Read an Excerpt

Almost every music teacher has encountered a student who returns to a lesson with the same difficulties that were discussed the previous week. The student may have practiced regularly, followed the assignment, and genuinely tried to improve, yet the passage remains unstable or the technical problem persists.

The usual response is to recommend more practice. Sometimes that is exactly what is needed. Musical skills require repetition, concentration, and sustained effort, and no method can eliminate the time necessary to develop them. But when a student has already invested considerable effort without achieving meaningful improvement, simply asking for more of the same may accomplish very little.

This distinction is fundamental to music education. Students are frequently expected to work independently for many hours between lessons, yet the ability to organize that work is often treated as something they will acquire naturally. Teachers explain what needs improvement, assign exercises, and expect students to return with better results. But recognizing a difficulty and knowing how to resolve it are two very different abilities.

An experienced musician may hear an uneven passage and immediately begin considering possible causes. Is the problem rhythmic? Does a particular movement interfere with coordination? Is the student attempting to play too quickly? Has an awkward fingering become habitual? Is the musical pattern itself poorly understood?

A developing student may hear only that the passage is wrong.

Without the ability to identify the problem more precisely, the student may repeat it from beginning to end, hoping that familiarity will eventually produce accuracy. Sometimes improvement occurs, but it may be slow, inconsistent, or dependent on chance.

Effective practice requires a more deliberate process. Musicians must learn to observe what is happening, identify what needs to change, select an appropriate method, and evaluate whether that method is producing the intended result.

Research into the development of expert performance offers further support for this distinction. In their influential 1993 study, psychologists K. Anders Ericsson, Ralf Krampe, and Clemens Tesch-Römer distinguished deliberate practice from repetition that merely reinforces existing habits. They emphasized that improvement depends on activities designed to address specific weaknesses, supported by meaningful feedback and the opportunity to adjust ineffective strategies. Their discussion also highlights the teacher’s responsibility to organize appropriate learning tasks and help students develop more effective methods of working independently. For music education, the implication is significant: the quality of practice depends not only on the student’s effort, but also on whether that effort is directed toward a clearly understood purpose (Ericsson et al., 1993, pp. 367–368).

These abilities are not simply prerequisites for advanced musical study. They should be developed from the earliest stages of learning, in forms appropriate to the student’s experience.

Understanding What Students Actually Do at Home

When practice does not produce the expected results, it is useful to investigate the process rather than immediately judge the student’s effort.

Asking how much time a student spent practicing provides some information, but it reveals relatively little about the quality of that work. Two students may spend the same amount of time on a passage and achieve very different results because they approach the difficulty differently.

One may repeat the passage continuously, making small adjustments without clearly identifying what is changing. Another may isolate the difficult transition, examine the movements involved, practice a carefully selected variation, and gradually reconnect the passage to its musical context.