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

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.

Animisha I don't know why you are so edgy about Molly.

I agree, Animisha. A lot of people get quite “prickly” about her and I can’t figure out why.

Also, there’s no reason to look down at someone because they decide to make teaching their occupation rather than performing. Teaching is an important activity (not just in music but across all disciplines) and good teaching makes a positive difference for students.

Also, as with the example above of the adult learner who practiced something for 5 hours without getting it, a lot of adult musicians are desperate for ways to make their (often limited) practice time more efficient and effective.

Maybe we’re all trying to make up for lost time (after hearing so many times that you had to start piano in early childhood!) but if Molly’s approach helps people do that, it’s all to the good imo.

Animisha 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. There is nothing wrong with earning from teaching. It's the "scientific aspect" of Molly's schpiel I that makes me prickly. Some aspiring music students may embrace her way of practicing, and some might feel a connection to those methods. Good for them, maybe. I'm skeptical of "new" approaches to methods that have worked for so many in the past, especially with something like music. Reminds me of the Atkins Diet

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. Think of all the outstanding pianists, composers and virtuosos, who have graced the past centuries. How did they ever manage without that right brain, left brain thing? Without someone giving them arbitrary figures on how many times to practice something?

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.

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.

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.

PianoMonk To me, learning to play a musical instrument isn't rocket science, or even neuroscience.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, PianoMonk, except for this part right here.

Learning to play a musical instrument is a cognitive activity, and as such, how we approach that learning can be improved by understanding how the brain works. This is what neuroscience is all about, a systematic approach to understanding how the brain works.

I am not a neuroscientist, but in my day job, I'm a linguist -- I do linguistic research and in addition to teaching courses in my main area, I also teach a foreign language at the university level. I know, from my own research, from extensively reading in the field, and from first-hand experience in the classroom, that what teachers do in classrooms and what students do on their own, while studying, impacts their progress, their accuracy, and their ultimate learning outcomes.

Whether or not any individual piano student wants to apply practice techniques advocated for by Gebrian, or any other teacher, is up to them. And certainly we can have a discussion about whose approaches are better, whether they're implementable, practical, sustainable, appropriate for an adult learner etc.

But learning to play an instrument, like learning a foreign language etc., involves the brain and as such, neuroscience is without a doubt relevant. Highly relevant.

PianoMonk I'm skeptical of "new" approaches to methods that have worked for so many in the past, especially with something like music.

As to this comment, I think the point is that, in fact, traditional ways of practicing (and teaching) have not worked for a lot of piano learners, especially adult learners, or have not worked well enough. I've been on these piano forums for over 20 years now (yikes) and trying to figure out more efficient and effective ways to practice is a perennial topic exactly because people are wanting to make their practice time more effective and wanting to see more success from what they're doing, from the time they're putting in.

Given that, the constant searching for new methods, a healthy amount of skepticism is justified (your reference to the Atkins diet is a good one, there are always people trying to sell their method as the "be all, end all" answer to everyone's prayers).

But to say that neuroscience isn't relevant, or that it's not relevant because previous pianists and composers didn't have access to the science we are now learning about, seems actually defeatist to me. And to not take advantage of new understandings of how the brain works seems like a missed opportunity.

Danieru it is a false dilemma to have to choose between tradition and neuroscience.

Excellent point!

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.

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.