Animisha Would you like to share the major changes you made?

I'll try to give a history. This goes back 20 years. It began a few years in of violin lessons. (1) working on a piece for weeks with no improvement, always working on the whole piece, all things. One day in disgust I dropped it, and worked on one technical issue; invented exercises, did so the whole week, never touching the piece. In next lesson, I played that piece I'd ignored much better than ever before. (2) another piece, always stuck at the start of the cadenza; failed, every lessons, for a month. This time I worked only on the measure where I was stuck, finding why I was stuck and a way to practise. I then circled every passage that had the same pattern (modulated) and did the same thing. Then made copies, and circled the 2nd-hardest thing, 3rd hardest thing and did the same. I practised fragments, and felt guilty for practising fragments, like I was "violating" the beauty of music. Later I learned that this is what musicians do. 😃

Both these times I went from long practising for weeks with no progress, to shorter sessions doing "unmusical" things or fragments, with huge progress within days. How I practised changed radically. I learned from some musicians, for example, to play everything with like thick vanilla, add expression, and if it slips, go back to vanilla (that instrument) = stages. I also learned about short sessions when remediating or getting a new skill, since you'll go into bad habits if you tire, and attention span is short for that. Shortly after that I got a piano which I had played decades before self-taught.

With the piano I encountered a teacher: I was seeking ways to practice that were effective for getting the skills, and it was part of what he did. The "fragmented" thing I had invented turned out to be "chunking. There was "layering" of skills, bringing in what you had, waiting to bring in a skill you didn't yet have. Example: play both voices evenly - for one voice louder than the other, maybe have one super loud, the other super soft while getting coordinate - later do dynamics. Short sessions: or in longer sessions, keep switching what you focus on. Allow your body & nervous system to make changes over time and after sleep (over days).

That was my journey. I think you'll see why what I've read and watched here and there with MG was not new to me; they are variants of some of the things I learned.

    Thank you so much for your story Keystring! Yes, most of what you have written resonates very well with Molly's approach. Very interesting to read.

    *
    ... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...

    Nightowl MG seems to have collated well established techniques, added some embellishments and wrapped them up in a shiny new wrapper.

    That's not true, she's a neuroscientist and is taking the research on learning and applying it to music. Of course some of it ends up supporting already established techniques, but the specifics of what she gets into (e.g. the timing of microbreaks, her suggested practice schedule) are based on neuroscience research and then applied to music learning. You're only seeing the correlation, not the causation.

    From her website:

    I use my background in cognitive neuroscience to translate the research on learning and memory into practical, actionable solutions musicians can use to practice and perform more effectively.

    Anyway, this is going back to the original reason for the thread being split-- this thread is not to argue about whether Dr. Molly's methods are legit, it's to see what those actually using her methods are getting (or not getting) out of it. As someone who does not follow Dr. Molly's work, you're welcome to comment on that other thread with your opinions, but let's please keep this one on topic.

    @keystring, this is not meant to be directed at you... just want to clarify that it's interesting to hear how you figured things out on your own. But for those who only have criticisms of Dr. Molly's methods without actually trying them, this is not the thread for that.

        Nightowl The original purpose of Animisha's post was to gather the opinions of people who have used Molly Gerbain's methods for the last 7 months. The discussion of the merits of MG's approach is best done in the linked thread:

        https://forum.pianotell.com/d/1511-discussing-molly-gebrian-splinter-discussion-of-molly-gebrian-7-months-later/142

        This thread is really meant for people who have used her methods to discuss their opinions of it.

            I tried the MG method for a while this summer, but gave it up when my weekly lessons resumed. At my lesson, I feel the need to show my work on each piece I'm working on (time permitting). The long gaps that are inserted as part of the MG schedule don't seem to be particularly well suited to weekly lessons. Does anyone know if she discusses how to use her practice methods when taking weekly lessons? Anyone have experience with doing both?

              rsl12 Apologies for going off topic, I've deleted my post.

              "Don't let's ask for the moon, we have the stars." (Final line from Now,Voyager, 1942)

                Stub if it were me, I would try to direct your lesson so that you work on other pieces during that break. I feel that as adults, we can be free about communicating how we prefer our lessons to be structured 🙂

                  twocats That's not true, she's a neuroscientist and is taking the research on learning and applying it to music.

                  Fair point.

                  I thought that @keystring provided some interesting insight and I wanted to respond to his post, but anyway I went a bit off topic so I've deleted my post.

                  "Don't let's ask for the moon, we have the stars." (Final line from Now,Voyager, 1942)

                      twocats @keystring, this is not meant to be directed at you... just want to clarify that it's interesting to hear how you figured things out on your own. But for those who only have criticisms of Dr. Molly's methods without actually trying them, this is not the thread for that.

                      @twocats - I was asked by someone using her method (so legit for this thread) to give that explanation. In a way it's inappropriate for the thread, whether I saw positives or negatives. I decided to answer because there is some parallel. I changed how I practised and thus got different results. Those trying MB's method are changing how they practise. I have stayed away from any kind of opinion.

                      Actually, regarding the part I saw in italics, I would have liked to see actual pure experiences being cited in this thread, without references to neuroscience or anything else pro or con - so we get just the results and raw experiences. That's just me. This thread interests me.

                      This goes in line with what rsl12 wrote

                      rsl12 The original purpose of Animisha's post was to gather the opinions of people who have used Molly Gerbain's methods for the last 7 months.

                      -

                      Nightowl thought that @keystring provided some interesting insight and I wanted to respond to his post, but anyway I went a bit off topic so I've deleted my post.

                      I'll probably go there in the other thread and might also send a PM.

                              keystring I changed how I practised and thus got different results.

                              I was interested in what you had to say as well! I think anything about the experience of improving one's practice methods is totally fair to share here. I am also interested in the neuroscience aspect, to understand why it works. But we don't have to discuss that, I just brought it up because there were some incorrect assumptions about MG's work.

                                keystring @twocats - I was asked by someone using her method (so legit for this thread) to give that explanation.

                                Yes, I asked Keystring, and there was so much in her explanation that resonates with what Molly says, that I thought it was an excellent complement to this thread!

                                *
                                ... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...

                                  Stub

                                  I don't have weekly lessons, but I had this big piece (for me) In Church waiting for me that I understood I could only learn with Molly methods. Now In Church was piece 70 and I was working with pieces 65-67. At that moment, I started learning the very first section of In Church. I made these Molly schedules, and gradually, I finished piece 65 and started working with pieces 66-68, all the time also doing small small sections of In Church. Eventually, it turned out that In Church was ready for a first recording before piece 69.

                                  TLDR, start very early with your Molly sections! Long before you even discuss the piece with your teacher.

                                  *
                                  ... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...

                                    pianoloverus The original purpose of Animisha's post was to gather the opinions of people who have used Molly Gerbain's methods for the last 7 months. The discussion of the merits of MG's approach is best done in the linked thread:

                                    https://forum.pianotell.com/d/1511-discussing-molly-gebrian-splinter-discussion-of-molly-gebrian-7-months-later/142

                                    This thread is really meant for people who have used her methods to discuss their opinions of it.

                                      So here is one of the problems I am running into.

                                      I cite from Molly's book.

                                      “Imagine little me in the practice room: I’d play the measure my teacher said needed work and maybe it was perfect on the first try. Hooray! Maybe the second try was also great. But on my third try, I was distracted by something, so that time wasn’t very good. Okay, that one doesn’t count. Fourth time: also not great. Doesn’t count. Fifth time: good! Now I have three correct, two incorrect. I would continue like that until I had 10 correct ones.
                                      You can imagine, though, that by the time I did 10 correct repetitions, I probably also did 10 (or more!) incorrect repetitions that didn’t count. In that case, I had accomplished literally and precisely nothing (except wasting my time) because I had reinforced the correct pathway 10 times, but also the incorrect pathway 10 times. I still had two completely equal pathways, and therefore only a 50% chance of it going well. [...]
                                      We need to ensure that the correct pathway gets reinforced many more times than the incorrect pathway. [...] To accomplish this, it’s important to have a consequence for an incorrect repetition. To make this happen, add the words “in a row” to the number of correct repetitions you plan to do: 10 times correctly in a row. This means if you get it wrong on the third repetition, you have to start over again at zero. When faced with the consequence of having to start all over again, you will focus much more, and you will focus on exactly what you need to do to get it right.”

                                      The problem for me is, even when I think the magical thought "ten times in a row" this only works when I practise very small passages, a couple of notes basically, or just one hand. As soon as the passages that I practise get a bit larger, almost inevitably I fail on one of those ten times, not uncommonly on the 7th or 8th time. Even when I divide those ten times in a row into twice five times in a row, it happens way too often that I don't make it to 10 (or 2x5) times in a row.

                                      This is a great source of frustration, and instead of feeling that I progress, I can end a practice session with six new passages written in my notebook that I need to play correctly 2x5 times in a row.

                                      Those of you who work with Molly methods, do you have any advice to me?

                                      PS I wrote my question in this thread, because it is about how to apply what she says, and not a discussion of the validity of what she says.

                                      *
                                      ... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...

                                        This happens to me too and is so frustrating because it is unexpected. One thing I try to remember from the book is that practice is problem solving. So this is my first step. In my case I tend to play faster than I should too early. Slowing down a lot normally helps, but then quickly come back for normal tempo because I am good at playing by ear so I imitate the reference of the tutorial. Metronome is the solution but I need discipline. But most of the time my mistakes are not because of the technique (I am very cautious when selecting repertoire and normally is below my technical skills), they are because of memory slips or some sort of distraction. My conclusion is that the learning process is just much slower than I expect, and is not a linear progress so it is difficult to feel a consistent progress even at the intermediate level I am. But it is actually happening. Like a tree growing even when you cannot see because the process is so slow.

                                        All this reminds me my problem with insomnia: try to sleep and it will not happen. Do the right things in my lifestyle to create the conditions and sleeping will happen as a result. So I am trying the same approach with my learning.

                                        Animisha

                                        Animisha Those of you who work with Molly methods, do you have any advice to me?

                                        I will think about this question and come back and try to share some thoughts later…. Because I feel like this goal, of X number of perfect repetitions w/ no mistakes, is one of the key pieces of her method that is both helpful and also near impossible to implement. And I think it’s part of her method that I am sort of half implementing, half ignoring…

                                            I'm pretty sure that MG wrote (or said) that she only does it for very short passages.

                                              Greta99 I'm pretty sure that MG wrote (or said) that she only does it for very short passages.

                                              Short passages and slow it down even further if you find yourself having to restart because of mistakes. The goal is to not reinforce wrong moves.

                                                Animisha I've switched to using a 3 x 3 x 3 method from Chapter 4 on taking breaks in Molly's book. I'd forgotten about this method until I ran across it in another thread here (possibly about breaks, but I couldn't find the thread again).

                                                Play 3 correct repetitions
                                                Take a 10 second break
                                                Play 3 more correct repetitions
                                                Take another 10 second break
                                                Play 3 more correct repetitions
                                                If any of the repetitions had errors, start over and repeat the process.
                                                I'm a little fuzzy on interpreting the last instruction. Just start over within a set of 3 if I make a mistake in that set? Or start the whole 3 sets again if I make a mistake in, say, the last set of 3?

                                                I've been using the more lenient interpretation, but either way, the breaks keep me focused.

                                                    I'm wading in here with trepidation since I'm not following that methodology but maybe am thinking about it.

                                                    Reading the instructions you cited, @lilypad - a question to anyone following the system - Does Molly necessarily expect things to be followed in such a lockstep manner? Or is this a starter for you to tweak as needed?

                                                    Because I was asked, I recently related how I came to the way I approach practising and learning, which has some similarities but is different. When I get to "If any of the repetitions had errors ...." my own inclination would be "Why does it have errors?", then I'd find the cause of those errors, and that might lead me on a tangent, and that tangent should lead to a reduction of errors. Does Molly go in that kind of direction as well?