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

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.

twocats Whatever...

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.

keystring thanks for this comment, I feel like you’ve articulated something really important that is often ignored.

When someone has a piece already worked up — especially a professional musician — and is doing a recording session, they are not “learning.” And probably not even concentrating in the traditional sense, or in the ‘learning” sense…. So MG’s recommendations most likely don’t apply to that context, and as such, that context also would not negate MG’s recommendation, nor would it negate this application of neurological research.

ShiroKuro So... once a musician has a piece "worked up" it's not possible for them to learn anything more about it? Have you ever actually worked with other musicians in a recording session? Improvising over, let's say, a 2 - 5 - 1 section of a song using various scales or modes, and working on which of those is best suited to what one wants to convey, is most certainly, in my humble opinion, a learning exercise.