Making More Mistakes On Purpose

BartK · 2025-07-13T16:26:53+00:00

Despite being very interested in practice strategies and learning a ton of them from various teachers this is the first time I heard of this one. 😲 I was inc...

keystring

BartK I watched both videos. The idea is good but I think it is framed wrong. It is not about "mistakes". It is about broadly exploring a thing in its many aspects along as many lines as possible. If you are throwing beanbags past the hole instead of into the hole, you are exploring the perimeters, beyond the perimeters, the various forces and distances. You get to really understand the thing and all that pertains to it.

This may actually be the nature of free creative play, and the adult world, and maybe the formal school world, interfere with that when right answers, good test scores and so on force in a pigeonholed interaction with life.

I've always been out of the box. Well, a good part of life I wasn't even quite aware that there was a box. When I watched the 2nd video, a number of things he showed I thought "I do that? Why wouldn't one do that?" It's boring to work just with what's there, and not also with what is not there. And if a problem is encountered, one wants to deviate and look at all angles including implausible ones.

ShiroKuro

keystring The idea is good but I think it is framed wrong.

I finally had a chance to watch the shorter video (the “make mistakes on purpose” one) and I think @keystring ‘s comment fits my reaction, although I didn’t have it articulated that way before reading her post.

I think the idea of purposefully playing the wrong note as a practice strategy, or learning strategy, has limited applications. Or rather, it will only be beneficial to some specific learning challenges. For example, a jump that one repeatedly gets wrong.

I’m working on a piece that has one measure where the LH does a series of eighth notes which go octave to a fourth to octave a half step below the first octave to a diminished fourth to another octave a half-step down from the second octave to a third, and then down to a different octave in the next measure. I think that’s right (I’m not looking at the score right now), but the point is, the LH has to jump down-up-down-up-down-up-down. And I tend to always hit those fourths/third, but often miss the half-step down moving octaves.

Watching that video, it occurred to me that I should try the “play it wrong on purpose” approach to better train my hand/arm to make those down-jumps…

But for just generally learning a new score, say, or something that doesn’t feel “mistake-prone” the way the measure I just described does, I don’t think the mistake-approach is very relevant…

I didn’t watch the longer video, because it seems like it’s going to focus on something im already pretty familiar with (using variations to learn something).

keystring

ShiroKuro finally had a chance to watch the shorter video (the “make mistakes on purpose” one) and I think @keystring ‘s comment fits my reaction, although I didn’t have it articulated that way before reading her post.

I think the idea of purposefully playing the wrong note as a practice strategy, or learning strategy, has limited applications. Or rather, it will only be beneficial to some specific learning challenges. For example, a jump that one repeatedly gets wrong.

It was interesting to read your thoughts and then what you did. I'd like to stress one thing regarding what I wrote initially. That is, what I believe is incorrect is the premise of "mistakes" (on purpose). I'm proposing that the real issue involves exploring a thing from as many angles as possible so as to get a full grasp physically, intellectually etc. If you do a broad exploration, you'll also end up "missing the target" but not because you've aimed at the target and missed, but because you are exploring the area around that target. (I'll have broader thoughts separately.)

You bring up another aspect of this:

ShiroKuro ....... or learning strategy, has limited applications. Or rather, it will only be beneficial to some specific learning challenges. For example, a jump that one repeatedly gets wrong.

You make a very important point, about using any approach where there's a need and where it fits, rather than everywhere and all the time.

Your example in the music you're working on was perfect!

ShiroKuro But for just generally learning a new score, say, or something that doesn’t feel “mistake-prone” the way the measure I just described does, I don’t think the mistake-approach is very relevant…

I agree, that it would be a waste of time to do any such approach unless an approach is needed. If your abilities are well in hand for the music, it would be silly to get help with something where you don't need help.

ShiroKuro I didn’t watch the longer video, because it seems like it’s going to focus on something im already pretty familiar with (using variations to learn something).

I skimmed through it, and admittedly it was over a week ago. In general, he divides playing the piano into various elements, like for example articulation, and then finds ways of applying the idea to each of the elements in turn.

iternabe

ShiroKuro I didn’t watch the longer video, because it seems like it’s going to focus on something im already pretty familiar with (using variations to learn something).

It’s the familiar idea, but the longer video gave quite extensive examples that I feel is far beyond many people think variations encompass.

I haven’t watch the short video. From my beginner perspective, I wonder if the allowing, or even encouraging, of “making mistakes” also premise on certain proficiency that these mistakes, even unintended, can be realized and corrected within 3-5 repeats. I sometimes have trouble correcting mistakes after many tries, thus risking letting the mistake more ingrained. For those instance, I feel more important to figure a remedy (slow down, counting, listening, whatever takes) as quickly as possible.

MRC

keystring I'm proposing that the real issue involves exploring a thing from as many angles as possible so as to get a full grasp physically, intellectually etc.

Excellent advice!

Since we're talking about leaps, just for the fun of it, here's the great (and unjustly neglected) Hazel Scott. The leaping starts at 2m23s.

pianoloverus

iternabe For those instance, I feel more important to figure a remedy (slow down, counting, listening, whatever takes) as quickly as possible.

Yes, figuring out why you made the mistake and/or figuring out a good way to practice the correct note is the approach that 99% would take and certainly the best way to start solving the problem. The approach suggested in the video is what I would call an extreme outlier approach.

keystring

iternabe but the longer video gave quite extensive examples that I feel is far beyond many people think variations encompass.

I just watched (enough of) the longer video. It is not about mistakes - and fortunately he doesn't use the term in the title. But one would assume it by association of the first video.

He's talking about experimentation. What he shows for "rhythm" is pretty common - playing a passage with different rhythms other that how written.

He teaches 12 categories for looking at a piece: pitch, fingering, rhythm, "balance" (of voices), articulation, movement, dynamics, inflection, harmony, structure, pedal, memory. In the long video he goes to each of these categories in turn to see what kinds of experiments he can do.

I don't think the general premise is beyond a beginner (nor do you sound like a complete beginner). It's just the long video and maybe his choice of pieces that makes it seem intimidating. Say "balance". If you have a piece with melody and underlying harmony, you may already be trying to make the melody louder than the harmony. That's balance. In his experimentation, you might try doing the opposite so as to gain greater control.

keystring

My broader thoughts hoping to go beyond.

First main subtopic:

First: Studies versus real and healthy practice. A study is created by academics who don't work regularly with individual students over a long period one-on-one. The actions of the students are tightly regulated and narrow. All of group A must approach a singular task in one specific manner, unvaryingly; ditto for the other group. They are directed. Meaning, they are not self-directed. It is unnatural and robotic. Results and conclusions come from that.

I have a problem if teachers then base their teaching on that.

In actual effective learning, a student will be self-directed, and that is even when a teacher is giving input and guidance. Learning is an active and dynamic thing. You try something, observe the results, adjust what you're trying. As you practice, your abilities grown and change, and so you are not in the same place today that you were yesterday. You keep adjust, observing, growing, getting closer to the goal. These trials don't allow for any of this. The actual natural way of learning gets extinguished.

The actual act of learning and growing is dynamic, varied, nuanced, and alive. Any study is as nuanced as a set of uniform bricks. The premises themselves are narrow, the conclusions are narrow. The premise of the study is about "mistakes". What if what is actually happening is experimentation and variety?

keystring

2nd subtopic, in case this works

What is being taught and/or practised. What is aimed for in that practising. Is it narrow or broad? I hope I can manage to get the words.

When we learn as students, it can be a narrow path of getting this assigned piece in all its details so that it sounds right and will pass. Aiming for this detail, then next one, the next one. Correct notes, dynamics, timing. One can aim specifically for each thing, until each is right. That's sort of like throwing beanbags into holes without missing. But is that a good way - or the only way of working?

The pieces we work on involve skills and subskills. So there are other things to focus on attached to the notes of the piece. Supposing I'm at dynamics or articulation (loud, soft - staccato, legato). What if I experiment with all kinds of ways of doing loud and soft, including the opposite of what I've been told? What if I have a huge leap and that new note is to be played pp, but the velocity of the leap makes it go loud through the momentum? Can I experiment with my assumptions about dynamics, leaps, and timing?

Or, if I'm making a mistake, might I duplicate and exaggerate that mistake to find out its cause? One thing I was missing because of how I started was having the hand move in and out of the fallboard for black keys and shorter fingers. That made playing awkward, missed or faded notes. When I learned to move in, I also experimented with what happened if I didn't, and the comparative awkwardness and stiffness made me understand this better. At the same time, if I was "just playing" music and suddenly a hand felt awful, I recognized the sensation and knew what was going wrong.

I think where my gut is leading me is, what if the idea of "mistakes" is actually addressing "excess specificity" (where it exists). Maybe the remedy is broad experimentation and exploration, where that's not there.

lilypad

Here's a slightly different take on dealing with mistakes. I've been working on getting a good recording of an arrangement of "Pure Imagination". I keep playing an A instead of a G as the last note. I can play it correctly during blocked practice, but under the pressure of a performance or recording situation the old mistake can recur. After watching the video I experimented with purposely playing the A and in tempo going down to the A as if it was on purpose. It sounded a bit strange, but the result was better than a quick 'oops' correction.

pianoloverus

lilypad The title of that video is silly and the claim is false. And how is one supposed to know ahead of time whether to go one note up or down?

rsl12

lilypad I watched the video. In jazz, this kind of "mistake" happens all the time, and the ability to resolve in the way he suggests is definitely a nice skill to develop. It works better for right hand mistakes than left hand mistakes. I approve!

lilypad

pianoloverus lilypad The title of that video is silly and the claim is false. And how is one supposed to know ahead of time whether to go one note up or down?

I think the title refers to choosing a note right next to a jarring note played by accident to "resolve" the sound. Kind of like a cadence.

You're correct that for truly random mistakes one wouldn't know ahead of time whether to go up or down, except possibly a seasoned jazz player. Even so, I found value from the video as a "what if" preparation for recurring mistakes that seem resistant to being permanently fixed.

Funny thing is that after the extra attention from practicing what to do if I made the mistake, I haven't made the mistake again.