Practice goals

[kriskicksass]

My teacher recommended that I make myself a list of practice goals to follow each day in order to make my practicing more efficient. I tried it today, and I was surprised at how much I got done in my normal amount of practice, just because I had a list I made myself get through. Does anyone else do this? If not, try it!

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

Naturally, practice goals are set subconciously, or conciously at the level of recognizing the practice meaning. Without goal setting practice is quite unfruitful in that you just repeat the material without making it better. Totally agreed about setting goals though. For example in Moszkowski etude no 5 (C major op. 72), pages 2 and 4 are tricky, and some bars are the trickiest. I focus on them first, utilizing every method of learning my teacher suggested. Certain pieces in my opinion are more prone to be studied more intently and are apt for goal settings. Bach comes to mind. I am studying his polyphonic works and when the hands have to come together it is crucial to learn it sometimes 2 bars at a time, rather than a page, which will take longer. Goal setting is very important and I totally agree with you on the stance that with practice goal setting it is much easier to aquire material.

[little_pianist]

Yep.. I have a practice journal where I can write my goals every week... and at the end of the week I can happily cross the things that I've done!!!!  By doing this, I can clearly see my progress...

[counterpoint]

 There are two questions, which I ask me continuously while practising (and even while playing):

1. What changes could I make to get the piece sounding better than it sounded the day before?

2. What would the composer say, if he could hear me playing his piece?

[lostinidlewonder]

There is an old saying: "What gets written, gets done."

Too often we keep our goals and how much we want to achieve in life all in our heads, sometimes it doesn't seem real enough there and people forget about things after a while.

The key to all practice is EVEN playing. If you practice with hesitation and pauses you are learning inefficiently. You must constantly consider comfort and ease of playing the passage of notes and focus on improving this.

Too many people practice with mindlessly repetition. If you play something at tempo without hesitation AND feel comfortable while doing it you will master a passage within one repetition!

[mike_lang]

I think the biggest realization that comes from this is that a lot of us overpractice.  We think that we need to practice 6 hours, or 8 hours, or 12 hours.  When goals are set and concentration is applied, the practice session does not seem to take nearly this amount of time.  I agree that goals must be set, and add also that the point of saturation must be observed.

Best,
Michael

[debussy symbolism]

There are two questions, which I ask me continuously while practising (and even while playing):

1. What changes could I make to get the piece sounding better than it sounded the day before?

2. What would the composer say, if he could hear me playing his piece?

1. First of all, use your ears. They will know when something sounds unclean or unstable, so that will give you a cue that you need to work on that particular section. You could also have someone else hear you and hear their comments. Ultimately it will be determined by the teacher.

2. That is a vague question because there could be different answers for everybody. This is a creative process so don't restrict yourself to one method of interpretation.

Hope this helps.

[pianistimo]

i do a combination of the 'sections' idea on some pieces and the 'total play thru' on others - as lostinidle suggests.  in grad school it seems that the idea is to speed up the practice time.  i had always taken my time and considered that i had all the time in the world anyway.  but, the idea in grad school is to get through the entire piece (i think) pretty much within the first week.

when i got my bachelor's degree i had become good enough to sightread most beethoven sonatas (except maybe the last three) entirely thru by movement.  but, liszt and chopin were more difficult because of those durn ledger lines that go into the stratosphere.  i'd be counting those and trying to memorize but inevitably forget when it got into the really high or low notes.  finally, i thought, whatever - i'm just writing the note in.  so i'd write A or whatever the top note was.

now, if i am really attempting to remember what i did in grad school - i would take an extremely slow tempo and attempt to play all the notes.  and as soon as i reached the desired tempo - keep it there and then refine whatever was under par with occasional exercises or just repeating 5 measures 4 or 5 times.  people like to do rhythms - but for me - i never liked doing that.  can't tell you why.  maybe i'm slightly dyslexic.  i don't want to learn anything the wrong way.

well, enough said.  everyone is different and there isn't really any WRONG way except to practice something with the WRONG notes, WRONG hand positions/fingerings (if they are way off), or something really stupid that you do (ie accidentally taking the wrong tempo or impression of a piece and turning it upside down).

i've never heard a jury that said 'this was terrible.  a disgrace.  you should never play piano again.'  whatever crit you hear - you just keep posting in your brain.   fluidity comes sometimes for me at 1 am when i've had adequate time to warm up - to have quiet - to think about the piece - to analyze some of the harmonies - and basically become familiar with it.  like a person.  you have to talk to them and get to know them.

[counterpoint]

1. What changes could I make to get the piece sounding better than it sounded the day before?

2. What would the composer say, if he could hear me playing his piece?

1. First of all, use your ears. They will know when something sounds unclean or unstable, so that will give you a cue that you need to work on that particular section. You could also have someone else hear you and hear their comments. Ultimately it will be determined by the teacher.

Oh, I guess, you sort of misunderstood my statement.
I said, I ask me questions. The questions do help me  to play better, as they show me new goals every time I ask them to me.

You are right: the ears are very important, no one will be surprised about that.
But cleanness and stability are not the only criteria, which distinguish superior playing of a piece from average playing. There are many things, you have to reflect on how to interprete the notated music. Every note has it's meaning, it's connections to other notes, it's characteristic sound. I don't believe in things like a tempo, which runs unaltered from line to line, or dynamics, which reduce to that, what is notated by the composer. There are so many nuances to be made everywhere - keeping up a constant tempo and keeping up a constant dynamic is so uninteresting, because there's no interest in what the music/the composer wanted to say in detail.

2. That is a vague question because there could be different answers for everybody. This is a creative process so don't restrict yourself to one method of interpretation.

Music is an art, and questions about art are always vague. We have to keep the questions open. Answered questions are so uninteresting.
But that doesn't mean, that everyone could play music as he likes. The composer has the right to say, how his music has to be played. The musician is obliged to make the music sound like the composer wanted it to sound. The problem is, that we often don't know, what the composer wants. Then we have to find a solution which is likely to be what the composer wants.

It's an endless search for the true interpretation.

That's what I wanted to say. There is never a final result. You have to play better as yesterday every day.

By the way, you wrote:

"Ultimately it will be determined by the teacher."

Oh, that will get complicated, since I am the teacher 
And who says, that the teacher definitely knows, how to play a piece the right way...

I would say: hear on what your teacher tells you, try it out, but don't take his words as the last truth   

[debussy symbolism]

You make a very good point in pointing out the "determined by teacher" responce. Concerning true interpretation, you are right about the idea that answered questions become boring. Lets say for example that the Loch Ness creature has been discovered. So has been discovered the Sasquatch. I would be dissapointed simply because these beings represent the unknown, that there are somethings left to the imagination, that there is more to look forward to. Same with music. If everybody "interpreted" a composer in only one "intended" way, it would see hackneyed. Isn't it much more inventive to have to play Bach for example with completely legato pedal enriched sound, rather then the conventional methods. When I play Bach I sometimes add the pedal to my liking, but mostly don't, but that is a matter of taste. Are there rules preventing you from doing something? No. Do you have a right to play something the way you want it to sound? Yes. I have the same to say for Art and Poetry as well. Dali for example used figures in his paintings as an allegory to something, whether a personal thought or an idea about the world. It is much more fun to have figures in his paintings that haven't been discussed by him, hence their meaning obscured. That is a part of interpretation. That is Art. Same goes for poetry. There is a quote by Claude Debussy which states that if everything was discovered, it wouldn't be a rich art it would be. That is why music is infinite. There is always infinitely many ways to interpret it thus.

[counterpoint]

There is always infinitely many ways to interpret it thus.

Yes, I agree with that. But not all of this many ways are appropriate for a special piece. You have to ask: would the composer like it this way.

Talking about Bach and pedal: I don't see a problem here. Bach would surely have used the pedal, if his instrument did have one. Furthermore Bach was very flexible in instrumentation. Pieces for harpsichord may also be played on clavichord or organ (with very different registration) or even with string instruments. With music of Bach, you have the widest possibilities of interpretation in every point of view. Wendy Carlos' interpretations of Bach works on the synthesizer are perfectly great and fascinating!

So don't think of me as a purist - I'm not. You have great freedom but you must not forget, that the composer has to be (supposedly) consent how you play his (!) music.