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

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.

ranjit Big difference between "making sense of music and the piano" and becoming a concert pianist.
Are there any concert pianists here on PT who would care to share their experience in using the Molly Methods?

Animisha I assume you personally know some neuroscientists and concert pianists. Perhaps you could invite them to share and compare their respective career struggles.

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.

ShiroKuro 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.

Word!

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.

twocats the other thing is that she is in the unique position of being a neuroscientist as well as a professional musician

And a music teacher. She started as a Suzuki method music teacher. A very interesting profile indeed.

PianoMonk 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?

Your idea makes no sense, and I'll explain why.

The point of anyone following her ideas is to improve how they are practising and learning. They were wherever they were when they first learned about this, and if following the ideas, they should be have improvements in some of what they themselves do. But they are each in their own spot of their own journey which is varied. We are all learners with our own histories. Having a group of people with different skills, who are different levels, different amounts of experience play a same piece of music - then comparing how well they perform - says NOTHING about whether any methodology has helped them improve over where they were.

An idea of a competition in this manner is also contrary to the spirit being fostered in this site of nurturing and supportive. Any adult learning to play piano late in life is already vulnerable and putting themselves out there. But that is a different matter.

Danieru She started as a Suzuki method music teacher.

this is an interesting detail that I think I knew, but had forgotten. I don't know a lot about the Suzuki method, but I suspect it's the antithesis of things she espouses these days.

JB_PT I would also like to interject here about the overall tenor of some of the posts/posters.

I have followed this thread because I’m interested in the experiences of people who’ve invested the time and effort into learning about Gebrian’s work, and how it has worked out for them. I haven’t done so myself, but I’m nonetheless interested in fellow forum members’ experience with it.

Some of the posts here feel extremely dismissive not just of Gebrian’s work but of fellow forum members — with language that sounds like they’ve been duped into joining a cult or some such. If you’re not interested in the work, that’s totally fine. But I think those that are skeptical have expressed their skepticism plenty, and it’s getting to the point that there are posts that feel gratuitously nasty and trollish toward forum members who are just trying to share their experiences. You don’t have to engage.

If you have tried to apply the methods and they haven’t worked for you and you want to share, do so. My take on this thread was that it was a place to share what has worked and what has not, what has been difficult to implement, etc. But some of the posts that seem quite dismissive don’t seem to have engaged seriously with the work — and if you haven’t at the very least read through her book with an open mind (let alone given a good faith effort to implementing it in your own practice), I don’t see how it is fair to disparage her work (and the efforts of forum members who are trying to do so) out of hand.