Animisha The question in the video was: "What if each small spot is 90% success rate, but when you put the whole piece together each time you fail in different places, so that the total success rate is 50%?"

That question was from me šŸ˜³. As Dr. Gebrian was giving her answer, I realized how my wording failed to convey what I really had in mind. This happen to me a lot when trying to ask short questions. And English being my second language certainly does not help.

What I meant by "success" is more like perfection. So that 10% failure can be 2 kinds: slip of finger (or mind), and less that perfect articulation or dynamics. As an example, if I play a phrase 10 times, I had one slip of finger (wrong note) that I immediately realize. I also know it's a random mistake, it is unlike to happen again the same way, and I won't be committing any bad habit to memory. At that point, I let myself move on from that phrase. I may come back later to it, though.

Now the 50% success rate when putting the whole piece together. Again I am thinking perfection. There still can be occasional slip of finger/mind. There is always more unsatisfying control of dynamics - I find this a lot harder for my beginner skill. And because the playthrough is longer, chances of these kind of small imperfection popping up here and there randomly makes getting a perfect recording in one take even harder, thus the 50% success (or fail) rate. According to Dr. Gebrian, when this happens I should abandon playthrough and just go back and practice sections or phrases. I rather make a case-by-case judgement, mainly based on whether the fail or small imperfection is repeatable or not. A slip of finger or mind? That's random. I will keep play though and just keep my concentration better. A slightly off articulation or dynamic? I can pay more attention the next time in the playthrough and see if I can change that. But if any mistakes happens the exact same way twice, then my alarm bell rings and I stop and do that bar in isolation until I figure out what's wrong and what's the fix.

Both kind of errors I mentioned, slip of finger and imprecise dynamics, are most likely a sign of deficiencies in fundamental technique. But then for adult beginners like me, I feel improvement in technique cannot be expected to happen in a very short time span. So rigidly adhering to standards could just stall my progress to the point that might demand the kind of perseverance and grit that I am not sure I have.

      I would like to add if the goal is to bring a piece to performance ready standard, then I agree 100% with Dr. Gebrian's direction.

      iternabe when this happens I should abandon playthrough and just go back and practice sections or phrases.

      I find this so frustrating that I rarely do this. However, Pianoteq records everything so it is easy to simply play back and check which mistakes I made that need fixing.

      I use the Molly method almost exclusively for learning the correct notes. When it comes to expression and dynamics, I work with it as I used to do. When I play something and I think, mmm here I should play just a bit softer, I don't do ten times in a row. It would drive me nuts!

      And it also happens that I "forgive" myself when I make a random mistake, and I feel I am just not up to working with that one. It will either recur, and then I'll fix it, or it will not recur, and then it didn't need fixing. šŸ˜Š

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

        Interesting discussion!

        This is reminding me that I still havenā€™t finished her book yetā€¦ šŸ˜…

        An additional difference that sometimes seem to get lost in the discussion is that while a performer has good reasons to practice every piece until it is 100% solid, this is probably not the most efficient use of time for a student whose larger goal is to improve on the instrument. After reaching 90-95 % "perfection" the additional effort to get the piece close to 100% is not at all proportional to the relative improvement. I often think in terms of the pareto principle. The exact numbers quoted vary, but the general gist in this context would be that we spend maybe 20% of the time to get 80% of the desired result. The more we keep polishing the more diminishing returns we get for our effort and time. Personally, my impression is that I learn more per time unit in the early stages and I'd generally rather play 5 pieces to an 80% level than one to 100% if my goal is to learn the instrument or explore music. This of course doesn't exclude polishing some pieces to a performance level, but quantity based approached like 40 pieces a year etc certainly have their merits. One quote you often hear is "Students practice until they get it right, professionals until they can't get it wrong." with the underlying assumption that the professional way is the right way, while in fact the student might actually be doing what is long term optimal for where they are.

          candela Good point. Getting that last 10-20% can take a very long time, time better spent--especially for beginners and intermediates--on working on new and/or different pieces. I know for myself that if I practiced every piece, or even most pieces, to the point of "can't get it wrong" I would be bored out of my head.

            @Stub excellent post!!!

            I think the takeaway for me is to take a sort of middle pathā€¦ use the Gebrian techniques that work for me, and also be very clear on my goals for any given piece. For sightreading or 40P pieces, Iā€™m not going to need them to get all the way to 100%, and I really agree with what you said about 5 pieces at 80% vs. 1 piece at 100%.

            But for pieces Iā€™m going to perform, then I will want to get those pieces polished to a much higher level.

            And it makes sense to me to that not all pieces need to be polished to that level.

            (As an aside, or notā€¦ my next concert will be in February so I need to choose which of my current pieces to play for that..)

            keystring Meanwhile everything you wrote throughout is totally on point.

            I agree!

            keystring In any case this is not too OT, this is what I'm listening to right now (for the first time) and am mesmerized!

            So am I. Thank you for that link Keystring! šŸ„°

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

                JB_PT It's basically right brain vs. left brain stuff, although I don't recall if that is explicitly stated. I am SO interested in that topic.

                Pardon the interruption, but I was reading through this thread and came upon this comment, and would like to recommend a book I have called, "The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" by Betty Edwards. Mine is a 1999 version. I haven't looked to see if she's done another update since that one. In any case, this book was, hands-down, instrumental in taking me from wishing I had the talent for drawing, to believing drawing was a learnable skill. Going through the book step by step, my drawings progressed from child-like to more realistic looking. So much better than I'd ever imagined was possible for me. As for the right and left sides of the brain aspect, Chapter 3 is Your Brain: The Right and Left of It, and Chapter 4 is Crossing Over: Experiencing the Shift from Left to Right. The idea of left brain, right brain is also discussed in the various drawing topics within the book.

                "The Inner Game of Music" sounds like it would be an interesting read. I've added it to my Amazon shopping cart to look at later.

                    Seeker If you send her my way I might be able to help her gratis on that section.

                    That is so kind of you! šŸ˜

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

                      Kaydia "The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" by Betty Edwards.

                      I also have the old version of this book, and it also helped me a lot to learn to draw so much better.
                      However, the science in this book is 26 years old, and a lot, a lot has happened since.
                      Still, the way she teaches drawing was revolutionary then, and that still stands.

                      The inner game of music was first published in 1986. So if there is any neuroscience in this, I wouldn't trust it. But, the ideas may still be profound!

                      Molly's ideas resonate with my logical, systematic way of thinking. It would be refreshing to explore a book that speaks to my more musical and creative side! So thank you Kadya for inspiring me. šŸ˜Š

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

                          Animisha The inner game of music was first published in 1986. So if there is any neuroscience in this, I wouldn't trust it

                          I am still getting into the re-read of this book, so maybe thereā€™s something about neuroscience in the Inner Game that Iā€™m not remembering, but my memory is that there isnā€™t any. The idea of the ā€œinner gameā€ is more about what you think about and how you think about it, how you have to focus as much on your inner game as on your ā€œouter gameā€ (i.e. technique and the physical aspects of playing).

                            Animisha If what you enjoy is to have nice recordings of most of your pieces, then why wouldn't you do what makes you happy? It's a hobby, not a race after all.
                            I only make nice recordings of a very small fraction of what I play and find more enjoyment in spending most of my practice time in the early stages of a piece where I feel the challenge and growth more. Only occasionally do I strive for a polished recording of a full piece. Honestly, I sometimes feel the opposite of what you express, that I might regret not keeping a recorded archive of more of what I've played for when I may no longer be able to play.

                              • JB_PT

                              • Post #96

                              Kaydia Pardon the interruption, but I was reading through this thread and came upon this comment, and would like to recommend a book I have called, "The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain"

                              Thanks! I looked it up - there is a 2012 revision with updates on the neuroscience aspect. I have never been interested in drawing and this book is not included in Kindle Unlimited or I might review it...but I was planning on looking for other books on right brain vs. left brain so I appreciate the reminder!

                                  One of the books in my 'to be read' stack is "This Is Your Brain on Music". I did a quick check of the fly leaf and contents and didn't see any mention of right brain although the index has some page numbers listed for right hemisphere. What will interest me when I get around to reading the book is Chapter 7. - "What Makes a Musician?".

                                  @lilypad that reminds me! I bought that book but never read it, I really need to!