt who
practiced fourteen, I think six hours is quite a bit too much to expect
of everyone, especially busy performers who spend half their time on
airplanes and the other half on the stage.
David wrote:
I heard an interview with James Galway where he said that he doesn't
practice much at all. He's so busy playing and rehearsing that he
doesn't have time for practicing.
I wonder if for a touring artist there is any such thing as a 'normal
practice routine' -- they might not get to practice much at all outside
of rehearsals and performances (paid practice like that is always fun!)
but when they aren't on tour, they may practice night and day to get
ready for the next tour.
It will be interesting to hear what sorts of responses you get.
I heard jazz bassist John Clayton saying that he does 1.5-2 hours each
morning of just scale practice, THEN he starts his "real" practicing to
get ready for upcoming performances and concert dates, which goes on
for another 2 or 3 hours until he needs to leave home to get to recording
sessions or rehearsals or performances.
Adrienne wrote:
Wow...any pro who says they practice six hours either doesn't sleep,
has no life, or is LYING.
I know some who practice six hours a day when preparing for an
audition, but those who actually have jobs neither have the time nor
is it necessary to practice quite that much...
Stefanie wrote:
I think you'll find that the answer is different for everyone,
depending on a number of factors:
age (I have gotten more efficient in my practicing as the years have
gone on--and becoming a mother has had a LOT to do with that)
time (how much anyone has on a given day--even full time concert
artists have lives, one assumes, and other demands on their time)
need--if it's a program full of chamber-music that I have never
played before, I put in a lot more hours than if it's a piece I've
been playing for years--because I need to. With so many possibilities
out there for a repetitive-stress injury, I need to listen to my
muscles and allocate my time accordingly.
I was raised with the work ethic of "you must practice 4 hours a day"
(with "or else!" strongly implied). I no longer consider this
approach reasonable. If I can get the day's tasks completed in 2
hours, that is great--if the piece is new, and very difficult (like
Paul Moravec's incredible trio, "Mood Swings", which took individual
and collective hours and hours from all 3 of us, but was entirely
worth it), I've been known to put in 6 hours once in a while...but in
the interests of long-term health, I can't do it too often.
Tarek wrote:
The important point : work smart, not hard
Jason wrote:
I'm a professionally trained pianist and if I have a concert or competition coming up then try 3 hours, but consistently two. Though I have to quote Chopin saying 6 hours mechanical practice is far worse and better a couple of hours of just listenining to every sound. Though when I had to play Prokofiev 3 at the RCM I felt urged to practice till my fingers dropped off. It paid off luckily. I find taking a few weeks off after a concert beneficial. As there seems more imagination and good planning as a result, when practising again. Though us teachers also need to teach too.
Antonio wrote:
Pardon me for being blunt and sans couth, but any teacher who advocates or
insists practicing 6 hours a day needs to be poked with one of those Glasser
bows. And any professional who passes the polygraph admitting that they
practice 6 hours a day needs to look into a healthier hobby like alcoholism.
Practicing--regardless of the individuals level of achievement--should never
be gauged on how long. It's not a prison sentence where you get time off for
good spiccato. Practicing should be goal oriented; i.e. I want to work on
this or that for technique, I want to work on this for repertoire, and I
want to focus on these problem spots in whatever. To focus on a clock (and
not technique) for 6 hours leaves a better chance for one to perfect their
mistakes.
Scott wrote:
>> And any professional who passes the polygraph admitting that they practice 6 hours a day needs to look into a healthier hobby like alcoholism.
Haha! I certainly agree with what has been said... I definitely don't
practice 6 hours any more, probably the most I'd ever do would be 3 or
4 (on a day where I didn't have any other services.)
But back in college and earlier some days I would practice 6 or even 8
or 10 hours in a day. A lot of that was going down dead-end streets,so
to speak, but when you're trying to figure out how to do something,
that'll happen.
I think the reason we don't need to practice nearly as much later on is
we can avoid the dead end streets and take a straight path to what we
need to work up.
Csaba wrote:
I am so glad to read Scott's comment. In my college years I also practiced 6-7
hours a day, because I was so passionately dissatisfied with my level of viola
playing, plus I realized that it was the only time when I had the opportunity to learn the major pieces of the viola repertoire with my wonderful professor,
Lukacs.
This five-year marathon of practicing became the foundation of my technique
and professional endurance that has been serving me ever since. I recommend
the same to my college students.
Catherine wrote:
I'll throw in one of my favorite quotes about practicing. A now famous jazz guitarist did an interview years ago, before he was as "prominent" as he is today. The interviewer asked him, "How much do you practice?" The guitarist said "I never practice, I play"
Cody wrote:
My teachers Vicki Chiang and Ralph Fielding are always pushing students
to try to practice smarter, rather than practice longer. So if you have
a well-defined goal when you begin your practice session, you are better
served if you can find an actual solution to that problem and then put
in the necessary time to retain the solution.
Most of the teachers I have had identify problems in my playing when I
play for them in lessons. Then I would go practice many hours and try
to fix it, but looking back on that now I realize that it was horribly
inefficient practice. Ralph Fielding will usually identify a problem
and show me a way to practice it that will solve the problem much
quicker than what I would have otherwise done. Some of these practice
techniques are still new to me, and it still takes me plenty of time to
learn things but I feel that I am becoming more efficient in my practice
than I have been before.
Zan wrote:
Long before your jazz guitarist, Wanda Landowski, famous
pianist/harpsichordist, said "I never practise. I play music."
I have a feeling she meant that, even in technical improvement of a
passage, the "making music of it" must not be omitted," i.e., the dynamics
and the intended interpretation and why. That's controversial, but
intriguing. If you de-nude the passage, you may be likely to perform it
de-nuded.
Laura wrote:
One point not yet addressed is how long it takes to practice an hour -- the answer, at least for me, is *not* 60 minutes. Even before recent shoulder surgery I have had to take long breaks after about 45 minutes of practicing; the result is that it takes me about six hours of the day to practice a total of 3 hours. It isn't just the physical stamina thing -- for me, at any rate, it is about focus and concentration. Do others on the list have this
experience too?
I worry about students who say they are practicing more than three hours a day. In addition to the microscopic injuries that they are building over time, it tells me that they are probably not practicing efficiently and with clear intent. One thing I hope I have imparted to students over the years is that they must know *why* they are practicing each measure, and focus on that particular "why" when practicing. Specific technical issue? Intonation? Phrasing? Putting it all together? Physical memorization?
Csaba (and others) point out that there are moments in each musician's life when they have the opportunity to practice all day (summer festivals, practice retreats, etc) and there are times when circumstances demand lots of extra practice time -- audition and competition preparation, for example. I agree with that. However, I think that teachers owe it to their students to prepare them, too, for the real world after school, when time to practice is often a luxury. If they haven't learned to be efficient while in school, the
transition to professional life is going to be much more difficult.
Cornelia wrote:
Greetings; and what a great discussion! I've passed it on to the harplist as I know many people there will be interested in the comments.
As a viola major, I typically practiced 6 hours a day and was told by my teacher that it wasn't enough. I gave up and quit for about 25 years.
As a harpist who has only played about 3 years, I find that I progress much more satisfactorily if I practice for shorter periods of time and take breaks in between. In fact, when I take a day off I often find that I'm better than I was the last time I practiced. I'm also finding that alternating between the harp and violin is beneficial. My brain just seems to need to switch gears now and again in order to work its best.
But - when I joined a 100+ member Scottish fiddle group, I practiced as much as possible, many hours, in order to learn the repertoire in preparation for a concert series. I really had no choice. In order to play in the concerts, I had to learn and memorize the pieces. I guess it just shows that I do what I have to do under the circumstances and try to enjoy the process no matter what it takes.
Michael wrote:
The topic of practice is a very interesting one and it is
fascinating to read what has been posted. As a teacher of many kids
looking for the magic potion to get great results without breaking a
sweat, I always relate the practice stories of Franz von Vescey and
Vladamir Horowitz. In my opinion, I feel that these two are great
musicians and technicians. Von Vescey was said to practice 8 hours
per day on a light day and 12-14 hours per day on his normal days.
Horowitz did not understand how anyone could practice more than two
hours per day, regardless of the size of program. So I tell my kids
to practice anywhere between 2 and 14 hours per day if they want to
become one of the greatest musicians ever, and that they can stop
the days practice once they have perfected everything. If it is
perfect (yes, a relative term) after 20 minutes, I tell them they
can stop praticing for the day or if they have the talent, for the
week. Or they can practice 14 hours per day. Or they have my
blessing to practice even more. My [serious] students soon realize
that to accomplish what I ask, 2-4 hours per day is required.
How much do I practice? I average 2-4 hours per day regardless of
the size of repertoire. But obviously I need to practice more
becuase I am yet to give THE perfect performance and I am, according
to my friends, not as great a musician as Horowitz, Rubinstein,
Primrose, or any other master who practices a few hours per day.
Or maybe I just need new friends...
|
