From what I've seen, there's probably about a 50-50 split among the people who contribute here with any frequency - and some of that 50-50 is within the practice practices of individuals; i.e., someone takes a formal approach for awhile, then a 'play what you feel' approach, then back to more formality, etc. And a number of us seem to have used methodical, consistent approaches in our early, beginning years of fiddling, but not so much later on. Whatever works.

Well, having a routine is helpful until it becomes a rut. For me, with aging joints I need at least fifteen minutes of warmup before I can attempt playing anything faster than dance tempo. So I do scales and arpeggios in their key groups. I also have an exercise book The Fiddlers Friend, that I work with. After that I have sets of varying difficulty that I play with. What is important in learning will vary from player to player so decide what is best for you through trial and error. Learning to fiddle is a lifetime project. Enjoy the process.

The thing is, most folk on this site have backgrounds in other skills and disciplines. A few have been playing since they were small—some in a 'structured way' and others in a more organic 'just play' sort of way. Some come from other instruments, while others have been playing fiddle or violin from the beginning, and some are absolute beginners. To try to lump these all together is a dubious strategy for trying to be of any sort of assistance whatsoever. All you can do is upload a few tunes and try to explain how and why you play them that way; someone might cotton on. I personally think that structured stuff is great... on a 'need-to-know' basis.

Noah,
I read your bio.
Since 2017. That's good. How many hours total?
I used to think everyone is different and everyone learns in different ways. It's only partially true. If we were all completely unique, it would be impossible to develop a curriculum. It would be like if everyone spoke in there own unique language, so nobody would understand each other. Certainly there are many types of learning. Simply find an instructor that uses the perfered curriculum. Without an instructor, one is endanger of re-inventing the wheel.

"It's only partially true."

Say it's 50/50 true, this is where some follow a curriculum, and others follow something else, i would suggest that for most folk on this site it is too late to follow a curriculum, unless they are in their teens maximum. just got to find another way to try to achieve their goals.

I found that the formal lessons I took at the beginning of my fiddling journey...and through the next several years, as well...were the best things I ever did to get my fiddling up'n running. Utterly no question about it. Jamming with other folks at bars & parties went a long way, too.
At the very least it truly helps to watch other fiddlers play. See and listen as folks do it right! See and listen to folks do it wrong!

More important than the structure you choose to work in is whether you are one who starts at the beginning and methodically works along the structure, A, B, C, or you are one who tends to learn by taking an overview and working on the various parts as you come to understand them. Not recognizing your own learning style might hold you back.

I tend toward the latter. Some would call that by definition unstructured, but I don't. It's like working on a large painting. Some start in a corner and build out the whole picture from there. Others work on it all at once. It's more about discipline within your learning style. Your practice time should include working with the intent of improving problem spots. I don't necessarily work  along progressively from one thing to the next. But whatever I'm working on often has a structure in the moment meant to better my playing.

Not that I'm all serious about it either. I play because it's fun.

There was another thread on this topic recently that’s relevant:

fiddlehangout.com/topic/60721

I think it depends somewhat on your intentions. If you’re looking for improvements in specific areas of technique or are looking to learn a specific repertoire, a structured approach is more likely to yield the fastest results. The shortest distance between two points is a line, so the straighter and less meandering line you draw, the quicker the progress along its length.

If you’re playing for personal entertainment it’s a different consideration. Progress isn’t as much of a goal if you’re more focused on just enjoying time playing.

For specific techniques, the shortest lines have already long been drawn, so it’s really a matter of using the best sources and putting in the quality time to make the surest and swiftest progress.

Tracking your own progress in some way can be a motivation and can at times show where work is needed if there is uncertainty. The only caveat is that one shouldn’t get more invested in the tracking than the progress itself—it’s easy to obsess over the data collection and lose sight of the reason for the effort.

Thank you all for so many useful comments. I was very pleasantly surprised

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete_fiddle

The thing is, most folk on this site have backgrounds in other skills and disciplines. A few have been playing since they were small—some in a 'structured way' and others in a more organic 'just play' sort of way. Some come from other instruments, while others have been playing fiddle or violin from the beginning, and some are absolute beginners. To try to lump these all together is a dubious strategy for trying to be of any sort of assistance whatsoever. All you can do is upload a few tunes and try to explain how and why you play them that way; someone might cotton on. I personally think that structured stuff is great... on a 'need-to-know' basis.

---

Yes, I also came to the violin after the guitar, there I moved from a structured game over time to a more free and improvised one, I hope I can do the same here over time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by farmerjones

Noah,
I read your bio.
Since 2017. That's good. How many hours total?
I used to think everyone is different and everyone learns in different ways. It's only partially true. If we were all completely unique, it would be impossible to develop a curriculum. It would be like if everyone spoke in there own unique language, so nobody would understand each other. Certainly there are many types of learning. Simply find an instructor that uses the perfered curriculum. Without an instructor, one is endanger of re-inventing the wheel.

---

Yes, I started playing in 2017, now I play for about 2-3 hours every day or every other day, more for pleasure as a break from my main job?

The notion that everyone learns in a personal way is pervasive and unfortunately has even been promoted by a lot of schoolteachers in the recent past, but it has been debunked over and over. People are not so unique as they like to believe, and the methods by which they learn things are not nearly as mysterious as they’re often made out to be.

As far as I’m concerned the most important ingredient for practice structure is sleep. Getting regular good quality sleep trumps everything!

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

The notion that everyone learns in a personal way is pervasive and unfortunately has even been promoted by a lot of schoolteachers in the recent past, but it has been debunked over and over. People are not so unique as they like to believe, and the methods by which they learn things are not nearly as mysterious as they’re often made out to be.

---

I get the feeling that's directed at me. I don't defend the idea that people learn in infinite different personal ways, but rather the simpler distinction that there are 2 basic approaches to learning anything sometimes referred to as "grouping" and "stringing". Groupers and Stringers have different different advantages to their approach in learning new material. Becoming aware of your tendency can allow you to stop fighting against it if you have been taught it is incorrect, or to help you try to adopt strategies from the other style to broaden your approach. It's not about technique, it's about psychology.

Okay, if we're going to get all macro about it .... A few months back, my doctor bullied me into drinking much more water than I was (which was virtually none). I gradually, grudgingly, and grumblingly, got into the habit of carrying a giant mug of water around with me, and sipping away at it - and, I have to admit, I'm finding the lubrication helps everything, including the brain. And, incidentally, it seems to have 'cured' a scratchiness in the throat that had been bothering me as a singer for the past 5-10 years. So I'm all up on the water bandwagon now, and insist on bothering everyone about it ....

Now, don't get me started on the benefits of a healthy diet!

Your conversion to drinking water regularly is good. I likewise stay hydrated, but with beer. You can actually live on beer because it has some nutrients and is more hydrating than it is dehydrating (it's both). Winos, on the other hand, will die without water, or beer.

Yes, I was going to mention that Labatt's, Molson, and Moosehead are all mostly water.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Wood

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

The notion that everyone learns in a personal way is pervasive and unfortunately has even been promoted by a lot of schoolteachers in the recent past, but it has been debunked over and over. People are not so unique as they like to believe, and the methods by which they learn things are not nearly as mysterious as they’re often made out to be.

---

I get the feeling that's directed at me. I don't defend the idea that people learn in infinite different personal ways, but rather the simpler distinction that there are 2 basic approaches to learning anything sometimes referred to as "grouping" and "stringing". Groupers and Stringers have different different advantages to their approach in learning new material. Becoming aware of your tendency can allow you to stop fighting against it if you have been taught it is incorrect, or to help you try to adopt strategies from the other style to broaden your approach. It's not about technique, it's about psychology.

---

No, my comment was based on a couple other posts in the thread.

While I do think that a lot of people are convinced that learning follows a different path for every learner, it seems to be clear that this is not a realistic or accurate assessment, and scientific research confirms this. I haven't read up enough on the theory you mention about learning methods to have an opinion.

I like to make cycling analogies, so I'll compare it to perceived effort. While at face value, perceived effort sounds simple and seems as though it ought to be a good way to roughly measure performance, riders at every level are largely incapable of gauging performance by this metric. Thus there have been many developments in technology to look for better data (speedometers, cadence sensors, GPS data, power meters, heart rate monitors, FTP tests, VO2 max tests, etc.).

This is why I don't agree with the argument that one should rely on one's own judgment for everything. I don't think any useful judgment can be made without the prior acquisition of good and accurate information. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Wood

Your conversion to drinking water regularly is good. I likewise stay hydrated, but with beer. You can actually live on beer because it has some nutrients and is more hydrating than it is dehydrating (it's both). Winos, on the other hand, will die without water, or beer.

---

The amount of hydration depends on the alcohol content. If it's a small beer, there's some hydrating effect, but since alcohol is a diuretic, the higher the ABV, the more it dehydrates. I don't think the ABV has to be very high before it dehydrates more, unfortunately. 

I spent a few years (15) away from music and worked as a skydiving instructor. In skydiving it can’t be stressed enough that first learning is crucial. No matter how ingrained subsequent learning is when a person is under sudden extreme stress they are more likely to revert back to what they learnt first even if they know it to be incorrect. This also makes a lot of sense for learning music.

"In skydiving it can’t be stressed enough that first learning is crucial"........But what isn't crucial is skydiving....Lol...Suppose fiddling aint either but its a lot safer imo.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DougD

Yes, I was going to mention that Labatt's, Molson, and Moosehead are all mostly water.

---

Hey - them's fightin' words!  Anyway, not like Budweiser, Coors, and Miller, which are mostly ... aw, ferget it ... !

quote:

---

Originally posted by DougD

Yes, I was going to mention that Labatt's, Molson, and Moosehead are all mostly water.

---

Perhaps I have an unusual metabolism. I also have excellent taste in beer. I drink a goodly amount of 5.6% Sierra Nevada Pale and it agrees with me. Maybe I'm staying ahead of the dehydration.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete_fiddle

"In skydiving it can’t be stressed enough that first learning is crucial"....

---

I probably missed it if this has been discussed, but my attention was caught by "first learning"? There must be studies on the effects of what things are learned first in any skill. Are things learned first etched more deeply than later alternative ways of doing something? That seems plausible. But is it a big effect? How hard is "first learning" to correct if necessary? How much can a fiddler be held back by starting out "wrong"? Skydiving seems a good example for reacting correctly when something needs to be done quickly.

As a retired teacher in industrial arts and technology of 36 years I agree that there are definitely certain educational procedures that work best for most students. But I don't fully agree that they work well for everyone. Exceptions exist for individuals who for instance, read and write from right to left as easily as the rest of us read from left to right. Or individuals who think pictorially rather than understanding written instruction. In my observation of learning fiddlers there seem to be two types somewhat along the lines of the original post. There are those that learn very well by note for note methods taught by instructors or books and then there are those which seem to learn by absorbing the sound and developing the techniques needed to get them to that sound. Both methods require a lot of listening, in my opinion. I have frankly used both techniques at different times. You could say that the first is more formal and sequential in approach and the second a bit more scattered. Both seem to work. In the end it's up to the individual to find the approach that works for them understanding that different approaches may work better at different times.