# Is the weekly 30 min or 60 min guitar lessons better?



## noobfret

I talked to someone who took guitar lessons before and was told that a weekly 30 minutes lessons with a private instructor should be sufficient. What do you guys think? Responses from instructors will be welcomed.


----------



## wnpgguy

Now I am taking 45 min lessons. Most days we over shoot our time and I might bump up to the 60 minute lesson. It all depends on how you are filling your lessons (practicing songs, learning songs, book worm stuff). Some things are just filler (practicing a new song) and some are core essentials to go over again at home that don't take much time (book stuff). 

As long as your lesson length dosn't leave you feeling cut off or rushed always watching the clock. (Or boared silly waiting it to end  )


----------



## devnulljp

I had a great teacher in Japan, who was a total guitar geek, and we got on great. Lesson was supposed to be 45 min I guess...I don't think I ever made it out of there in less than 1 1/2 hr, average was probably 2 hr and I certainly had a few 3 hr days, he often wouldn't let you leave. Learned tons. I used to fix his computer and translate some of his writing too gratis (rescued his life's work from a hard drive crash, so I guess he was quite happy...), so it wasn't totally one-sided, but I think I got the better end of the deal.

Paul's right though, it all depends on you _and_ the teacher...


----------



## zontar

Paul said:


> It is soooooo dependant on both the teacher and student. Some so-called guitar teachers can't come up with 30 quality minutes if their life depended on it, and others have pages of quality instruction left long after the 60 minutes has expired.


I have to agree completely. I've been both the teacher and the student. (Hopefully my students found me to be the second type Paul mentions--I know that was the plan.)

For younger students who are just starting even 30 minutes can be too much.

It all comes down to the teacher's & the student's desire & dedication and what they're trying to achieve. For someone who just wants to learn a few chords so they can strum along to their favorite songs, without getting all fancy 30 minutes might be plenty--but it would still be easy to go beyond that. For someone working on more advanced technique 30 minutes seems to fly by. When I took classical lessons the lesson always seemed too short to learn what I needed to learn. But if I hadn't practiced enough--it could drag on & on.

I've also taken & taught one on one lessons and groups--they all have their pros & cons. 

So what would work best? I'd say--play it by ear.:smile: (The lesson length that is.)


----------



## Milkman

I think 30 minutes is best in most cases. When I was teaching I always had lots of material but in terms of bang for the buck I think most students had their plates full mastering what they learned in a half hour.

There were exceptions of course. I had ne or two who practised several hours a day.


----------



## I_cant_play

I'm not a very experienced teacher but I hope my opinion will be worth something...

I had a really really good guitar teacher once who only offered half hour lessons. He said that most students had trouble focusing much longer than that. Once I had to make up a missed lesson so we had a one hour lesson and after about 40 minutes my brain started to crap out. I was going through the motions but my mind wasn't into it. I think that if you have an efficient teacher that actually knows what he's going to teach you, half an hour should be more than enough. I've had other teachers since that I can spend hours with and not get tired and learn much less per unit time.

My 2cents


----------



## Guitarmonkey

*half hour extended....*

I lucked out. I'm taking lessons from Derrick Gottfried (lead guitarist for Harlequin)'s prodigy. I love his playing, he loves my gear. I pay for half hour weekly, he stays for an extra 45 minutes. Mutually beneficial. And he lives right behind me. How's that for convenient?

Monkey


----------



## GO_SLASH

*30 - 60*

I would start with 60. Get better and play with around 45.
Dont stare at the clock though!


----------



## Wheeman

I've done 30 minute and 60 minute lessons with Mooh. The half hour lessons felt like a rush to setup, a rush to start playing, and a rush to get out again. There's no time to relax and talk about music like in the 60 minute sessions. It would be more like setup, settle in whilst talking music. There's more opportunity to let the fingers relax and get used to new shapes and movements. Plus, it just felt more mellow all around. And he put the clock on the wall directly behind where I sat...

But then again, I've taken music in school (75 minute classes, every day) and band in school (hour long practices) so I'm probably more adjusted and capable for hour long sessions. The key to enjoying it it to NOT cram in every last minute of a lesson with playing. Just like a good conductor will often talk between song about often random things to give everybody a break. If the conductor is a brass player (which it seems like all of them are), the breaks are a little longer to avoid blowing the brass players' lips. It generally makes it more enjoyable for everybody and avoids the whole clock watching issue.

That's my advice as a student to teachers. Take breaks, don't rush, enjoy yourself.


----------



## gurug

1 hour goes by rather fast when you're exploring new ground.30 mins flies and by the time you're at 25 mins you're wrapping up.therefore it seems like an hour lets you discuss and practice,make errors,rectify and discover other issues.


----------



## RIFF WRATH

I find 30 min is plenty for me, being a total noob and perhaps not as "gifted" as others........but as Wheeman says there's no time to chat & discuss if someone is waiting at the door........best case senario would be last lesson of the day, and chat when the clock stops.......for me any more than 30 min. and I would be totally lost...perhaps it's an age thing too


----------



## rippinglickfest

*Time*

I have taught a few lessons here and there and find that for younger students, anything longer than a half hour, they start getting restless. The more advanced or experienced ones want to stay longer once the teacher/student jam sessions become part of the equation.


----------



## Canadian Charlie

In my opinion guitar classes should be 45 minutes. I feel an hour is too much and half an hour isn't long enough. 

Its also good for the instructor who might have a few pupals during the day. He has 15 minutes to have a coffee or smoke a cig. 


:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## kat_

When I tutor music theory students from the university I tell them that each session will last as long as it needs to. Sometimes I'll spend over 2 hours with someone, other times I'll tell them to leave after 10 minutes. It's totally dependant on how much work they've done since I last saw them and how many questions they come in with. I figure that since they're university students they should be taking a lot of responsibility for their own learning.

With my classical guitar students I'll do 45 or 60 minute lessons. A 45 minute lesson is only 15 minutes of scale + arpeggio work, 20 minutes of actual pieces, and 10 minutes of theory. That flies by. Once the students get up to where they're playing pieces that last more than 5 minutes we need longer lessons.

With my non-classical guitar students I find that 30 minutes is usually plenty. There have been a few exceptions to that, but not many.

A big part of it is how much practice time the students are putting in between lessons. My classical guitar students practice 60 to 90 minutes a day so a 45 minute lesson isn't even their full guitar time for that day. The university students I tutor have 4 hours of lectures on the same topic during the week, plus all of their study time for that, so again the time we spend together is relatively short. By comparison most young kids only practice 30 minutes a day so a 30 minutes lesson is lots. 

Reading back over this before hitting post I have realised that it really just shows my own bias. I prefer teaching classical most of the time. I do the other stuff because I enjoy the variety but once students get reasonably advanced I pass them off to teachers who specialize in whatever they're wanting to focus on so most of my non-classical students are beginers.


----------



## Mooh

I teach a balance of halves and full hours to partly to accommodate demand, partly to accommodate attention spans. 45s are nice, but I've never been able to schedule them well, seems folks don't like to show up at 15 minute intervals, and I don't need a break every hour. I seriously tried this year, but there weren't enough hours in the day.

Peace, Mooh.


----------

