Lesson frequency from another forum

[timothy42b]

Found this on another forum (not piano, and mostly populated by adults)

It's just one person's opinion, in response to a question about how often to have lessons.  It made sense though. 

Forty minutes of professional critique and guidance for each twenty-five hours of ~applied~ self ~studying~ (i.e. not just "messing around, but drilling, self-critiquing, and striving for improvement ..."Playing though things that everyone agrees are already mastered" do not count towards the 25 hours).

One-on-one guidance more often that that is a waste of your money, and/or (particularly if the teach is undercharging) the teacher's time.

[keypeg]

Found this on another forum (not piano, and mostly populated by adults)

Forty minutes of professional critique and guidance for each twenty-five hours of ~applied~ self ~studying~ (i.e. not just "messing around, but drilling, self-critiquing, and striving for improvement ..."Playing though things that everyone agrees are already mastered" do not count towards the 25 hours).

One-on-one guidance more often that that is a waste of your money, and/or (particularly if the teach is undercharging) the teacher's time.

It's just one person's opinion, in response to a question about how often to have lessons.  It made sense though. 

So once a week, then? 

[timothy42b]

So once a week, then? 

In his mind, it made more sense to have the interval linked to the number of learning events rather than an arbitrary elapsed time.  There could be weeks where life interferes and you just get very little practicing done. 

But yes, it very well could be once a week.  You practice 6 hours per day, 50% of it is productive, so that's 3 hours times 7, well 21 is pretty close to 25.

Adult hobbyists probably work out to monthly.

[keypeg]

But yes, it very well could be once a week.  You practice 6 hours per day, 50% of it is productive, so that's 3 hours times 7, well 21 is pretty close to 25.

I was being tongue in cheek and mean to write more intelligently on it later.  But no; 3 hours per day, all of it proper practice, being 21 which is close to 25.

[lostinidlewonder]

The amount of work one can go through depends on the individual, I can set out a very efficient plan to study from for any amount of time that the student can put into their work within a period of time. There is no point in me setting 25 hours worth of work for the week and the student barely can get through it.  Depending on my students time/capabilities I will set out a plan for work which I expect they can accomplish by the next time we meet. A large part of the learning process then is to increase their rate and efficiency of learning not necessarily their time put in. For example if I study the piano for 1 hour it might be equivalent to 40 hours of an early beginner studying, that is an important point to consider.  

Some students I see are monthly students so the amount of work we set is much larger, some are fortnightly and some are weekly, very very few have been more than 2 or 3 times a week but it does happen especially when there are examinations or competitions around the corner. Back in the old day rich students would have lessons every day. I would say beginners benefit from more lessons than much more advanced students, all of my monthly and the majority of my fortnightly students are advanced students who know very well how to work on their own and use me to assess their work as well as pace them.

Not everyone can work with discipline and consistency so a big part of lessons is teaching this also especially for younger students who are learning about work ethic. If you waited until 25 hours or work was completed you might not see an undisciplined student for a long time and thus you really do a disservice to their education. Some people need motivation to work hard and need to learn how to work, that comes with consistent meetings with a good teacher.

I don't think it would it be helpful to the beginner/intermediate student to say come back to me after you have put in x hours of work, they are not always honest and working on your own can have all sorts of inefficiencies regardless of the time put in. You may set them up for a lot of wasted time especially if they are insecure about working alone which many early students are. Many students only can manage a fraction of an hour each day to study and some even can't study every day, that is not to say they should give up weekly lessons. With periodic lessons you can maintain focus and be more sure of your direction despite the little time you may be able to put in. Of course doing much more work every day is helpful but this world is not a perfect world, you will find only a microscopic % can actually do 3 hours a day, I would say the majority of students can do around 30 mins to an hour and not every day of the week.

[d_b_christopher]

The amount of work one can go through depends on the individual, I can set out a very efficient plan to study from for any amount of time that the student can put into their work within a period of time. There is no point in me setting 25 hours worth of work for the week and the student barely can get through it.  Depending on my students time/capabilities I will set out a plan for work which I expect they can accomplish by the next time we meet. A large part of the learning process then is to increase their rate and efficiency of learning not necessarily their time put in. For example if I study the piano for 1 hour it might be equivalent to 40 hours of an early beginner studying, that is an important point to consider. 

Some students I see are monthly students so the amount of work we set is much larger, some are fortnightly and some are weekly, very very few have been more than 2 or 3 times a week but it does happen especially when there are examinations or competitions around the corner. Back in the old day rich students would have lessons every day. I would say beginners benefit from more lessons than much more advanced students, all of my monthly and the majority of my fortnightly students are advanced students who know very well how to work on their own and use me to assess their work as well as pace them.

Not everyone can work with discipline and consistency so a big part of lessons is teaching this also especially for younger students who are learning about work ethic. If you waited until 25 hours or work was completed you might not see an undisciplined student for a long time and thus you really do a disservice to their education. Some people need motivation to work hard and need to learn how to work, that comes with consistent meetings with a good teacher.

I don't think it would it be helpful to the beginner/intermediate student to say come back to me after you have put in x hours of work, they are not always honest and working on your own can have all sorts of inefficiencies regardless of the time put in. You may set them up for a lot of wasted time especially if they are insecure about working alone which many early students are. Many students only can manage a fraction of an hour each day to study and some even can't study every day, that is not to say they should give up weekly lessons. With periodic lessons you can maintain focus and be more sure of your direction despite the little time you may be able to put in. Of course doing much more work every day is helpful but this world is not a perfect world, you will find only a microscopic % can actually do 3 hours a day, I would say the majority of students can do around 30 mins to an hour and not every day of the week.

I agree with this response entirely.

I teach students who I require no solo training at all, simply because they are not career musicians and are a hobbyist, or dabbler who dips in when they can.

On the other hand, I teach some students for 2-hour lessons, rehearsing all aspects of their musicianship.  They practise every day for at least one hour on their own.

It very much depends on who is sitting in front of me; however in both cases, once a week.

Teach the student not the lesson; practice music not the piece.

[keypeg]

Ok, actually getting into it.  This is the post you quoted from the other site, Timothy.

Forty minutes of professional critique and guidance for each twenty-five hours of ~applied~ self ~studying~ (i.e. not just "messing around, but drilling, self-critiquing, and striving for improvement ..."Playing though things that everyone agrees are already mastered" do not count towards the 25 hours).

One-on-one guidance more often that that is a waste of your money, and/or (particularly if the teach is undercharging) the teacher's time.

We don't know what kinds of goals the imagined student is pursuing, how the writer envisions piano study at which level and toward what.  I'm assuming someone who (thinks he) knows how to play the piano to some degree, and is aiming to learn to play a particular piece.  That is a single scenario among many.

When I was an actual beginner on an instrument I had never played before, which was also know to be technically difficult, I could have benefited from lessons every two days at the start.  You are working on physical motions for the purpose of sound, and you cannot yet tell when it is slipping, and a week later you've been building on the slipped thing, which needs fixing and undoing.  25 hours between lessons would be a disaster!  That's one scenario.

You may be past that, and you may also be covering a multitude of things other than merely working toward some piece.  I get together with my teacher twice a week, and our lessons go massively over the hour mark.  These are condensed, to-the-point lessons.  There is never enough time for everything, and some things are supplemented by e-mail.  The actual things being covered are of varying nature, at various levels, pieces at different levels of completion, and also at different levels, and the list goes on.  That is another scenario.

In summary, it depends on what kind of scenario, which kinds of goals, etc., that the writer is talking about.  Is there a context in the particular discussion?

[keypeg]

In his mind, it made more sense to have the interval linked to the number of learning events rather than an arbitrary elapsed time.  There could be weeks where life interferes and you just get very little practicing done. 

What I agree with totally  is "rather than an arbitrary elapsed time".  I don't like "counted things", period.  That could be "how many hours practised", "how many days of practice", or "repeat this xxx times".   We sometimes need numbers.  For example, regular weekly lessons has a practical reason.  A teacher needs to plan and schedule his time, and has a roster of students to organize.  "Number of learning events" might work for some people. I'd probably go for things like skills, set goals that have been reached, and so on.

At present, one of the things I'm working on has to do with refining some elements of using the sustain pedal, and some more refined uses of the same (both).  I changed pianos late last year from a cheaper model Yamaha DP that I could afford, to a Kawai hybrid (CA97).  My earlier piano had a pedal that you had to practically floor before it engaged, so I developed a heavy-footed, insensitive, wide motion type of pedaling.  It will take time to reverse that an retrain, in smaller gradual steps.  In this case, I will probably not get back to my teacher on this thing for a while, because simply, the time needs to be spent.  It might even be 3 - 4 weeks from now - maybe a sporadic brief checkup if needed.  But while this is going on, we work on other things.  Biweekly is not enough time. 

[timothy42b]

In summary, it depends on what kind of scenario, which kinds of goals, etc., that the writer is talking about.  Is there a context in the particular discussion?

Yes, the context is quite a bit different.

LIW's approach is another way of doing the same thing.

The originator of that post teaches tuba.  He wants his students to have accomplished a certain level of progress before returning, so he adjusts the time between lessons. 

LIW wants his students to return at a set time, weekly or monthly, so he adjusts the amount of accomplishment desired between lessons. 

It seems to me now that both approaches are ways of doing the same thing:  customizing the lessons to the rate an individual student progresses, limited by their available practice time and rate of learning. 

My lessons are not as frequent as yours, and that is both good and bad.  It allows more time for me to make progress and really work with the concepts from the lesson.  It has also occasionally allowed me to go quite a way down a wrong path, or to forget a fundamental I'd already acquired. 

[keypeg]

I don't play tuba while I know you play brass.  Are there not physical skills to be learned, and if they are learned wrong, are they hard to fix?  Are his students beginners who are just learning to produce the sound, or people who already learned that?
Like, I understand the idea of coming back once you've learned what you need to learn, so that you're not turning the lesson into a repeat of before.  But what about coming back because you CAN'T do something, and need help doing it?  If you have to wait until you can do it, then you might never be coming back, because you need help before going further.

[lostinidlewonder]

The problem I see with forcing x amount of hours study before next having a lesson is that most teachers just wont want to do it. If you are a professional teacher you want your students to come consistently at a specific time. If you don't then your timetable will be haywire and you will lose money. It is a business as well as an educational service, you can't just focus on one or the other, you do want to give good education but at the same time you rely on consistent income and a timetable you can rely on.

Imagine if it took one or two months to accomplish the amount of work desired before meeting with a teacher again, for a beginner this is a big problem. The more time it takes to accomplish a task the more lost and distracted they will generally become. In fact I could imagine if it took a month to get through the work a beginner will have forgotten the majority of the hours they put in, they indeed simply could not even have many effective hours of work put in at all! A teacher can be used as a catalyst for their education despite the little time they have put in.



Consider this 25 hour regime for some set work for a particular student, of course these numbers can change depending on the individual but this gives some idea of what's happening.

The term efficiency used below = correct study with useful results, no wasted time floundering about, knowing what to practice and how etc.

EXAMPLE 1: Weekly lessons over shorter periods of study on a particular set of unchanging work:

- 5 hours of personal study in a week with 50% efficiency (2.5 hours efficient study),
lesson with teacher corrects inefficiency,

- 5 hours study week 60% efficiency (3 hrs efficient) ,
lesson with teacher corrects inefficiency,

- 5 hours of personal study in a week with 70% efficiency (3.5 hrs efficient study)
lesson with teacher corrects inefficiency,

- 5 hours of personal study in a week with 80% efficiency  (4 hrs efficient study)
lesson with teacher corrects inefficiency,

- 5 hours of personal study in a week with 90% efficiency  (4.5 hrs efficient study)
lesson with teacher corrects inefficiency,


TOTAL: 25 hours study in 5 weeks with 17.5 hours efficient



Compare this to:


EXAMPLE 2: Lesson after 25 hours study regardless of time it takes to accomplish a set of work.

25 hours of personal study in a 5 weeks +2 weeks (add two weeks because without a teacher to answer every week there is a much higher chance to get lazy and not do as much work during the week) at 50% efficiency

TOTAL: 25 hours study in 7 weeks with 50% efficiency (12.5 hrs efficient study)

Their input is around 17.85 hours 5 weeks at 50% efficiency that is about 9 hours efficient study.



So forcing a beginner or insecure student to work on their own for extended time without guidance often sets them up for a lot of wasted time. We cannot assume that all the time they put in will be retained or even is effective, a large part of the teachers job is to recapitulate and reinforce good ideas and reason through incorrect ones, allowing extended periods of time practicing wrongly can really waste their time and stamina and desire to learn. This is not to say doing something wrong is bad, I feel we learn more by doing something not completely correct and then seeing a better way, you appreciate the better way more readily, but doing something incorrect for a very long time is wasting your time.

[keypeg]

My feeling is that whoever wrote the original advice was not a teacher, but someone who played piano, perhaps self-taught.  We still don't know what context or level or purpose he is addressing.  It seems to be along the common idea of "learning how to play a piece" (how the notes go; make it sound nice) type of thing.
I'd be interested in more context.  For the contexts in which I see studying with a teacher, the advice does not fit well most of the time.

[lostinidlewonder]

How does context effect it, it seems like a music subject as he used the term "playing"? Surely having a teacher more often guiding you has more benefits than only seeing them after certain amount of work has been done. Discipline, organisation skills, practice method sharpening and so many other issues benefit from more guidance despite the work put in by the student.

[timothy42b]

How does context effect AFFECT it, it seems like a music subject as he used the term "playing"?

Fixed that for you.

In this case I think context is important.  The discussion was mostly about advanced players and professionals, not beginners.

I would agree beginners need more structure. 

[keypeg]

How does context effect it, it seems like a music subject as he used the term "playing"? Surely having a teacher more often guiding you has more benefits than only seeing them after certain amount of work has been done. Discipline, organisation skills, practice method sharpening and so many other issues benefit from more guidance despite the work put in by the student.

It might be good if you asked me to clarify by what I meant by "context".

Supposing that I have an amateurish attitude.  I can sort of get at notes and sort of play, and think that the goal is to churn out pieces somehow.  The teacher's job is to tell me how it goes, or to correct wrong notes, or some other shallow thing.  I have to "learn the piece" meaning memorize it or get to play through it somehow, and I have thus "learned" it, the teacher can give me another piece telling me "how it goes", or saying "You played that note wrong."  This is one context.  The writer may have held these kinds of concepts.  That is why I wrote that it's possible that whoever wrote this was not a teacher (or one of those people who call themselves teachers).

I don't in any way agree with this vision, but I know it exists, and that includes some low level "teachers".  You are writing about real teaching and real learning, which is a different context. But whoever was "advising" in the other forum does not seem to understand this.

I hope that makes it more clear.

[lostinidlewonder]

Fixed that for you.

Definition EFFECT:
-a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.
-cause (something) to happen; bring about.
eg: His attempt to teach English had little effect.

Definition AFFECT:
-have an effect on; make a difference to.
-touch the feelings of; move emotionally.
eg: His attempt to teach English affected me to tears of laughter.

So long your fixing helped you to understand I'm glad. Go ahead and type in google "the effect of context" and also try "the affect of context", you might get more education by yourself

In this case I think context is important.  The discussion was mostly about advanced players and professionals, not beginners.

I would agree beginners need more structure.  

It seems if we are talking about advanced or professional players that considering time spent on a subejct is irrelevant because they already would have a high rate of study input and certainly a high rate of efficiency to their study, so even with minimal time spent they can get through a lot of work. Also an advanced student could handle small amounts of practice time and many lessons between which contintually focus on pacing them, organising their approach, solving future challenges (interpretation, technique) for these students they don't need large amounts of time before moving onto another issue. I do wonder whether the hours considered in the opening post quote can even be an accurate measuring stick for the quality of the study put in, afterall efficiency plays a great role in the time factor. Perhaps if they reworded it without the time factor but rather the work completed/attempted factor it would be better?

It might be good if you asked me to clarify by what I meant by "context".

I didn't really think I had to ask you to elaborate because it was either subject context or the context of the level of the players which seems to be the only logical choices.

I can see you have taken the level of the players context choice,. I personally think it doesn't really matter what level you play with regards to having periodic lessons without concern of the hours inputted is important. With my advanced students I can give them a months worth of work and be happy that they can work at it efficiency and effectively, where my beginners need more attention because they can easily get off track or do things not so well. I don't really measure in time or hours just set them the work I feel that they can work on by themselves in the allocated days or weeks we have till our next meeting.

[keypeg]

I didn't really think I had to ask you to elaborate because it was either subject context or the context of the level of the players which seems to be the only logical choices.

I can see you have taken the level of the players context choice.....

No, you haven't understood what I was saying yet.  I was looking at the context of the WRITER, and why that writer was saying what he did.  I was seeing someone who did not understand how learning works, or what the types of things go into lessons.  I portrayed a particular attitude.

After I mentioned context, Timothy gave us more of the context within which things were said.  Up to now we were speculating in the dark.  I'll be responding to that next.
-----
Liw, I think that the first post I wrote on the subject, before you wrote, has views that are similar to the ones that you expressed.

Edit: I see now that I did actually define what I meant in the post where "context" was mentioned:

My feeling is that whoever wrote the original advice was not a teacher, but someone who played piano, perhaps self-taught.  We still don't know what context or level or purpose he is addressing.  It seems to be along the common idea of "learning how to play a piece" (how the notes go; make it sound nice) type of thing.

[keypeg]

affect vs. effect

Here is a full run-down, which describes the usage I know.
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/affect-effect/

That said, I disagree with the word being pointedly corrected, since we all understood what was meant.  I don't know if there may also be usage differences geographically.

[keypeg]

The discussion was mostly about advanced players and professionals, not beginners.

If it was about professionals, then why would he think he needed to define this:

..."Playing though things that everyone agrees are already mastered" do not count towards the 25 hours). 

What professional would "play through" things, thinking that this was practising?  Who would advise a professional musician that way?  "advanced player" is trickier.  There are folks considering themselves as "advanced" because of the level of music they choose to play when they still have a lot to learn, or who had a number of years of lessons, which unfortunately were with poorish teachers. I'll assume that our "advanced" player actually does know how to work independently, and has most of the tools.

I am with LiW, in disagreeing with the idea of determining when a student and teacher get together based on amount of time spent practising, i.e. working on the music. 

[lostinidlewonder]

No, you haven't understood what I was saying yet.  I was looking at the context of the WRITER, and why that writer was saying what he did.  I was seeing someone who did not understand how learning works, or what the types of things go into lessons.  I portrayed a particular attitude.

Your Reply #6 seems to discuss context as you describe scenarios in terms of level so I am not sure where I have not understood you.

...We don't know what kinds of goals the imagined student is pursuing, how the writer envisions piano study at which level and toward what.  I'm assuming someone who (thinks he) knows how to play the piano to some degree, and is aiming to learn to play a particular piece.  That is a single scenario among many.


When I was an actual beginner .....  I could have benefited from lessons every two days at the start.... That's one scenario.

....  The actual things being covered are of varying nature, at various levels, pieces at different levels of completion, and also at different levels, and the list goes on.  That is another scenario.


In summary, it depends on what kind of scenario, which kinds of goals, etc., that the writer is talking about.  Is there a context in the particular discussion?

It seems you are discussing context in terms of level quite strongly in this reply of yours.

Nevertheless you and I still agree on the same issue that time is a silly measure to use when one should visit back with the teacher. Of course however the more work you do get through before you meet with a teacher the better, it is annoying as a teacher to deal with students who just don't put enough effort into their work but it has no relevance to having lessons or not imho.

[lostinidlewonder]

affect vs. effect

Here is a full run-down, which describes the usage I know.
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/affect-effect/

That said, I disagree with the word being pointedly corrected, since we all understood what was meant.  I don't know if there may also be usage differences geographically.

Merely google "the effect of context" vs "the affect of context" and you will see you get many results using effect, in fact if you use AFFECT it will try and correct you.  I disagree with the attempt at correction because it's quite wrong.

[keypeg]

Merely google "the effect of context" vs "the affect of context" and you will see you get many results using effect, in fact if you use AFFECT it will try and correct you.  I disagree with the attempt at correction because it's quite wrong.

You are referring to nouns, and you are correct about that usage.   In "the effect of context", the word "effect" is a noun, as is "effect" in "effect of context".

 But we are discussing verbs. I wonder if you read my link, which discusses this at length.  

In the original sentence, we have a verb: "How does context effect/affect it?"
You can say: "What effect does the context have on it?" (effect as noun)
Or: "How does the context affect it?" (affect as verb)
(as per my link)

I disagree with the attempt at correction because it's quite wrong.

I disagree with the attempt at correction because this is not a forum for linguists.  In fact, I come here to get away from that.

[dogperson]

You are referring to nouns, and you are correct about that usage.   In "the effect of context", the word "effect" is a noun, as is "effect" in "effect of context".

 But we are discussing verbs. I wonder if you read my link, which discusses this at length.  

In the original sentence, we have a verb: "How does context effect/affect it?"
You can say: "What effect does the context have on it?" (effect as noun)
Or: "How does the context affect it?" (affect as verb)
(as per my link)

Very interesting that there was a recent post that got off track talking about grammar and the internet.  And the participants were reminded that it was disrespectful to the OP.  But now there's the same behavior again with no concern about being off topic or disrespectful.

[keypeg]

Very interesting that there was a recent post that got off track talking about grammar and the internet.  And the participants were reminded that it was disrespectful to the OP.  But now there's the same behavior again with no concern about being off topic or disrespectful.

You did not quote the last line of my post.  I was agreeing LiW's disagreement with that correction being there.  Since the topic was up there, I hoped to be informative. I also had the impression that LiW was interested in language, given the other thread.

I disagree with the attempt at correction because this is not a forum for linguists.  In fact, I come here to get away from that.

[lostinidlewonder]

You are referring to nouns, and you are correct about that usage.   In "the effect of context", the word "effect" is a noun, as is "effect" in "effect of context".

 But we are discussing verbs. I wonder if you read my link, which discusses this at length.

Why would I have to read it again at length I still wouldn't use affect context and would use effect context, maybe you need to see that effect can be used as a verb also?
https://crofsblogs.typepad.com/english/2005/08/effect_as_a_ver.html

Show me where on google people write affect and context together please, you will find countless examples of effect and context.

[keypeg]

I was not sure that you had read it, because you repeated the same example of nouns, when verbs were under discussion.  The "English teacher's" explanation goes in the same direction. "Effect" as a verb has a more nuanced meaning, and is not used as often.  Tim's suggestion of "affect" as a verb is not wrong, and it does not have the same meaning as "affect" as a noun.  You are correct about affect as a noun, as I mentioned before.
Google is not a reliable resource for usage.  There is also the issue of usage in various English speaking countries.  It is a thing I must always watch out for in my work.

Again, I disagreed with anyone trying to correct your English in the first place, and don't think it was necessary.  My interest is actually in the topic at hand.  In regards to that, our views are probably the same.

[chopinlover01]

I actually like that analysis a lot. I agree that it's not universal though; to me, this seems a good guideline for the young conservatory student (or equivalent for jazz/soul/etc).

[lostinidlewonder]

I was not sure that you had read it, because you repeated the same example of nouns, when verbs were under discussion.  

But I was corrected on what I was saying not anyone else, so all I have to be aware of is what I was discussing.

You still refuse to believe that "effect" can effectively be used as a verb or noun? That is odd.  I have no idea why you are trying to define the verb vs noun when "effect" can be used for both and appropriately as I have used it.

"Effect" as a verb has a more nuanced meaning, and is not used as often.

That's rather dramatic, I don't think it's that subtle in nature at all and it can certainly be used often if required. I don't disagree with people correcting me but they have to correct me when there actually is something to correct in the first place. Trying to correct me in this case was just silliness even if I was to be wrong, it just shows the person doesn't have anything else in their head that is more important which I find just funny.

Google is not a reliable resource for usage.

I don't believe that myself, google collects a lot of website information and how things are written. Statistically it will come up with what is most used. If you type EFFECT OF CONTEXT and AFFECT OF CONTEXT you will overwhelmingly see that EFFECT is used and if you try to use AFFECT it will correct you. Statistically that is very strong evidence of how it should be used and I don't think you have really shown how Google can be unreliable in this case.

[keypeg]

You still refuse to believe that "effect" can effectively be used as a verb or noun?

I discussed how "effect" can be used as a verb and as a known, so that cannot be so.  I gave a resource that goes into it thoroughly, and the resource that you pulled up gives the same nuance, if more vaguely expressed.

Bottom line is that the question you asked me originally was perfectly clear, and I don't think it should have been put up for linguistic discussion.  I am more concerned, as you are too, about the "advice" that was put up in the OP about lessons with a teacher, by someone who probably is not a teacher.  When that same person feels he needs to specify the  difference between practising and "playing through", then he is not addressing advanced students in the true sense of the word, or professionals.  THESE are the issues at hand.  Agree?

[lostinidlewonder]

I discussed how "effect" can be used as a verb and as a known (I assume you mean noun), so that cannot be so

But you seem to not accept that "effect' can EFFECTIVELY be used as both a verb and noun, of course I didn't say you refuse to believe it can't be both but you are arguing strongly that it should be used as a noun and using it as a verb is "nuanced" and "not used as often".

Your stance is just confusing since you said:

You are referring to nouns, and you are correct about that usage.   In "the effect of context", the word "effect" is a noun, as is "effect" in "effect of context".

 But we are discussing verbs. I wonder if you read my link, which discusses this at length.  

Here you are trying to make a difference between using effect as a verb or noun where it can be used as both anyway.

You then go ahead and try to show how effect and affect must be used:

You can say: "What effect does the context have on it?" (effect as noun)
Or: "How does the context affect it?" (affect as verb)

So you are saying the same thing but putting the keyword before and after the word context, I don't think that is a rule at all.

Here you are trying to make effect only used as noun where it can be also used as a verb. Again trying to show that effect cannot be effectively be used as a verb.

You are saying it is ineffective to say "How does context effect it?" and don't want to acknowledge
that it can be written that way perfectly fine, just google search and see countless examples of the sentence in multiple websites all over the place. Your argument that google is not reliable is simply your which doesn't change the facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_effect
https://englishtextualconcepts.nsw.edu.au/content/context
https://gocognitive.net/interviews/effect-context-memory

etc etc

Bottom line is that the question you asked me originally was perfectly clear, and I don't think it should have been put up for linguistic discussion.

I agree though the creator of the thread thought it important enough to start it lo0ol. Even though I am not dyslexic or have any learning challenges it is highly offensive to try and correct people who might have learning difficulties and make errors they cannot help.

When that same person feels he needs to specify the  difference between practising and "playing through", then he is not addressing advanced students in the true sense of the word, or professionals.  THESE are the issues at hand.  Agree?

If you happen to read my responses on the issue you will see of course I think this has nothing to do with advanced students or professionals. They of course will go through a lot of work each week and also the efficiency of their practice is very high so even if they do very little in terms of hours they still get through a lot. I think measuring work in terms of hours is not very reliable since we must take efficiency into account. For beginners and intermediates I don't think it even holds up for that too as I discussed in my previous posts.

[keypeg]

Liw, I think we are in agreement about the important points, including the issue of correcting language usage of others.
I also agree that what was described does not seem to involve professionals.  But we were told that it did.  I can't see it.
I also remember seeing something about conservatory students.  I had two relatives who majored in music at university.  While they were advanced musicians, the work that they did was also very advanced, and they met with their private teachers at least once a week.  I heard of one such teacher at university bellowing at a hapless student for thinking that 3 hours of practice was "a lot", and these were also weekly sessions.  The standards were high, there were other things to learn.

Actually, I'd be interested in seeing the discussion in its original place.

[timothy42b]

I do not correct grammar usage for non-English speakers.  I am in awe of their ability to converse in a second language.  I lived for some years in Europe and appreciate their struggles.

I do sometimes make a comment about grammar for English native speakers, particularly when it's egregious.  Carelessness in language does not show respect for the readers.  I get caught myself occasionally, and I am grateful for the input. 

That topic aside, though, I am still curious about lesson frequency for accomplished players.

I know a number of working professionals, players who make their living performing, who take an annual or semiannual lesson.

So LIW, how often do you take a lesson yourself?  keypeg and I have shared our strategies.