I just think someone should point out that "practice" (and, a fortiori, "practice, practice, practice") fits best with the often unarticulated assumption that there is a single right style/version, and that one's success (or lack thereof) in approaching/attaining it will be readily apparent. [Overstated for clarity and brevity]

Authors of textbooks and academic papers tend (IMO) to come from (or identify with) backgrounds favoring this view, like classical music, where the mantra has mostly been "_come scritto_" - play it as written (and we also shouldn't overlook Morris musician William Kimber's recorded admonition "these are the notes you play, and you don't play no others"). One reason they tend to get quoted (as I quoted Ericsson quoting Milstein quoting Auer) is that doing so appears to carry more weight than just saying "well, I (Dave) think ...", but then the assumption that one should know exactly what one wants gets passed along also.

I respectfully disagree with Don (and others). When I practice _and am not in a hurry_, I try not to "know what I want", except that I want to become more familiar with the music so that my unconscious can later tease as-yet-unsuspected possibilities out of it. Over the years this has become easier, but it's still often painfully slow, though rewarding when the possibilities finally emerge.

Of course, living in Contemporary Western Civilization, I often _am_ too much in a hurry, and then, like everyone else, I have to do "mindless" (actually differently mindful) repetition, because the stupid neurons do what they want, not what I want them to do. This is usually because there is a gig coming up, and I need, reluctantly, to sacrifice creativity for mere competence, i.e. not blowing it. Shameful, I know.

This is more verbose than I wanted it to be.