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

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.

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.

twocats MG is a neuroscientist .....

I've been pondering this. I know she has two degrees and that one of them is in neuroscience. I don't know that she is a neuroscientist, though. Whether or not she is, I'd want to look at everything with care. When someone has a title, we can tend to take everything as gospel because of that title.

keystring you're right, she is not a neuroscientist. But as an academic, I'm assuming she's up to date on the most recent science about how the brain learns, and those learnings are applicable to most people. And I'm interested in seeing how those things can help me! It's not like I lose anything by trying them.

The other side of the coin is people outright dismissing the value of her suggestions without 1) understanding what the suggestions are and where they come from, and inferring things from a very simplified "sound bite" that someone said on the internet or 2) not trying it for themselves.

Dr. Molly Gebrian is a professional violist with a background in neuroscience. Holding degrees in both music and neuroscience from Oberlin College and Conservatory, New England Conservatory of Music, and Rice University, her area of expertise is applying the science of learning and memory to practicing and performing. Given this expertise, she is a frequent presenter on the neuroscience of practicing at conferences, universities, and music festivals in the US and abroad.

twocats Well, I guess you told me off. No rudeness was ever intended.
I'm just amazed that this thread is titled "discussing", when it's clear that opposing opinions on Molly's (not sure what's safe to call it here) teachings are not wanted. Lots of people find what she offers helpful, and I'm glad they've found it useful. I think she's full of crap. That's my opinion. You can all throw a party now, because I won't trespass on this thread again.

Nightowl MG certainly has some loyal supporters on this forum, but their right to be offended on her behalf doesn't cancel out your right to freedom of speech.

As rsl12 said, I'm not offended by anyone's opinion but I don't think it's appropriate to be responded to with disrespect. I hope you can see the difference. As I said above:

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

PianoMonk 'm just amazed that this thread is titled "discussing" ....

Just noting that I did discuss, in the true sense, something of yours today in dialog. I don't know if you saw it. It would be the second time for a non-response. The idea of you being rude or not would seem to be less fruitful than actual ideas.