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.
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 ...
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:
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 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.
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?
keystring I think response to errors may have been covered in chapter 1 of her book. Before I read that chapter, my response to errors was something like "oh, I made a mistake and will try not to make it next time" instead of delving into the what and why of the mistake. It's still a bad habit of mine, but I think I've gotten better.
In regards to the lockstep thing, I do lots of tweaking of just about anybody's methods.
Thank you. For the part you asked about:
lilypad If any of the repetitions had errors, start over and repeat the process.
I'd be inclined to tweak this. I don't know how many things you would be repeating . Supposing it's 8 things, and 7 of them are fine, but "thing 4" has errors, then I'd want to have a deep look at "thing 4" and work with it in various ways. I'd leave it for a day so that sleep and rest allows the invisible gremlins in your brain and nervous system to sort it all out. The next day I might then go back to the original routine, with "thing 4" strengthened - or maybe even spend an extra day focusing on "thing 4" and again let the gremlins do their work.
(While I write about "gremlins" and imagine cute little elves stacking on shelves the things you dumped in there, and connecting new wires, I'm actually talking about the nervous system. 
)
keystring "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.
Most of my errors are such that I cannot find a cause beyond "temporary confusion". For instance, in RH m10 there is this four 8th note motif starting with C. In m12, there is the same RH motif one step lower, starting with B flat. When playing m10, first my attention is on counting the 1½ beats before playing F in LH, and then, in the split second in which I need to decide from which note to play the RH motif, I think: B flat, and this is wrong. The cause, temporary confusion with the motif in m12.
I have no clue about how to reduce this particular temporary confusion, other than repeating this measure correctly 10 times (or 2x5, or 3x3). And I really have no clue at all about how not to suffer from temporary confusion at all. It happens to me a lot.
*
... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...
How about working backward and also out of order? m. 10 and m. 12 back and forth .... but starting on beat 3; then the note before beat 3 into the rest of it, then a beat earlier.
As a "visual picture", m. 10 and 12 look identical. If there were no lines or spaces, the RH looks identical. These are the kinds of things that can still trip me up. I sometimes consciously tell myself, "third space, C" out loud visualizing it. I may spend time just focusing on seeing lines and spaces, because I identified that weakness.
Animisha I have two suggestions. Practice the left hand separately so you don't have to think so much about it and can concentrate more on the right hand. Circle the two different notes to draw your attention to it or even temporarily write the note name of the note above it to make it easier to read instantly. Another approach would be simply to memorize that for the two measures in question The note on the third beat is just the next descending note in the E flat major scale Or just a whole step down from the note on the first beat.
@Animisha I just played with what I suggested and created a sound file. Each thing would be a different stage, and practised a number of times. I might even use something like what @lilypad described, but for the stages.
You'll notice that I go back and forth between m. 10 and m. 12, and start adding to them. I extend the measure into the next one by a beat, because we don't want artificial pauses between measures. The last step is m. 9 - 10 and into 11; m. 11-12 into 13.
I learned in practising to tackle hard parts first. Then later they flow seamlessly from the easier parts, and they become the easy parts. Let me know if this makes sense.
I would be thinking of mm. 9-10 and mm. 11-12 as a sequence and try to remember that you are going from a higher pitch down to a pitch one step lower.
