• Pianist Zone

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

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.

        twocats Rudeness???
        I think a lot can be learned from "Takes" as well as "Practice". You obviously don't and felt it necessary to dismiss my "take" on "takes" as not being relevant to MG's philosophy, or whatever it is. My comment of "whatever" is me running out of the mental capacity to defend my comment about Coltrane's recording session.

            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.

                PianoMonk Rudeness???
                I think a lot can be learned from "Takes" as well as "Practice". You obviously don't and felt it necessary to dismiss my "take" on "takes" as not being relevant to MG's philosophy, or whatever it is. My comment of "whatever" is me running out of the mental capacity to defend my comment about Coltrane's recording session.

                Yes, rudeness (and I'm not the only person who feels this way). If you didn't have mental capacity, you didn't have to respond right then or at all.

                MG is a neuroscientist and the 5 hours was referring to practice and the brain's capacity to learn new things. It's also not a philosophy, there are scientific studies that show this or she wouldn't have mentioned it (there are probably some people who are outliers but most people are going to have this limitation).

                Repeated takes by professional musicians who already know the music or can improvise it on the fly isn't about training the brain to learn the music, it's more about finding a take that has the right magic. It's about creating art, not developing a new skill. As @navindra said, it's apples and oranges.

                @keystring's post said it well.

                    PianoMonk 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.

                    Wading in here - what I'll write may make sense or no sense.

                    What I learned predates Molly Gebrian's recently discovered material by 15-20 years from where I began. I am not following what she presents as such. Her ideas mesh with some of the things I learned, but there's less. The goals I've seen so far also seem to differ at times. She seems to be looking at what she needs at this time for what she herself is doing and applied in a manner that suits her needs. (Discussed recently somewhere here - hence her encouragement to tweak for your own needs).

                    Ok, so when I work on music, I may apply things I know to shape the piece. In a "classical" context where you're not changing notes or find better chords, you might choose to stress or bring out this or that note, put rubato over here in this way, do this or that with the pedal. You may want to coordinate something between your hands and feet. You're using what you have and know, like an internal dictionary that you possess. What you describe seems a non-classical application, and here you must possess a dictionary of chords, progressions, scale types - whatnot. As you develop things you are learning, keeping what works, discovering things. Maybe I see this as a kind of free-flow. I've done my variant of that and the clock stops. Suddenly its an hour later and you don't know how that happened.

                    There's another kind where I'm forming that dictionary. A lot of it is also like I'm playing "from the surface of my mind" without that deep an awareness. I have had to learn to hear not just when a note starts, but also when it ends and flows into the next note. When I play a melodic line that seems predictable, am I actually hearing it or am I inserting a note that seems right but isn't that note? My way of pedaling was to press way down and lift way up, because of my first poorish instrument. To change that around needed inordinate, moment-by-moment concentration. Any moment I thought I was still doing it, but had gone into freeflow. For THIS kind of learning and focus, that only lasts a short time.

                    I think we have different kinds of learning, different kinds of practising, different kinds of goals. Might that make sense?

                      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.

                          PianoMonk Have you ever actually worked with other musicians in a recording session?

                          Yes - bands, gigs and latterly 25 years in recording (pop/rock) I’ve never encountered anything in a studio setting that would resemble 'learning'. Pro bands with big budgets (lazy, fun, wasteful of expensive studio time), orchestral sessions with fluent readers (tight, up to 20 minutes of recorded music in a 3-hour session), pop sessions with musicians booked for their particular style - often non-readers but superb players culled from a mix of ‘name’ bands. It’s an expensive affair and everyone is booked for their ability to deliver. No one is learning anything. For my sins and too many 2,5,1s, none were ever dissected.
                          The penultimate take is often the best. Producer: “…that was great, let’s just try one more!”

                            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.

                                  PianoMonk Ha, ha, ha, I nearly spat my tea out when I read your recent comment! 😁 Why are you pussyfooting around?!? Just say it like it is! 🙃

                                  You're entitled to your opinion and I don't think you're trespassing, because this is a splinter thread where dissenters should feel free to speak up. 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.

                                  "Don't let's ask for the moon, we have the stars." (Final line from Now,Voyager, 1942)

                                      Nightowl If you look at how this conversation flowed, I think you will find that no one objected to dissenting opinions about Molly Gebrian's methods. What caused this recent hubbub was the response of "whatever.." following this entirely inoffensive statement (twocats).

                                      The "whatever" might not have sounded rude to some of you, but it did to the person it addressed. I've stated it above:

                                      rsl12 If people are offended by a joke or criticism, It's not nice to shrug off their feelings, or to restate the joke/criticism in a more emphatic way. Please use manners and show some consideration.

                                      I don't think it's too much to ask.

                                            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. 🙂