ShiroKuro @keystring thanks, very interesting!

So are you reading Dr. G’s book, or just learning about her approach from the YT videos?

I've been following through discussion here and there and a few private discussions. I read bits here and there, and watched some of the videos.

I commented on one of her videos, and she responded back - it was a good conversation. In that video she was looking at the idea of aiming for how the body moves, how the instrument works, or aiming for where you want to go. I think the example came from a snowboarder, surfer or skiier - focusing on the ground (water) you're traversing and where you're heading, versus what your feet and board were doing. The former were deemed the "best" approach. In music, this translated to focusing on the sound you want to produce, rather than your body or instrument.

I pushed back on that. I know that in strings, often there is a very heavy teaching of technique (body and instrument) and if that's been the only thing, a counterbalance on "sound" may be the best way. But when I had violin lessons, I barely had the technical side - my then-teacher relied on my instinct and what I heard internally. I literally could not produce what I heard because I did not have the means. For dynamics, it is "pressure", speed of the bow, but also sounding point and tilt of the bow. I had been taught to always stay at the same sounding point, never to tilt the bow - so I was handicapped. I also had a heavy, untrained hand that had been taught to grip tightly. It did not matter how much I "focused on the sound I wanted" - physically I could not produce it because two elements were outside my reach. She understood my point and responded positively.

My impression is that she is coming from a place where a person has been given decent technique, already plays, and is primarily focusing on preparing for performances. It gets nuanced differently if you're in other spaces. The principles generally are ones that I learned. I'm kind of dismayed, but not that surprised, that these are new ideas. There are major holes in how things are taught. Over time I discovered that my first experience may have been extreme, but not that unusual in general.

      I was asking because I wondered if you would find new things in her book, since it's much longer of course. I don't know yet because I generally read it after practicing (i.e. right before bed) and I don't get very far because I start to fall asleep. Not because of the book! But because it's 10pm and I need to go to sleep!

      Anyway!

      keystring My impression is that she is coming from a place where a person has been given decent technique, already plays, and is primarily focusing on preparing for performances.

      Yes, I have this impression too... Also, I think the issues are different when it's one line of music (i.e. for violin, or say flute) than when it's piano music. So I think a lot of what she recommends is applicable to any instrument, but there are piano-specific issues that I don't think are getting addressed in her approach.

      It gets nuanced differently if you're in other spaces.

      I agree

      The principles generally are ones that I learned.

      So far, a lot of what I'm reading in her book is familiar or an extension/expansion of something that I already knew about. I've been trying to add these kinds of strategies to my practice tool kit for almost as long as I've been playing. But some things I've gotten out of the habit of doing. The thing that's new for me is read how these practice techniques tie into neurological research. So I'm really enjoying the book!

      I'm kind of dismayed, but not that surprised, that these are new ideas. There are major holes in how things are taught.

      I don't think most teachers teach their students how to practice. They really only teach how to play (and there's great variation within that as well).

      So there is definitely a need for her book, her videos, etc.

          BTW I didn't respond to that detail in @keystring 's post because I know that sound-wise, violin is much, much more difficult than piano, and I don't have the experience to talk about those kinds of sound-related technique issues in a meaningful.

          I think the only challenge I've felt with piano that comes even close to that kind of issue is controlling dynamics, and I find that it gets easier as I learn a piece.... so yeah, not helpful! 🙂

            ShiroKuro BTW I didn't respond to that detail in @keystring 's post because I know that sound-wise, violin is much, much more difficult than piano, and I don't have the experience to talk about those kinds of sound-related technique issues in a meaningful.

            Understandable, and I hesitated with the example. Because MG is a violist, I could give her that specific example. But it translates to every instrument.

            I strongly disagree with any "this is the best approach" because it depends on many factors. The "hear it in your head / feel it" irks me personally because that's how I got caught out. I do have a quite strong feel for music, had self-taught most of my life - you can't rely on that as a teacher or ride on it as your go-to because it creates problems. Ok, if I feel sad my voice will naturally lower, I'll took more slowly and quietly - without deliberately doing that "technique", and my sadness will be conveyed to a listener. I suppose that "method acting" uses that. But that reflex can also go astray. When I heard "loud intense music" in my head, self-taught as a child I did stiff, angry forceful pokes - which did produce the desired sound though harshly. You can't do "loud and fast" with stiff pokes. 😃 How about a loose, relaxed, whipping motion? Will you intuit your way into this?

            I think the only challenge I've felt with piano that comes even close to that kind of issue is controlling dynamics, and I find that it gets easier as I learn a piece.... so yeah, not helpful

            One thing I came into and discussed with my teacher is where you manage to do something but you don't know what you did so you can't duplicate it. There seems to be a fine line between understanding a thing, doing it too deliberately and "precisely the way they said", and thus tying yourself in knots, and getting there by accident and not being able to get there deliberately.

            Some things are also counterintuitive, or a thing you'd never think of. I once had a passage of repeating 16th notes but every first one was like a melody note that stuck out. One way of bringing it out was with pedal. Pedal so as to bring out that note first and it will last 4 times as long as the last note of the set - it comes out purely itself while the other three are all blended in. You may also play them softer, but this already makes a difference.

            Another piano thing: Supposing your melody goes mf to mp or even quieter, and you have your LH chords or notes that are even quieter. How on earth can you make a LH quieter than a RH mp which is to stick out? What I learned was to have the RH constantly around mf: have your LH rise and fall in volume, and you will create the illusion that the melody is rising and falling. Will you get there by "hearing" it in your head?

            Prehearing a sound before you play, and listening to whether you produced the intended sound, is definitely part of it. Aiming for that sound with the body responding somehow while you get out of your own way is also part of it. But it can't just be one angle. I believe it has to be all three.

              ShiroKuro I was asking because I wondered if you would find new things in her book, since it's much longer of course. I don't know yet because I generally read it after practicing (i.e. right before bed) and I don't get very far because I start to fall asleep. Not because of the book! But because it's 10pm and I need to go to sleep!

              I almost missed that one and also risked tangling two responses together by different people. So far everything that I encountered is what I've learned, and less than what I've learned. I've obsessed about this for almost two decades and went to a lot of resources and some long interactions. Even the neurological things came in.

              Time zones. 😃

              Yes, I have this impression too... Also, I think the issues are different when it's one line of music (i.e. for violin, or say flute) than when it's piano music. So I think a lot of what she recommends is applicable to any instrument, but there are piano-specific issues that I don't think are getting addressed in her approach.

              I had not thought of that side of it. Are there some particular things in piano that you can think of?

                Ithaca Bingo. When I was young, my teacher could say, “make it sound like this”, and I would get the right effect just from thinking of the sound. It was completely intuitive. But now, something in my technique (hands, brain) has changed, and no matter how clearly I hear and understand the sound I’m trying to make, I can’t get there. I think what was formerly intuitive must now be made explicit. (I need a teacher who can watch me with an eagle eye, to tell me what I’m missing and doing wrong.)

                I was told something quite some time back as I was entering an intermediate level on the violin, which was my new instrument. It is not just that you will be playing more challenging music later, but also your ability to perceive changes. You hear more, and that can do a number on you.

                Supposing that as a beginner your teacher tells you to do dynamics as you described. You do those dynamics, you hear you did them, and your teacher says you got it. The teacher also has a given expectation for that level you're at. Later you can hear more. If you listened to what you did 3 years ago, what satisfied you now may be dissatisfying to you now "How could I ever like this?" You start hearing flaws in your playing you didn't hear before. You start working on those flaws, improving them, but not to your satisfaction - because of what you can now hear. Subjectively you get the impression that you have gotten worse, because you used to "not have flaws" and now you do, and there are more of them (in fact - you are hearing more). Because you are now hearing those flaws, you're improving. Your teacher, meanwhile, always heard the flaws you're now hearing, but you were reaching what she expected you to reach at the earlier level. Her ability to hear is constant. So she will hear you improving just as you are hearing yourself get worse, because you can hear more.

                I didn't manage to write this succinctly. 🙁 I was also told that this is the level students tend to quit at, just as they are in fact getting better, but they "hear" themselves getting worst.

                and no matter how clearly I hear and understand the sound I’m trying to make, I can’t get there. I think what was formerly intuitive must now be made explicit. (I need a teacher who can watch me with an eagle eye, to tell me what I’m missing and doing wrong.)

                I know nothing about your teacher, ofc. You might ask for direct help on this. Some teachers don't dare push too much or give too much technical info since that turns off esp. older students. Other teachers only know the "follow your ear" thing and cannot give more.

                    ranjit Often, I find that in public talks/blogs, psychologists/neuroscientists start to give their own anecdotes. Like, we all feel like we've slowed down with age, haven't we? Etc.

                    There is a reasonable chance that the scientists were trying to provide an illustrative example of the findings of some research in a way that people can relate.

                        TLH21 There is a reasonable chance that the scientists were trying to provide an illustrative example of the findings of some research in a way that people can relate.

                        Yes, but I find that it biases people's idea of the research sometimes.

                          Ithaca my schedule is such a mess right now that I can't commit to anything regular.

                          There are some teachers who would be ok scheduling one lesson at a time, if that's something you want to look into!

                            keystring I was told something quite some time back as I was entering an intermediate level on the violin, which was my new instrument. It is not just that you will be playing more challenging music later, but also your ability to perceive changes. You hear more, and that can do a number on you.

                            Supposing that as a beginner your teacher tells you to do dynamics as you described. You do those dynamics, you hear you did them, and your teacher says you got it. The teacher also has a given expectation for that level you're at. Later you can hear more. If you listened to what you did 3 years ago, what satisfied you now may be dissatisfying to you now "How could I ever like this?" You start hearing flaws in your playing you didn't hear before. You start working on those flaws, improving them, but not to your satisfaction - because of what you can now hear. Subjectively you get the impression that you have gotten worse, because you used to "not have flaws" and now you do, and there are more of them (in fact - you are hearing more). Because you are now hearing those flaws, you're improving. Your teacher, meanwhile, always heard the flaws you're now hearing, but you were reaching what she expected you to reach at the earlier level. Her ability to hear is constant. So she will hear you improving just as you are hearing yourself get worse, because you can hear more.

                            I didn't manage to write this succinctly. 🙁 I was also told that this is the level students tend to quit at, just as they are in fact getting better, but they "hear" themselves getting worst.

                            I think this is an important 'thing' that students should be more aware of. Not everyone will reach the I'm-getting-worse stage at the same time in their course of learning, and perhaps not everyone will experience it, but it certainly happens. I've been experiencing the I'm-getting-worse feeling for some months. Objectively, I know that I'm playing better, but, geez, sometimes it just sounds like I'm playing crap. And it's true as well: the teacher hears the flaws from the very start and can detect the arc of improvement, whereas the student hears the flaws as if they're brand new.

                                Stub I think this is an important 'thing' that students should be more aware of. Not everyone will reach the I'm-getting-worse stage at the same time in their course of learning, and perhaps not everyone will experience it, but it certainly happens. I've been experiencing the I'm-getting-worse feeling for some months. Objectively, I know that I'm playing better, but, geez, sometimes it just sounds like I'm playing crap. And it's true as well: the teacher hears the flaws from the very start and can detect the arc of improvement, whereas the student hears the flaws as if they're brand new.

                                I am glad that I learned this when I did. What a difference if you don't know, and put yourself in despair thinking you've gotten worse when in fact you're improving.

                                  Ithaca 've experienced what you described - my ability to hear and perceive improving, and thus my playing sounding worse, and I also quit for a few months during one of these transitions. 🙂

                                  But that was nearly 40 years ago. Unfortunately, I'm quite certain that what I'm doing now is the result of nearly 30 years' worth of physical neglect, and mostly beating a digital piano to death, sans teacher......

                                  Ithaca, thank you for explaining. I now have a much better picture.

                                  Of the things you described, I could relate to some of it, though your backgrounds and realities are probably different. Your teacher back then saying "make it sound this way" and you could produce it those decades ago, the problem with that is that if you don't know how you did it and if your technique has changed, you can't get it back by doing the same thing because you don't know what you did. So getting some degree of that "knowing" might be one element to help you.

                                  Our bodies are more forgiving when we're young, so we want to have effective movement which you may or may not have. I was told "Look for a pianist who plays well in old age - that pianist has good technique." Rubinstein was pointed out as one example.

                                  This part:

                                  ..I also stopped listening to anything expect dynamic changes on a digital that couldn't do pp at all. My dealer and my son's piano teacher confirmed that my touch was absolute crap back in April.

                                  That's a double whammy because you won't be aiming for sounds you can't produce, so that whole thing will wane - and the piano can be training you into actions you don't want to have. When I had my cheapish Yamaha, the pedal wouldn't engage or disengage without a huge range of motion, and I trained myself into poor reflexes that had to be undone. The keys had to be pressed down a big range to make any sound - although my new Kawai CA97 had responsive keys, my hands were desensitized; I had heavy insensitive hands.

                                  I may exchange the Kawai for a Roland after a conversation with someone and some discussions, because my thinking was mistaken in one part. I looked for action, the physical response and movement of the instrument vis-a-vis my hands. But we don't just react and get trained by touch: it is also sound (what you wrote made me think of that). There seems to be some kind of artificial barrier in the Kawais at the upper end - you'll see a recording flatline on top at ff, and it was discussed in the digital forum. Therefore you get the habit of straining to achieve what the instrument can't do; and the sound-feedback it gives is false.

                                  he good news is that my new-to-me acoustic has an obscenely controllable action and an ability to play so quietly that I can barely hear it, which has helped a ton in recovering some of my sense of touch. But I feel certain that I've ingrained some unfortunate habits that will have to be explicitly and deliberately undone by a very discerning (and firm, because I don't always listen to people as much as I should) teacher.

                                  I can identify with that because of the cheap-Yamaha to high-end-Kawai experience. You say that your sense of touch has recovered somewhat - that is good news. Acquired habit is a problem because it's instant and automatic, for you to untrain. When I retaught my pedal foot (and taught it for the first time for this aspect), I had short sessions where I aimed only to find when a note starts engaging and then releasing. Play one note and the next one with pedal, keeping that going. At first only the same note or adjacent notes. It would vanish if I did too much too fast, so incremental. Playing music - noticing the old thing creeping in - stop, regroup, review - back to playing. It is not fun. A teacher helping is always good; the work is yours.

                                  Schedule-wise: short stints a few times a day can do wonders. Since you once had all of this, it must be quite frustrating.