• Pianist Zone

  • Discussing Molly Gebrian (Splinter Discussion of "Molly Gebrian 7 Months Later")

twocats Here are her three videos that I first watched.

First and recurring impression: Molly begins with "the ("usual") way we practise" and this is a particular model: long hours daily, going through your pieces etudes and whatnot; multiple repetitions. She came up with a different way of practising. We have to start with some assumptions: that "usual way". I suspect that she had that usual way since the start, and in recent years she has found an alternate to that "usual way".

This usual way - the things she is countering - isn't done or taught by everyone, but I suspect it is common, and esp. for those on a given path, and maybe the ones who end up in music studies at university. The ideas she presents are ones I've seen taught, when I sought it out myself, and applied by many musicians. That is, they don't do endless repetitions and all that. For anyone who did get stuck in this "usual way", what she is presenting may be a way out into something new and better.

On this point, when I joined PW in 2008, in the teacher forum one often saw "how many repetitions do we tell students to do?", "How many minutes/day do we tell different ages to practise?" and "Can we let them have one day off in a week?" So this "usual way we practise" seems sadly widespread. I'd push against it.

The context of "usual way" seems very important. She is countering this "usual way". This to me seems the invisible (elephant?) central thing. If you've not been in those boxes, you may see all this differently.

For me, what is presented with the schedules and such, seem very regimented. If they are created by someone who was taught via regimens and routines, it makes sense that the alternatives will also be regimented because that is what is known. The (university) students who have had regimens will be looking for alternate regimens to the existing regimens. I'm not comfortable with such schedules, and it's not just because of my character; it's also because of what I've found to work. I suspect that the discomfort of people such as Pianoloverus may be along the same lines.

The ideas themselves, I'm familiar with all of them (and a few more) and they are good ideas. They can be applied more flexibly or more creatively. It may also be that an individual student or growing pianist needs to have something scheduled, to have routines set out, and this can be a "starter". If it gets you places when before you were constantly on the hamster wheel going nowhere, then it's the right thing for you. It is possible and even likely that over time you'll start tweaking and changing things; you'll start discovering things on your own which brings you beyond these things, but maybe born out of these things.

I've also seen in some discussions where someone tried the system and got stuck inside one of the schedules. This part over here doesn't work; or this timing isn't compatible with having a piece ready for the next lesson. In that case I think you'd want to tweak the schedule. The ideas and concepts would come before set timing.

      When I was a young teacher I was given advice I never forgot, "Don't give generalizations. Give concrete examples." So here are some actual experiences.

      • As a violin student, I got stuck at the same measure for a month and had to abandon the piece. It was "very hard". I fell apart on the instrument and it was a bad experience. A decade later I discovered that I'd been taught to push the strings down way too hard - good for gut but not modern strings. I spent a week playing random notes, practising the sensation of pressing just hard enough to get a clean sound, with a relaxed hand. Then on impulse I pulled out he dreaded piece, heart pounding, daring to try playing it. I sailed right past the hard part, effortlessly!

      This massive improvement was not due to 10 years having gone by. It is because I built good physical habits and reflexes, and they kicked in.

      In that experiment, I applied the principles that MG has discovered, and others have told me about years ago. To retrain my hand, I had short sessions, sometimes half a minute or less, frequently. Any longer and your old reflexes will override, plus you won't be focusing anymore. I "slept on it". I pulled the old piece out after a week, because at least a week was needed for this to occur.

      • I have some weak areas. Sense of pulse is one. Physical movement, because originally I learned piano self-taught as a child among other things. I've worked with more than one teacher, though mostly with a main one. In a recording of a beta stage, I may be asked, "Timing is off - is this physical or counting?" The answer will determine what the next practising will look like. It is not just "If this is wrong, try to get more rights than wrongs before moving on / try to get 10 rights in a row."

      This can lead to tangents, and I'm told that even professional musicians may go on tangents. If some passage is hard, "skill X needs tweaking or a different approach" - then the focus might be skill X, and the piece might not be practised at all.

      The thing with this is (afterthought), that while practising and observing, I want the flexibility of shaping that practice session and future ones according to what is going on. A predetermined schedule doesn't work for me. When I discovered poor physical habits in pedaling due to my old DP, I replanned practising so as to address this. Work on the physical act of pedal; put the piece aside or work on other aspects minus pedal; then add pedal; less measures so as to not lose the new skills.

      Last one from the 2nd video, "Skill Transfer". The surgery students who practised a skill using objects, and then on a living creature. Then, students doing an etude and then applying the etude skills to actual pieces. Wait! What? This is a new? What is behind this being a new idea?

      Again this must have been preceded by poor teaching protocol. You "do your scales and chords". Then you "do your etudes". Then you "do your pieces". Then you "do your theory worksheet". Routines without rhyme or reason, and of you "do" the "doings" then magically you become a pianist or a violist. Is that the background?

      Etudes (well done ones) teach gestures, patterns, in a repetitive way so as to acquire them, so that they can be used in repertoire. That's the point. If a teacher isn't teaching that way, what are they doing? Why is this a discovery? Is there an underlying common problem?

      In my teacher training you had the curriculum guidelines for each subject for a grade level, which will also prepare for the next grade level. You broke it down into sub-skills, how to bring these to the students, what activities they need to do to acquire those skills, and how they might apply them practically. In poor teaching, you just "do the pages".

      The concept of "integration" may be separate, or not. I had a postgrad course with a brilliant professor for 2nd language teaching. Language learning, if it involves oral and not just reading and writing, has some relationship to music. There is the physical pronunciation, ability to hear and not filter sounds according to your native language, and being able to react in real time. Your vocab, grammar and syntax are useless if you cannot apply them in real time in a conversation. The skills and knowledge must be "integrated". This may, in fact fit.

      and maybe imaginatively

      • Way back, a friend who immigrated to Canada from Europe, and had learned "international French" as a 3rd language, had to attend lectures given by a French Canadian. She couldn't follow. I gave her a tape of Gilles Vigneault, along with the written lyrics. Read along as he sings. Pick up the rhythm and cadence. At the next lecture, don't try to catch any of the words. Align yourself with the rhythm and cadence. It worked.

      The point is, if you're teaching or teaching yourself, what are you trying to reach, and how do you reach it? It should not be "this set of things", then "that set of things" as tasks. They relate. All kinds of things relate. Stirring a pot of soup may give you the motions you need for playing a circular pattern of music.

      I agree with with MG says. I am just astonished if this is a new idea.

      keystring In that case I think you'd want to tweak the schedule.

      Just want to say, she says it's the schedule that works well for her, and she shares it to use as a baseline but she doesn't expect that everyone is going to adhere strictly to it.

      What I most got out of seeing it is that there's a benefit to practicing a section several days in a row and then taking a break. And in the schedule, that break gets longer as you progress. I have tried the schedule and end up falling off it pretty quickly but it's personally helpful for me to remember that I should probably repeat a section for several days in a row before I move to something else and give that initial section a "break".

          twocats Just want to say, she says it's the schedule that works well for her, and she shares it to use as a baseline but she doesn't expect that everyone is going to adhere strictly to it.

          That makes sense. It is a schedule that works for her, a fully trained violist who needs to learn repertoire for whatever ongoing performance tasks she has.

          I'd say she shouldn't expect anyone to adhere to it. But she might say "These are the principles I discovered. Here is how I am applying them to my own circumstances. Use this idea freely for creating a schedule that works for yours. (You may want to consult with your private teacher if you're still a student.)" Maybe that is even the intent.

          twocats have tried the schedule and end up falling off it pretty quickly but it's personally helpful for me to remember that I should probably repeat a section for several days in a row before I move to something else and give that initial section a "break".

          I see the benefit you're describing. You are changing something you've been doing, sort of getting out of that box. I can see you graduating to a schedule that works for you, and over time that would also evolve.

                keystring I'd say she shouldn't expect anyone to adhere to it. But she might say "These are the principles I discovered. Here is how I am applying them to my own circumstances. Use this idea freely for creating a schedule that works for yours.

                That's the idea, it's not like she's militant about any of this at all. But some people like having an exact template to follow and she provides that.

                    twocats That's the idea, it's not like she's militant about any of this at all. But some people like having an exact template to follow and she provides that.

                    I think I may have mentioned that need. For anyone doing that, though, I'd provide a caveat. Those templates are designed for a particular person with a given background and given goals. They are not loose enough from what I've seen. Be free to alter and tailor for your needs.

                      Regarding the schedules: I took her schedules (practice a piece x number of days, then skip for y number of days, etc.) as examples of schedules that work for her. I’m someone who learns well by example. So I took her published schedules, tried one for a couple weeks, then began tweaking and changing things into schedules and processes that work for me. I treated her schedules as a starting point, not the final product. A lot of people that give advice are vague, in my opinion; they give generalized advice about how often to practice, or to skip days periodically, or whatever. Having the concrete examples really helped me formulate my own specifics. And I’ve seen great progress in my learning as a result. Certainly this isn’t for everyone, but not much is.

                        player .... Having the concrete examples really helped me formulate my own specifics. ......

                        I only quoted part but read the whole thing. This makes sense to me.

                        Personally I still get torn between two opposing impulses. Sometimes I wish I had a program where I'm told do this, do that, then do that. In my heart of hearts I know that if I had such a program, I'd instantly rebel. 😃 But especially when I'm in unfamiliar territory I may do what you did: try a model, and then start creating my own. Total "stuff every which way" doesn't work.

                          twocats 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.

                          I have thought a lot about this particular thing. I do think that SOME people can benefit from practicing more than 5 hours a day. Brains are different, and while it's true that the AVERAGE brain would top out after 5 hours, I do think people who are intellectual giants often have some kind of neurodivergence that allows them to practice more hours while still being effective. For someone who does not have that kind of neurodivergence, it would be counterproductive to try to do so. This is NOT the average conservatory student, but if you told me Yuja Wang could do it, I would believe you.

                          This is similar to how certain people naturally don't have to sleep more than 4 or 5 hours a day. These are people on the tails of the bell curve. I have met some people like this. They don't try to sleep less, they just naturally don't feel like sleeping more than that and don't seem to suffer any loss of concentration or vitality from doing so.

                            I am very skeptical about these tests and deductions. They rely very much on the protocol that was used, what sort of training they attended, how they evaluated the results, the level of people and conditions. So to draw general conclusions from one study is quite subject to discussion. So basically, we have to take Molly Gebrian conclusions for granted. And I dont think we understand much how our brain really operates.

                              Sidokar we have to take Molly Gebrian conclusions for granted.

                              Well, except not really. One of the biggest things MG advocates is experimenting to find out what works for you, keep what does and tweak or get rid of what doesn't.

                                Maybe this post can bring together both Sidokar's and ShiroKuro's ideas

                                On conclusions: There was the "scientific" observation of I think a phys ed. prof. and snowboarding. S/he was trying to perfect snowboarding by focusing on feet and the board; and only succeeded after shifting focus on destination. The CONCLUSION presented was that to succeed, we should not focus on how to use our body or on the instrument, but only on the sound we want to produce. This became advice in one of the videos. So:

                                In my experience, strings players are usually taught heavily to focus on the body and the instrument, so they may have too much of that. In this case, switching your focus on the desired sound may counterbalance this. In my case I had almost no training on instrument/body; I was sound-oriented in the proposed ideal way. Without the body and instrument awareness, I did awkward things that produced the desired sound but was not sustainable. For someone like me, the counterbalance is to focus on body and instrument. When I responded in the YT video, MG agreed with my conclusions.

                                The thing is that anyone trying to learn from that video would see that THE way to progress is to switch to focusing on the desired sound, because that was the CONCLUSION presented. I could only give the counter-argument because of my experience. Hopefully it might help someone else if they read that exchange.

                                Yes - there is experimenting. But your experimentation will also tend to base itself on underlying premises. You'll tend not to try this or that if it's contrary to the premises presented by someone with the title of expert, and where the ideas are labeled scientific. If you can forego bot the title and the label, and be as skeptical until proven as if it was given by the mailman down the street who happens to play piano or viola, maybe that's a good way to go.

                                I went down these routes a few decades ago. I even pretended I was a kangaroo 😃 (cf Havas).

                                Schedules: I started saxophone lessons at age nine which included a practice schedule of 30 minutes per day. After a month, I told my music teacher that I didn’t like the 30 minute a day thing and was going to quit. He said, “Forget the schedule. You should only practice when you really feel like it. If you are not inspired to play your instrument, you will not enjoy it. And if you don’t enjoy it, you will not get any better.”

                                I played the saxophone for the next 40 years, much of that time professionally. I also learned to play electric bass, acoustic bass, electric guitar, classical guitar, flute, clarinet, Hammond organ, drums kit, and piano. I have never had a practice schedule of any kind. I practice when I’m inspired to do so and play for as long, or as little, as I like.

                                Even when I headed up music groups, rock, blues and later jazz, band practice was contingent on all members feeling like it. If it was not unanimous, we’d just hang out, or go to a bar together. This philosophy always made for a happy and therefore productive atmosphere.

                                As for the “five hour thing” and time wasted after that…

                                Listen to the title track from John Coltrane’s album “My Favorite Things”. That group did 50 takes of that song, with the recording session going from early evening to the next morning. The take used on the album was the 49th.

                                  PianoMonk As for the “five hour thing” and time wasted after that…

                                  Listen to the title track from John Coltrane’s album “My Favorite Things”. That group did 50 takes of that song, with the recording session going from early evening to the next morning. The take used on the album was the 49th.

                                  What she said was the brain could not learn more after ~5 hours (I'm pretty sure she said 5 hours). Different situation from doing takes.

                                      PianoMonk A small interjection here, as I believe twocats' clarification is a good one and deserves fair consideration. Hopefully it wasn't your intention here to be entirely dismissive, although I certainly understand there might be a difference in opinion. 🙂

                                      I'll add my perspective as a hobbyist who both practices and has recorded performances.

                                      1. I've not gotten anywhere close to 5 hours of dedicated practice. I simply can't see how that would be productive to me and I don't have the energy for it. I think you need to be real dedicated or a professional to be able to approach that and I'm sure some people can do it.

                                        As a lifelong learner in other domains, I have no trouble at all in believing that there are practical limits to returns on investment after 5 hours. We can debate over the number of hours or the merit of the scientific studies, but I expect there is certainly a ceiling.

                                        As an upper limit, few of us would benefit from practicing 24 hours a day, for example, brains certainly require sleep for durable learning.

                                      2. On the other hand, I have gotten close to 50 takes and I have often chosen the 49th take. Often for me it's a choice between the 2nd take OR the 49th take. My early "good" take is usually very pure and my later "good" take usually has a bit more spice to it. I used to favor the 2nd take, but sometimes I feel like the 49th take is closer to the vision of I want to achieve.

                                      All of this to say, is that I suspect that comparing 1 & 2 is more like comparing apples and oranges.

                                      Hoping we can have a healthy conversation. 🙂

                                      --
                                      Beach L168, Wish, baCh, WOW Petrof, Fake Steinway, VS
                                      TIME

                                          navindra Hopefully it wasn't your intention here to be entirely dismissive, although I certainly understand there might be a difference in opinion. 🙂

                                          Disagreements are always fine as long as things are said in a respectful way. But PianoMonk there's no call for rudeness. It shuts down the conversation and brings down the tone of both the thread and the forum.

                                          navindra Hoping we can have a healthy conversation. 🙂

                                          Thank you, I hope so too!

                                                  navindra I've not gotten anywhere close to 5 hours of dedicated practice.

                                                  I couldn't have imagined this when I was growing up (and hating piano haha) but now that I'm working on chamber music, I get it. My last workshop piece was about 40 minutes at performance tempo and difficult, and I was feeling like there just weren't enough hours in the day because there was just so much material to learn. In the final month of cramming I was often practicing 5-7 hours! Now I'll hopefully wrap it up around 4-5 hours and go do something else. I'm also hoping that going forward I'll be ready well in advance and it won't come to that 🙂

                                                    The 5-minute thing as opposed to 5 hours, these are apples and oranges.

                                                    A group of musicians perfecting a recording already have the skills and knowledge which they are applying, and they will have mastered the piece they are playing. So they can go from evening to next morning. Same if you are learning a piece in a familiar genre in an habitual manner.

                                                    The "short session" thing has to do with acquiring skills; learning a new piece without picking up things which later you have to fix. For a truly new skill - say you've never played piano and you're trying to learn a scale on the piano - your entire brain will light up. Later there's a "designated area" which will be involved, and this is less fatiguing. You can also think you're focusing but actually you're partly scattered. A tight focus is quickly tiring but has strong results - that is, for learning.

                                                    I have also practised for several hours. But I'll switch what I'm focusing on. That includes working on one short passage, but focusing on different aspects of playing that passage. There may be mini-breaks where you stop, think about it or have some ideas, and then continue, in some kind of rhythm.

                                                    As I understand it, what MG is trying to counter is, for example, drilling the same thing for an hour. She cites some kind of traditional way which she seems to think is the norm, where one "does that". The professional band that recorded into the morning would not have been drilling something over and over to "learn" it.