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

Nightowl If people were to add up the time they had spent reading MG's book, watching her online tutorials and/or attending the group lecture, devising practice schedules and/or spreadsheets to track progress, maybe they'd find that they've invested quite a large number of hours studying MG's method. Maybe those hours would have been better spent actually playing the piano? <Runs off before MG's apostles form a lynch mob>

Learning how to learn is most definitely time well invested. The rewards of knowing how to practice and applying those techniques are quite simply exponential, figuratively speaking. Sometimes that involves being rigorous, but there are apps for that!

I've spent a lifetime learning and practicing things by brute force. That is how I first approached both guitar and piano. The truth of that is much of that effort was completely wasted and ultimately useless.

Two days ago, I took one of MG's techniques and taught it to my seven year old. I used a small counter app on my watch to help us. Today, I can already see the transformation in effect. It's simply magical to see, again, figuratively speaking.

MG's book is certainly not perfect but she has some truly deep insights, at least in my personal experience. I'm not the dogmatic sort, but I'm more than happy to experiment, test, and learn from the results!

navindra if I can cut my learning time down significantly I'll take all that I can get! Today I did slow practice of just a few bars at a time for my trouble spots and took microbreaks (10 seconds is a very short amount of time!) and I made a lot of progress!!

I like to read posts on both sides of an issue, in this case on how useful the MG methods have been. Most things, in my experience, are not black or white, yes or no, but lie somewhere in between. Please, discuss away!

Sophia That's why I'm surprised when I was informed that only the ones who drank the KoolAid were allowed to participate, because last I knew this is a forum, not a cult

Indeed.

I don't believe that was @JB_PT meaning, but rather that in particular @Nightowl 's first post in this thread, the implication (however unintentional) was quite critical of the people applying MG's methods, rather than being critical of MG's methods themselves. That is where I think the discussion went off course. ... Imagine dropping into a thread about playing pieces by Mozart and tell the people there that they shouldn't be wasting their time playing pieces by Mozart. I believe that's how some of the comments have sounded and I suspect that's what JB_PT meant in his comments about moving on if there's a thread he's not interested in.

So perhaps we can all turn back to the pros and cons of the method (MG's method or other methods). Because I don't think there's anyone here who's not interested in discussing and hearing each other's ideas.

Molly is a violinist. Right? If she has found the "magical formula" for practice and performance, why isn't she playing along side of players like Joshua Bell or Anne-Sophie Mutter? I'm inclined to look at her "philosophy" as a solution in search of a problem. It reminds me of Eckhardt Tolle, who came along with a new idea for meditation. Even though people had been meditating quite nicely for thousands of years, without Tolle's guidance, people latched on to his "new Ideas" and made him, and Oprah Winfrey's publishing company, a lot of money. Some people say these new ideas have changed their lives. Good for them. They certainly have changed Tolle's life from an out of work teacher to a self-help guru. I wonder what Mozart would think of Molly.

Pallas Here's how i learn a new song:
First, I pick a song that I like. Then I play through the whole song, as slowly as necessary, to get most of the notes right. Stop a moment to reflect on whether I like the way it sounds, or not. If not, pick a different tune. If I like the tune, or arrangement, I continue on by picking out any tricky parts, not more than a measure or two at a time. Play the measure slow enough to get the fingering right. Then go back two measures and play through the rough part. Then go back four measures and play through the rough part. Then go back to the beginning of the section and play through the rough part. Then, take it from the top and play through the whole piece. If another rough spot pops up, repeat the procedure. Disregard tempo - strive for accuracy. Eventually, depending on the player's technical ability, the song or piece will be learned.

Notice I said, depending on the player's technical ability.

I had formal training for the saxophone, and had played professionally for over forty years. My school band teachers both used the "measure minus, two measures, four measures, section, and from the top method" for private lessons as well as working with the jazz band. Years later, when I played with other jazz musicians, we used the same method to tighten up songs in the group. If a song can't be learned, using this method, to the point of being able to play through in it's entirety, the piece is probably beyond the player's technical ability.
I feel there is little to be gained by attempting to play a piece that is beyond your technical ability. Yes, you want to improve, but this comes gradually by playing pieces you can actually play. And by studying scales and fingerings.

Some of the songs I play on the piano have taken weeks to get to a point where I'm pleased with how they sound. Some have taken months, maybe years, to get to where they are comfortable, where I don't even think about the technical aspects, they just sort of flow out and I can sit back and listen, maybe improvise, and enjoy playing. And, with those tunes, others can enjoy what I'm playing, too.

I don't have a regimented practice schedule; don't keep a record of my progress; don't use a notebook, don't use an app. I have no goals to learn a set number of pieces. I sit down at the piano when I feel like it, and play for as long as a little as I want. When I played regulars gigs, I found that practice actually reduced my performance energy. I don't want my interest in the piano to feel like work or like I'm studying for an exam. There are two reasons I play music - to exercise my creativity and pure enjoyment of the sound I make.

Ithaca Quite possibly the answer is that she's just not as musically talented as they are. (I've not heard her play much, nor Anne-Sophie Mutter.) Regardless, her practice and performance coaching work doesn't imply that anyone who uses it can make themselves the equal of the best artists in the world; it just helps teach people how they can learn and perform better - more efficiently, and more solidly.

This is in line with the self image she has reported in podcasts I've heard. I think she started relatively late and wasn't taught any of the practice strategies she much later discovered as a conservatory student or even later as a teacher or orchestra player. For us mere mortal, non-prodigy music lovers it's often easier to find actionable advice from a teacher who has taught lots of different students of varying abilities, (Dr Molly Gebrian started by teaching Suzuki children before teaching university students.) teachers who have spent their life thinking about pedagogy and found out several strategies that work for many, compared to a famous performer who may only be able to share their own individual path, which may not be at all realistic for someone without their talents.

candela Strictly speaking her main instrument is viola, not violin. (People with soloist ambitions tend to choose violin over viola,

This is admittedly OT, but.... viola.
It has only come into its own as a solo instrument rather recently. Tertis, then Primrose, initiated the change (I have a kind of double book co-authored by Menuhin for violin, and Primrose for viola.) The problem was that the viola was treated like a "giant violin, where you have to press harder", and with that disrespect, someone who wasn't fast enough or virtuosic enough was dumbed down to this "giant violin" which they tried to play like a violin, but more forcefully. Primrose was one of the "fathers of the viola", both urging that more music be written for viola, and also setting out viola technique. Bowing is different. Even some fingering choices are different. If you hear the Bach Chaconne played on viola by a well trained violist, that is an unforgettable experience.

When starting to write I thought this was off topic, but actually it is not, since it involves teaching and what is taught.

Meanwhile everything you wrote throughout is totally on point.

In any case this is not too OT, this is what I'm listening to right now (for the first time) and am mesmerized!

PianoMonk Thanks for sharing your perspective on learning new pieces - very helpful.

It makes sense that someone with your level of experience would view Dr. Gebrian's materials differently than many of us discussing it here. As a professional, I'm sure you've already figured out what works. Imagine you are new(ish) to learning an instrument, or you've never had a teacher, or you've never had a good teacher. In that case maybe this really would seem like a magical formula.

I'm in a Facebook piano group. A retired lady who recently returned to playing asked for help with a difficult section of a piece she was trying to learn. She mentioned that she was frustrated because she had repeated it for 5 hours straight and it just wasn't getting any better. It's not a given that everyone will figure out good practice strategies on their own or will have the benefit of learning this from a teacher (even if it seems like common sense in hindsight). I have been playing clarinet for nearly 40 years but only had 5-6 months of lessons with a pro when I was 18. I've been a piano student for maybe 7 years now and only the last 2.5 have been with an excellent teacher...and still, many of the methods in MG's book are brand new to me. I may only end up adopting a handful of them permanently, but either way I am so grateful for the wakeup call. Just the fact that I am really thinking about how I practice now is a very helpful & needed change for me.

JB_PT I'm in a Facebook piano group. A retired lady who recently returned to playing asked for help with a difficult section of a piece she was trying to learn. She mentioned that she was frustrated because she had repeated it for 5 hours straight and it just wasn't getting any better.

5 hours of practice shows that this person has plenty of motivation and determination. If you send her my way I might be able to help her gratis on that section. Contact form on my website https://andrewkraus.com is an easy way to do that.

PianoMonk I'm inclined to look at her "philosophy" as a solution in search of a problem.

I think that there was a problem to start with. She practised long hours and she struggled with mistakes. With her new way of practising, she learns more pieces in a shorter time, and she is more solid.

I don't know why you are so edgy about Molly. She has been very generous in sharing her insights on Youtube and the pdf with practice tips.

candela but not performed or published any studies of her own afaik.

Not on her own, but a quick googling found one in which she is the second name: The role of musical development in early language acquisition: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-45821-023

PianoMonk Molly is a violinist. Right? If she has found the "magical formula" for practice and performance, why isn't she playing along side of players like Joshua Bell or Anne-Sophie Mutter?

Even if she found the "magical formula" for practice and performance, she started late and didn't have the same level of talent as them. Joshua Bell etc. probably had similarly effective if not more effective methods to learn, and also started implementing them when they were maybe 7 years old.

Also, some people are just "wired" differently. If you really want to know what the fastest way to learn might be, you could look at something like the Gieseking-Liemer method. But most people couldn't do that, and the reason Gieseking himself could use that method as effectively as he did was because he had a near-photographic memory. Molly Gebrian's ideas, on the other hand, are more widely applicable. Some of the stuff she brings to the table is new and interesting.