Thanks @rsl12 for the reminder of our rule here at PT and for getting us all back on track! And thanks for unlocking and separating these threads!
Now, PT friends, please carry on! There are lots of ideas about pros and cons of MG's approach (I have some of my, pros as well as cons), so let's get on with that discussion!
I don't follow MG. I watched some of her videos last year and that's all. Frankly, planning & tracking every little detail of practice is too much for me. Sounds like too much overhead and potential cause for disappointment. My goal is simply sit on the bench and do something piano, every single day. Still failing at this some days 
.
However, I still find MG discussions useful. Like; importance of sleep, breaks, splitting the piece into manageble bits, correct repetitions etc. Some of these might be traditional ideas but it doesn't really matter. It was useful to me.
hebele Sounds like too much overhead and potential cause for disappointment.
This is one of my main concerns with the MG approach, that's it's not sustainable for many adult learners, and that as a result, it might end up making people feel discouraged, as if, by not following the method just so, they're wasting their time or something.... I feel like it would be helpful to have a "toned down" version of her approach, that is maybe a little more accessible and do-able, but that still gets some of the core components.
Kind of like trying to diet or eat healthy, where there ought to be a method that helps you do your best even if it's not adhering to the diet all the time....
ShiroKuro I haven't read the book, I've only watched the video series about spaced practice that I shared here. And then I'm picking up nuggets here.
It seems that she doesn't have a specific method, but a lot of strategies that can be taken piecemeal? For example, 10 second microbreaks. I was annoyed and wondered if I could browse my phone during the breaks but it turns out that 10 seconds is very short. Or random practice. I have flagged my trouble pages to do focused practice on those and am trying to get away from my habit of starting at the beginning and then stopping to practice when I hit a trouble spot.
I don't do her rule of repeat until clean 3x3 (I think?) because that is overwhelming. But I am taking it to heart that the more I play it cleanly, that's what's getting written into my neural pathways and I shouldn't let myself get away with repeated mistakes in the same spot.
rsl12 Thanks for creating this splinter thread - it's a great idea and I appreciate the way that you carefully included all the posts which were slightly off topic in the other discussion.
I also appreciate the additional points you made and I would like to add something in relation to point 3. Here in the UK, our humour is often rather barbed in comparison to American humour. It is common for friends to tease each other fairly brutally and have ongoing running jokes against each other. Despite our stereotypical "stiff upper lip" reputation, we Brits are actually pretty good at laughing at ourselves, it's a very British trait. However, this episode has reminded me that people from other cultures may not share this type of humour, so I will dial it down in future.
Thank you for your moderate moderation, I appreciate your way of handling things.
"Don't let's ask for the moon, we have the stars." (Final line from Now,Voyager, 1942)
I like what she writes, and even though much might not be original with her, she gets credit for organizing it into a coherent whole and putting it out to the public.
What is holding me back is how to follow her rules bullet points advice in the context of weekly lessons. I would like to bring to the lesson each piece I'm working on (because I value my teacher's input and I pay to take lessons), but what if a piece is in the no-practice break of the schedule? What if I need to revise my practice schedule based on my teacher's input? I can sort of see ways to work around these problems, but what I'm left with is only a small fraction of MB's practice points. Which is fine by me. Take what works for you, leave the rest.
I really appreciate the moderation here. I'm very glad nothing got deleted, because I really hate it when random posts disappear and it's no longer clear who replied to what and why. I'm very glad the two topics were split so they can continue, and I'm very glad everything was handled in a level headed way.
Concerning the Molly book I have said everything I wanted to say and I stand by my previous opinions. I have no additional pros or cons to add for now.
I haven't read the book and I've read only some of the posts on this thread. From what I can understand the book is about ways to practice pieces. I can certainly see value in that especially for some of the basic ideas like practicing small sections. On the other hand I think this kind of approach can omit what I would call the most important idea.
The most important part in solving problems at the piano is I think figuring out what's causing the problem and what one should do about that. Playing small sections, playing some fixed number of repetitions, taking breaks during practice or for days on which a piece is not practiced, and some of the other things I've read on this thread that are in the book can all help. But I think they are often insufficient.
For example, to take a purely technical exercise, one can practice scales endlessly And use all of the Gebrian suggestions but with improper technique they will usually not improve or reach some limit or improve much more slowly than if one made technical corrections. If one has problems with some passage or piece, practicing something over and over may not be very helpful unless one figures out why there is a technical difficulty and figures out some solution.
For me, fingering turns out to be very important. So if a passage is causing difficulty for me I quite often end up trying a different fingering. Just an example.
hebele Frankly, planning & tracking every little detail of practice is too much for me. Sounds like too much overhead and potential cause for disappointment. My goal is simply sit on the bench and do something piano, every single day.
My personality is totally this one. If I can, I avoid goal setting and sub-goals and evaluating and adjusting and re-evaluating.
But my reality at the piano is that there is a very slow progress and a lot of struggle with mistakes. I have a long time ago accepted that slow progress, but the struggle is real.
*
... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...
pianoloverus The most important part in solving problems at the piano is I think figuring out what's causing the problem and what one should do about that. Playing small sections, playing some fixed number of repetitions, taking breaks during practice or for days on which a piece is not practiced, and some of the other things I've read on this thread that are in the book can all help. But I think they are often insufficient.
I have not read the book, either, but from biographical information and some of the videos, I understand her to be an advanced viola player. Her methods for practice are general and aren't limited to particular instruments. But I do get the impression that she is addressing practice by intermediate to advanced students, in which case the student should already be demonstrating some skill at problem solving. Her practice method is more about scheduling of practice sessions to match neurocognitive states than for problem solving per se. How to practice rather than how to gain skills.
Stub pianoloverus The most important part in solving problems at the piano is I think figuring out what's causing the problem and what one should do about that. Playing small sections, playing some fixed number of repetitions, taking breaks during practice or for days on which a piece is not practiced, and some of the other things I've read on this thread that are in the book can all help. But I think they are often insufficient.
I have not read the book, either, but from biographical information and some of the videos, I understand her to be an advanced viola player. Her methods for practice are general and aren't limited to particular instruments. But I do get the impression that she is addressing practice by intermediate to advanced students, in which case the student should already be demonstrating some skill at problem solving. Her practice method is more about scheduling of practice sessions to match neurocognitive states than for problem solving per se. How to practice rather than how to gain skills.
Yes I agree that her book is probably mostly about what you say in your last sentence. And I think some posters give the impression that they think problem solving isn't nearly as important as all the things discussed in her book but I think problem solving is far more important.
I did see one post where the poster said something to affect they concentrated on one measure and figured out some new hand motions to improve their playing of that measure. I think that's the most important thing. Now if before reading the book they didn't realize they might have to work on a single very difficult measure by itself then the book is valuable as long as they could figure out better hand motions.
Without the ability to analyze what the problems are and figure out solutions this reminds me of the many books I saw when I was teaching math about how to "beat the SAT". All the little tricks and test taking techniques they mentioned were certainly reasonable, but without the appropriate mathematical knowledge I don't think they would improve someone's SAT score very much. They were the icing on the cake but not the most important thing.
@pianoloverus I think your comments speak to the importance of having a teacher.... I mean, I think one of the needs that the MG book fills is that it addresses what to do with practice time. And a lot of people talk about frustration when they have a teacher who didn't teacher them how to practice. But MG can't tell you (or doesn't, she probably can if it's viola)... anyway, she doesn't tell you how to play.
Ideally, one gets both: guidance about how to play and guidance about how to practice. But I think often the reality is that piano students don't get both kinds of guidance from the same teacher. So MG's book fills that need for "how to practice," but there still needs to be guidance on how to play.
ShiroKuro My point is that although both are important, IMO how to play from both a musical and technical standpoint is more important and much more complicated. To use an example I mentioned before, I think practicing scales while following everything in her book but not understanding the correct technical approach will not get you very far.
pianoloverus MG's teachings are about optimizing your practice so that you make faster progress and have to spend less time doing it.
Of course you need to have the correct technical approach. But for example, I think she said this during the video chat we had with her: the human brain cannot absorb more after 5 hours (I think it's 5 but don't remember for sure). So she was saying that if you practice 8 hours, you literally can't make extra progress after the 5 hours and it's wasted time and effort.
No one is arguing that the correct technical approach isn't important for playing well. If you aren't practicing your skills correctly, you're not going to play well whether or not you try her efficiency suggestions. But if you are, you can save quite a lot of practice time.
twocats Of course you need to have the correct technical approach. But for example, I think she said this during the video chat we had with her: the human brain cannot absorb more after 5 hours (I think it's 5 but don't remember for sure). So she was saying that if you practice 8 hours, you literally can't make extra progress after the 5 hours and it's wasted time and effort.
No one is arguing that the correct technical approach isn't important for playing well. If you aren't practicing your skills correctly, you're not going to play well whether or not you try her efficiency suggestions. But if you are, you can save quite a lot of practice time.
I do get the impression, especially since I'm basically the only one bringing up the importance of trying to figure out what's causing some problem and what the solution is, that many of those trying her techniques do you think it's some magic cure for all their problems both technical and musical. For example, one poster in the thread where people discuss their experiences using Molly's approach, Said she was getting very frustrated because she couldn't repeat a passage correctly enough times to satisfy Molly's suggested number of correct executions in a row. But the poster never said anything about trying to figure out why she couldn't get enough correct executions in a row. Her approach seemed basically to play the passage over and over hoping at one point she could get the desired number of correct executions.
Regarding how many hours one can practice and still make progress, this of course varies from person to person. Most amateurs are never going to practice even 5 hours and most professionals understand that one has to take breaks if one is planning a marathon 8 hour practice session In one day.
pianoloverus But the poster never said anything about trying to figure out why she couldn't get enough correct executions in a row.
I'm pretty sure @Animisha said that eventually she ended up reducing the length of the phrase as part of her solution?
pianoloverus Most amateurs are never going to practice even 5 hours and most professionals understand that one has to take breaks if one is planning a marathon 8 hour practice session In one day.
It's not about taking breaks, it's about the physical limitation of the brain. If the human brain can only learn for 5 hours a day before it tops out, it doesn't matter if you're taking breaks or not, that extra 3 hours of practice is wasted time.
That was just one example of information about practice efficiency that has nothing to do with learning proper technique.
twocats pianoloverus But the poster never said anything about trying to figure out why she couldn't get enough correct executions in a row.
I'm pretty sure @Animisha said that eventually she ended up reducing the length of the phrase as part of her solution?
I haven't read or may not remember every post, but to the best of my knowledge she was never able to get the desired number of repetitions even after she reduced the section to something much shorter. In other words, If someone has difficulty with a passage there are many other things to try to fix it besides shortening the passage one is working on. In another post I mentioned what I thought was generally a better approach, where the poster said something to the effect they had tried at different hand position to solve whatever the difficulty was.
