Discussing Molly Gebrian (Splinter Discussion of "Molly Gebrian 7 Months Later")
PianoMonk I'm skeptical of "new" approaches to methods that have worked for so many in the past, especially with something like music.
The things presented seem to be new for many people from what I am reading. They are not new. When I started looking at practising and learning, I encountered these ideas via about three teachers and a couple of professional musicians. What I've seen presented so far is not new, and some seem incomplete. I'm not pushing against it because it seems that so many people have been caught out in the question of practising and learning, these things being new, that the start of a paradigm shift might be a good thing. At the same time, when I see things like repetitions X times, a lot of the "old" seems still to be there.
I have my own problems with the "science" side. What also bothers me is that some good teachers have tried to get their ideas across, and because they don't have a title they don't get heard. Or maybe they don't know how to present things in a hearable/noticeable way.
I'd not throw out the baby with the bathwater. If anyone is getting new insights and gaining ground faster than before, that is worth something.
PianoMonk In my thirties, I gave guitar lessons for several years, mainly to young guys who wanted to play in a band and make lots of money. Sadly, for some of those students, it was clear to me, right from the start, that the most money they would make from their guitars would be the day they sold them.
Ha ha ha, I love the way you worded that! 
Not funny for those young guys, but perhaps they were suffering from grand delusions and had to find out the hard way.
PianoMonk This is probably my last word on "things Molly", having spent too much time on it already. You and the other Molly-ites can call me prickly or edgy, or whatever. I felt like offering my perspective, just in case the Emperor really isn't wearing any clothes.
You're not the prickly one here @PianoMonk - I think you've been pretty calm and rational in posting your views, but then I'm no "Molly-ite" (great phrase, by the way). 
If people find her methods useful that's great, but I think it's healthy to have some scepticism about the potential advantages to using her methodology, because from my own piano journey I know one thing for sure - there are no short cuts to learning piano skills. It's hard, no wonder many adults give up in the first 2 years.
"Don't let's ask for the moon, we have the stars." (Final line from Now,Voyager, 1942)
- Edited
ShiroKuro am not a neuroscientist, but in my day job, I'm a linguist
So am I. Also a trained teacher who has looked at alternative teaching approaches, looked at music teaching with several teachers and one longterm; postgrad learning disabilities. My linguistic work has gone into other practical areas but I have also taught languages both in the classroom and one-on-one. The latter was much more effective, including because I had the freedom in how I taught, including advising the student how to work (and how not to). It's interesting to read your views.
I agree that how a thing is taught, and especially the student's role in learning are crucial. Both can be suboptimal, and especially the second. The "traditional learning" that MG describes is rather appalling but I've encountered a number of folks who seem to have been taught that way. More than that, many are not guided in how to work. Where holes exist, they need filling. But there are teachers who DO guide their students in practising. They give at least the advice I've seen in the book, and also other advice.
I generally have a problem with scientific studies for these things. Their very nature dictates artificial and limited scenarios, often created by scientists who have not taught music to students, and especially not on-on-one over a longer period. A lot of discussions and interpretations I've seen have been with a superficial view and understanding. At the same time, the word "scientific" and "scientific study" immediately lends credence, including trumping what an experienced teacher may bring to the table, merely due that word and its almost sacred aura. When I look at MG's contribution, insofar as I have, I'm looking at the ideas themselves. Many are good. All are familiar.
I remember only one study and conclusions - imperfectly. Maybe someone can pull up the details. It involved another teacher, I think involving phys ed, and this teacher was learning to do something downhill that I think was snowboarding. When that teacher stopped thinking about how to move her body and maybe about the boards, and focused on the destination of where she was going, the skill came together for her. The conclusion and advice therefore was: don't consider your body or the instrument - consider the destination and goal. I had a problem with that! Reason:
If you have been overtaught on the physical aspects of playing, which often happens in studying violin or viola, then body and instrument may be impeding you. If you focus on the sound you want to produce, that (trained) body may fall in line. In my case, I have always focused on the sound of the music I wanted to produce. I had no awareness of my body, had never learned to consider any instrument. I produced the wanted sound in clumsy ways which then got in the way of harder or faster music. For someone like me, this is totally the wrong advice. An experienced, good and observant teacher will advise according to where the student is at, to balance it all out. The snowboard example might not have been a study (?) - any of these things are within limited scenarios.
Where I see the use is if people have been stuck in a paradigm of doing things a certain way, and if they start thinking of entirely different ways of practising and learning, they might start with what MG gives, and that may lead to even more things. I'd not be surprised if that is what she had in mind.
Ithaca cause the process was simple as long as I was doing things in a way that were helpful, even though I didn't know it. I put it time and effort, got out excellent results, and believed, in my youthful arrogance, that it was all me. My work, my effort, my time, my talent. I had almost no understanding of how critical (for me, because I'm not a musical prodigy) all the excellent guidance and training I'd had was to my progress.
What you wrote made me think. The mark of good teaching is that the student is led along expertly in a way that it all seems easy, effortless, "of course that's what I'd do", with no idea of what has been given. I suspect that many who were taught well over years will have skills and no idea of how they got those skills or even quite what they have, because it all seems that natural and normal.
The flip side is that if it was absorbed subconsciously, got into your bones, you can't quite replicate what you did not consciously learn. It seems that this is the part that you are connecting to now, maybe bringing the two ends together.
PianoMonk I'm glad you (and many others) find Molly's info useful. I feel differently and think her "generosity" is, like so many other YouTube music tutors, gurus, teachers, experts, ultimately money-driven.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. Yes, it is a marketing strategy to put out free information and then have more detailed information behind a paywall, but it still helps a lot of people who don't access the paid content, so kind of a win-win.
I'm skeptical of "new" approaches to methods that have worked for so many in the past, especially with something like music. To me, learning to play a musical instrument isn't rocket science, or even neuroscience. The process is simple - you develop technical aspects, study the theory, and work at it.
Well, what makes you think rocket science and neuroscience are any different? Develop technical aspects, study the theory, work at it is how you develop any skill. So, the statement is not that useful.
If someone wants to learn to play a musical instrument, they should seek out other players of that instrument, ask them what they did to get where they are, and find a teacher (a live, in person, beside them on the bench teacher) who understands the path the student wants to take, whether it's wanting to play jazz, classical, or just play Christmas songs when the family gathers, and practice, and study, and play. That's it in a nutshell.
The problem is that not all players are good coaches, and even the ones who are don't work for everyone.
However, some students, no matter how much they practice, no matter how they practice, no matter how long they practice, no matter how many books they read, or how many YouTube gurus they subscribe to, will never reach the level to which they aspire. In my thirties, I gave guitar lessons for several years, mainly to young guys who wanted to play in a band and make lots of money. Sadly, for some of those students, it was clear to me, right from the start, that the most money they would make from their guitars would be the day they sold them.
There are still more effective and less effective ways to practice, many of which are not obvious. Molly Gebrian condenses a lot of useful information well. You are merely saying that talent and the age at which you start play a major role. But that isn't a counterargument to the role of practice/deliberate practice.
Well, never say never…
If I’m not mistaken, Neuroscience is the study of the nervous system. Rocket science is the… well, you know. Learning to play the piano involves neurological functions. But let’s face it, making sense of music, and the piano in particular, is a lot easier than becoming a neuroscientist. Which is what I meant, when I said playing the piano is not neuroscience.
Now that we’ve cleared that up….
I’m impressed at the level of devoutness to Mollyism, but not surprised. I wish thee all well and expect to hear some equally impressive Mollyite recitals this summer.
I have an idea… Let’s have a contest!
I’ll pick a song and post the sheet music. Contestants will have one week to learn it. You may register as a “Mollyite” or a “NonDen”, (Nondenominational). And at the end of the week, the contestants will post their audio or video recording and we’ll see if there’s a difference. Judging should be by popular opinion, not me. What d’ya say?
PianoMonk But let’s face it, making sense of music, and the piano in particular, is a lot easier than becoming a neuroscientist.
I disagree, actually. Playing the piano at a concert level is harder than becoming a neuroscientist imo. You can start at 16 and if you show enough interest and commitment, do your PhD and become a neuroscientist in 10 years. A concert pianist, not so much.
- Edited
This reminds me of something... hmmmmm....
I agree with Ranjit that playing the piano at a concert level is harder than becoming a neuroscientist.
*
... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...
How about that contest? No one wants to play?
PianoMonk How about that contest? No one wants to play?
No, I don't think think anyone wants to play, because your suggestion of the contest has an undertone of mean-spiritedness to it. And frankly, your labeling (Mollyites, Mollyism) not only feels dismissive and derogatory, it detracts from having a more productive conversation about the pros and cons of what she recommends.
I have an idea… Let’s have a contest!
I’ll pick a song and post the sheet music. Contestants will have one week to learn it. You may register as a “Mollyite” or a “NonDen”, (Nondenominational). And at the end of the week, the contestants will post their audio or video recording and we’ll see if there’s a difference. Judging should be by popular opinion, not me. What d’ya say?
I like the idea, but sadly it would be hard to carry out. For one thing, to give an accurate picture would require multiple sets of identical twins, who had been bought up in identical environments and played piano for identical periods of time - then the twins could be split into the Mollyite and NonDen groups for the contest. That would give a pretty accurate picture of the Molly effect! 
PS: I'm chuckling at your phrase "devoutness to Mollyism" - you nailed it! 
"Don't let's ask for the moon, we have the stars." (Final line from Now,Voyager, 1942)
The level of sarcasm being doled out here is really baffling. I'm having a hard time understanding why some of you are so spun up about this. There's a small group of us who are interested in utilizing some practice methods and discussing it here. Is that really so intolerable or offensive? If you're just tired of seeing "Molly Gebrian" pop up on the screen, you have the option of putting any thread on ignore.
Her book is getting great reviews on Amazon so far and it's also been mentioned very positively several times in the piano Facebook group I'm a member of...it doesn't seem like we are discussing something that should be so controversial or polarizing.
This forum is going to start feeling like a very unfriendly/unwelcoming/uncomfortable place if this trend continues.
JB_PT This forum is going to start feeling like a very unfriendly/unwelcoming/uncomfortable place if this trend continues.
Yes, this is my concern as well.
This is a little bit awkward for me, because I am a moderator on this forum and I’m also a general participant in this thread. I may call in the other mods if I think (or anyone else thinks) I can’t be both here…
But first I would like to ask @PianoMonk and @Nightowl to please refrain from calling me or anyone else here a “Molly-ite” or whatever other labels you might be tempted to apply.
We are just your fellow forumites, as interested in playing the piano as you are, so other labels aren’t needed.
I don't mind posters disagreeing on the forum or arguing opposite sides. Often each side will bring up points that are worth pondering. Resorting to sarcasm to 'win' an argument, however, is usually the result of the poster being unable to construct a valid and logical line of reasoning.
I haven't read the MG book or even viewed all of her videos, but from the discussions I've read here it's my opinion that much of what she has written about practice is not original with her, but she has gathered a lot of disparate information and practices (and some relevant controlled studies) and synthesized it into an actionable set of instructions. Not too many people have done that. Like everything you read/hear about learning to play the piano, you take what works for you and are thankful for it. What doesn't work for you may very well work for someone else.
Stub the other thing is that she is in the unique position of being a neuroscientist as well as a professional musician. Part of the video series that I originally posted was about her experimenting on a "spaced practice" schedule on herself during the pandemic. She knew the science justified long breaks but was afraid to test it on herself until the pandemic happened and her performances were cancelled!
To address earlier points in the thread: she doesn't have to have coached the best or to be a world-class musician. Her teachings are about how to be more efficient and spend less time to achieve the same or better results.