Playing piano verses driving a car

[lenkaolenka]

In the USA millions of people can drive cars, but unable to play pianos. Why? Another question: is it necessary for millions of people to know how to play piano?

People learn how to drive cars, because they have great deal of motivation to drive car. If you have driver license, you are free to go anywhere you want. Teenagers also motivated to drive cars, because their friends drive cars. Ability to play piano gives people more advanced freedom: freedom of spiritual growth. 

We have more and more spare time due to technology. If people spiritually poor, they get depressed and trapped with such great amount of spare time. They use shopping and buy many things to cheer themselves up, some use drugs and alcohol. The best way to spend your life, I think, the happiest and healthiest way is to use time for spiritual growth, for development of your imagination. Playing piano is the best way to do it, because by using 10 fingers of both hands we involve two hemispheres of our brain in the process, we make our mind working in space and in time and bring the best creative potentials out.

We use to think, that piano playing is artistic skill. It is not so! Piano supposes to be a starting point of music education; because music language based on multiple sounds, it consists of balance between time (melody) and space (harmony). Only orchestra and piano are able to produce that combination in fullest.

Another important thought. In order to make some knowledge part of your mind we have to pronounce it using our own muscles. For example, driver usually remembers way better, then a passenger. Another example: when we learn new words, names, notions we better remember them after SAYING the words. I don't know any better way to develop music mind of students – their ability to HEAR ( not just to listen) complicated and advanced forms of music without ability to play music and sight read.

It means, today in many countries all around the globe we are wasting a lot of money to a lot of music teachers of public schools who teaches our kids practically nothing. Beating drums and blowing recorders are not doing any good for building music minds. It is a profanation. No wander, that we have less and less interest in more professional music education. No wander, that the best professionals in countries – piano teachers are simply poor. No wander we have cuts in public school's budget for performing arts.

We created many generations of musically illiterate presidents, senators and congressmen. They see .how music lessons teach nothing and they have no reasons in financing them! 

I will continue later

[hyrst]

I think this analogy is well explored by Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs.

Maslow theorised that we have different levels of needs that we naturally seek to fulfill before even thinking about other needs.  Among the most essential are food and safety.  Around the middle is the need for belonging and socialising.  The last need to be considered is aesthetic / spiritual. 

According to this, driving is important to us in our cultural shapes because driving takes us to work - where we earn money to have houses and food - and takes us to friends and cultural / social institutions.  Music does not do any of this for most people - therefore it will not rank highly.  By the theory, most people need to be financially and socially comfortable before they can consider taking music lessons - although some people will sacrifice other needs to access music lessons. 

This applies, not only privately, but also at schools.  For example, children do not focus on learning core subjects (and don't even consider 'extras' like music and art) if they are being bullied or are lonely.  Perhaps their lives would be enriched if there was an aesthetic focus, but this is not how our society functions or how we as individuals function, according to the theory.  Why would we invest millions into music when our welfare systems are inadequate, for example?

[timothy42b]

Don't forget the age and motivation of the students in these two different cases.

Both the post and response are very much individual oriented.

However teenagers are not individuals, they are members of a pack like wolves.  Group motivation is pretty much everything to them.

Driving a car is a social activity.  It can be done with multiple people in the car, and when learned and the license acquired, opens the door to many more group social functions.

Playing piano is done alone in a practice room.  There is little obvious benefit, and no fun, for the average teenager. 

Guitar players play together - no surprise most of them acquire basic skills. 

[ccnokes]

Don't forget the age and motivation of the students in these two different cases.

Both the post and response are very much individual oriented.

However teenagers are not individuals, they are members of a pack like wolves.  Group motivation is pretty much everything to them.

Driving a car is a social activity.  It can be done with multiple people in the car, and when learned and the license acquired, opens the door to many more group social functions.

Playing piano is done alone in a practice room.  There is little obvious benefit, and no fun, for the average teenager. 

Guitar players play together - no surprise most of them acquire basic skills. 

Wow. Thank you for making teenagers sound like mindless idiots.  As a teenager, I enjoy playing piano very much and know a number of others like myself.  Teenagers aren't individuals?  You should hear yourself.  Ironically, you sound like one for the way you pass judgement.

The stereotypical one you see on TV is, the ones in reality actually differ from that false mold considerably. 

[amanfang]

I think he was talking about "the average teenager" in response to the original posters comment about "masses of musically illiterate people" (which is a separate topic in itself).  He was not saying that every single teenager would not enjoy practicing piano. 

[lenkaolenka]

I think this analogy is well explored by Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs.

Maslow theorised that we have different levels of needs that we naturally seek to fulfill before even thinking about other needs.  Among the most essential are food and safety.  Around the middle is the need for belonging and socialising.  The last need to be considered is aesthetic / spiritual. 

People have need for music much before they had food in abundance like we have today.

According to this, driving is important to us in our cultural shapes because driving takes us to work - where we earn money to have houses and food - and takes us to friends and cultural / social institutions.  Music does not do any of this for most people - therefore it will not rank highly.  By the theory, most people need to be financially and socially comfortable before they can consider taking music lessons - although some people will sacrifice other needs to access music lessons. 

Music and especially piano lessons are not rank highly, because people giving up on us. For centuries, generation after generation, they came for piano lessons and we were able to teach successfully just selected few people. Now people have strong myth that to learn piano is extremely hard and you have to be very talented to do it. On the top of that the need for self-learning is competing with simple lift of finger to listen to CD or radio.

This applies, not only privately, but also at schools.  For example, children do not focus on learning core subjects (and don't even consider 'extras' like music and art) if they are being bullied or are lonely.  Perhaps their lives would be enriched if there was an aesthetic focus, but this is not how our society functions or how we as individuals function, according to the theory.  Why would we invest millions into music when our welfare systems are inadequate, for example?

For centuries the ability to play music instruments were highly valued in ANY music society. Making music builds self-esteem of any individual. We – piano teachers – made learning music unpopular. We have nobody else to blame. And as long as we'll stay this way – as more poor we would be. 

[chocolatedog]

I think it's a very naive attitude that anyone can be good at the piano if only they use the 'right' method - people have different temperaments, and not everyone is suited to learning piano......(For an in depth study, see Anthony Kemp's book "The Musical Temperament".......)

[lenkaolenka]

I think it's a very naive attitude that anyone can be good at the piano if only they use the 'right' method - people have different temperaments, and not everyone is suited to learning piano......(For an in depth study, see Anthony Kemp's book "The Musical Temperament".......)

Why when students go to public schools, they ALL learn at least how to read, write and calculate, but when they attend piano classes, some of them never learn how to play or sight-read?
Why we CAN  teach everyone in public schools regardless of temperament most of the time and so dependant of 'good teachers'?
Because we didn't learn how to teach, that's why!
In Middle Ages people learned how to read also privately and it considered to be 'not for average' people

ANYONE can play piano and sight-read the way people read books with strong system. I checked! Children with ADD, Dislexia, down syndrome, 2-3 years old children, ANYONE.

The students are not a problem! Problem in head of teachers, which just don't feel like they want to learn new staff. 

[will]

Why when students go to public schools, they ALL learn at least how to read, write and calculate, but when they attend piano classes, some of them never learn how to play or sight-read?

When students go to public schools they work on reading, writing and math on a daily basis.
How many people have daily piano lessons?

[lenkaolenka]

When students go to public schools they work on reading, writing and math on a daily basis.
How many people have daily piano lessons?

Not many, Will. Only my students and students of teachers, which I already trained. 

[pianistimo]

dear lenkaolenka (hope i spelled that right ),

i completely agree.  although, on the other hand - chocolate dog and timothy42b have good points.  not everyone is suited to be a performer.  but, at least if everyone had opportunity to learn the basics -- it would be good!

i'm really impressed with the school district we are in now.  basically every grade HAS to take a music class.  either chorus, instrument, music theory, whatever.  so by the time they graduate from middle school they can make a decent choice whether they want to continue in chorus or take an instrument, and what instrument they might be interested in.  also, the music teachers here have been really impressive to me.

maybe it depends a LOT on the particular music teachers in the school district.  if they are motivated to make it an enthusiastic class and not one of those - hide behind a 1/2 hour of conversation kind of things. 

i remember a really great 'swing choir' i used to accompany in highschool - and this guy who was the leader/teacher was really into solfege with the hands.  at first everybody was yuk.  but, then, after a day or so - we saw how absolutely talented the guy was.  he was teaching us the moveable 'do.'  once everybody learned that - reading music was a cinch.  everyone 'sightread' the music using the moveable do hand-solfege (between intervals) and sang -sightread the music first before singing it.  imo, he was the best highschool chorus teacher i've ever come across.

[lenkaolenka]

dear lenkaolenka (hope i spelled that right ),

i completely agree.  although, on the other hand - chocolate dog and timothy42b have good points.  not everyone is suited to be a performer.  but, at least if everyone had opportunity to learn the basics -- it would be good!

Dear pianistimo, lenka – is my Russian name, olenka – Ukrainian. You spelled it right! J)
I also think that not everyone could be a performer! But I have different vision about what we consider 'basics'. Music language – is a language of multiple sounds and in order to learn it students should be able to produce multiple sounds using their hands. As I already wrote, driver remembers the road better then passenger. In order to develop music mind and be able to be a good listeners ALL people have to be able to play pianos or keyboards and read music notation the way they read books.

i'm really impressed with the school district we are in now.  basically every grade HAS to take a music class.  either chorus, instrument, music theory, whatever.  so by the time they graduate from middle school they can make a decent choice whether they want to continue in chorus or take an instrument, and what instrument they might be interested in.  also, the music teachers here have been really impressive to me.

This is great accomplishment of your school district! It would be very important to make a next step – put keyboards in music classes and let every student learn basics by developing piano skills!

maybe it depends a LOT on the particular music teachers in the school district.  if they are motivated to make it an enthusiastic class and not one of those - hide behind a 1/2 hour of conversation kind of things. 

This is truth! Survival of music now depends on enthusiastic teachers and music classes are very teacher intensive. This fact makes me worried. The strong system of music education and the right foundation could make 2 important things:
1.   It would make work of teachers less stressful
2.   It would release dependency from enthusiasts ( today school have them – tomorrow they are gone and all what they did in dinger to be vanished)

i remember a really great 'swing choir' i used to accompany in highschool - and this guy who was the leader/teacher was really into solfege with the hands.  at first everybody was yuk.  but, then, after a day or so - we saw how absolutely talented the guy was.  he was teaching us the moveable 'do.'  once everybody learned that - reading music was a cinch.  everyone 'sightread' the music using the moveable do hand-solfege (between intervals) and sang -sightread the music first before singing it.  imo, he was the best highschool chorus teacher i've ever come across.

Music was born from human throat and our vocal chords percept sounds like ears. Movable DO is great, but not complete solution for ear training and music mind development. Ideally, every student have to learn how translate any tune in different keys in Solfeggio syllables.

[timothy42b]

Ah, I offended by overgeneralizing.  Such was not my intent, sorry.

However, you cannot directly compare math and other academic courses, which are required and for which you are tested and rewarded or punished, with piano which is normally an extracurricular activity that you do for fun.

We have not realized that it is not "fun" for the majority of teenagers who are strongly socially oriented.  It is not fun for my teenager.  Neither is math, but she does her math homework without prompting because the reward is immediate and obvious.  Succeeding at piano requires not only a tolerance for hard work, but a tolerance for loneliness. 

One answer is indeed to make music an academic course.  I support that, especially in the early grades.  I am not sure it will result in high skill levels though. 

I also help out a bit with the local high school band.  This is a group social activity that seems to be fun for them, and lends them a bit of status at the high school football games.  Though none of them are at risk of becoming symphony performers, all can play adequately. 

[Herve]

In the USA millions of people can drive cars, but unable to play pianos. Why? Another question: is it necessary for millions of people to know how to play piano? ..........................................

Well, I almost dropped dead when I read this thread's title and its posts. 

I instantly realized that I have "met" a kindred spirit!

I wrote the following post a while back (from this topic: https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,12471.0.html ), but I think it's perfectly appropriate for this thread - especially the part about driving a car. (As you can see, I've copied and pasted it rather than use the "quote" function.  I find it difficult to read the smaller text and blue color of the quotes. Maybe others feel the same way.)
________________________________________

"I’m sorry that I wrote that last bit about the “deaf, dumb”, etc., because now I have had to write yet another post, and it is not something that I enjoy doing.  So this will certainly be my last post for quite some time, even though someone has said on this forum that he’s buying a piano with a hard, stiff action in order that he’ll be more adequately prepared for what he and others must apparently believe is a world filled with Steinway pianos having such actions.  Amazing.

If they dare “run the gauntlet”, other brave souls will have to go to the rescue on that one.

Apparently people love to seek out “How to Play the Piano” recipes, so I’ve included my very own at the end of this post, and - joy of joys – (unlike the rest of the post) it’s short and sweet.

xvimbi,

Yes, I realized that your post was primarily about the issue of pain or injury and how it should be dealt with.  I quoted the parts of your post that interested me and which I thought applied to m1469’s original post, and I’m sorry if I used them for a purpose which you had not yourself intended – especially if you disagree with the “point” I was trying to make with them.  From the nature of your last paragraph, I guess maybe you did, but I liked what you said, nonetheless. (“Man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest” - it’s so true.)

I agree that you won’t get much therapy for tendonitis or a bum thumb by playing Chopin Etudes.

I meant what you quoted of my post to apply to those who don’t already do those behaviors – very young children.  If similar effort and methodology that I have observed  teachers employ hundreds of times to “impart knowledge of” playing the piano to students, were employed to “train” these “natural” things to very young children, I believe the success rate would probably be the similar to that in producing piano players, and we’d end up with the world I described. 

(Of course the reality is that a piano is, unlike ears, vocal cords, eyes and legs, separate from the body and far too large for a child to operate as an adult would.  This means that considerable time must pass before the child can dance the proper dance.  I think an innovative piano manufacturer would make some money producing a high-quality instrument sized proportionally to fit the bodies of children say from 3 to 6 or 7 years old – maybe one quarter or one third of full size.  The child’s earlier access to an instrument would be a tremendous help in their musical development.  Combine this with a parent who plays well, and the piano world would almost certainly be much different.)

I do not think that knowing how something works will necessarily make the ability to do it well suddenly disappear, just as I also do not think that “knowing how something works” will necessarily make the ability to do it suddenly appear – unless you conclude, a prori, that if someone plays well they “know how something works”.  (The latter cannot be the sense that this phrase is intended, because f it were, it would mean nothing unto itself and, therefore, add no explanation of why one plays well.)

If someone already does something very well, why would they then want to “know how it works”?  - perhaps so he/she could then “teach” someone else?  But if this knowledge is necessary for beautiful playing, the teacher must ALREADY “know how it works” - so he/she should be completely satisfied only in playing well and seek no further “knowledge”.
 
I think playing the piano is very different than fixing a car, but I think playing a piano is very similar to driving a car. 

I don’t think that playing the piano is similar to fixing a piano, either, and no matter how well a person plays the piano, and how many books that person has read about playing the piano, and how much that person knows about human anatomy, there’s still a very good chance that this person won’t also be able to fix and maintain a piano.

The brilliant physician, who is also an amateur piano technician, can “know everything about how a piano and the human body works” and still not be able to play a single piece on a piano.  . 

I did not have to “know (in a book-learning, teacher-”taught”, I-can-describe-every-muscle-I’m-moving-as-I-play sense) how something works” when I started to hear, talk, see and walk.  Once again, in the sense in which that phrase must be understood, TO THIS DAY I do not “know how” my hearing, speaking, talking, and walking “work”.  What I DO know is that I simply did them after being with my parents 24 hours a day for the very early part of my life.  (To paraphrase B. F. Skinner – Children learn to speak well and grammatically correctly long before “knowing the rules of grammar”.)

Later, as a young person, I threw a baseball a great distance and drove an automobile (at the age of eight; not on the road) by merely watching my parents, and I learned many other things by watching other people without  receiving any “formal” (you know what I mean) lessons for any of this, nor did I have to read any “how to” books. 

So what is it, exactly, that the brilliant physician/technician does not “know about” playing the piano, while I, on the other hand, can hear, speak, see and walk while “knowing nothing about” these acts?

I believe that the behavior of playing the piano is “generated” by exactly the same means as those “natural” behaviors and should be learned in exactly the same way – by emulation of a “role model”. 

The fact that I was - to severely understate it - strongly influenced by Abby Whiteside, is, rather than an endorsement for “knowing how something works”, a denunciation of everything that I had been taught before, and (from what I read on this forum) is still being “taught” and advised to poor souls who are endeavoring to play the piano.

With very little said and read, I believe that by merely watching another person learn and play piano pieces well, a person can  him/herself learn to do the same.  I am CERTAIN that if I had had such a role model, that I would have learned “what is required” to play the piano in an eternity less of time.

Like the abilities I mentioned above, people do not have to “know how things work” to play brilliantly, and, in fact, just as in learning a “difficult” piano piece, as more and more verbal and written attention is paid to the “details”, the less likely is a successful outcome.

So, yes, just as in learning the “natural” behaviors of talking, etc., a “gut approach” (imagination in emulating a role model) in learning to play the piano will be more effective than years of study and lessons in what other people have to say and write ad nauseum about piano playing, and decades of  another’s comments, criticism and observation of your own.  In fact, I would also say that the student’s mere knowledge of this fact will help produce a more satisfactory outcome than years of “study”. 

Even in an ideal world, however, just as baseball pitchers are “ranked” in the baseball world, some people will speak, hear, walk, talk and  play the piano “better” than others, but if everyone were to play the piano as well as they hear, speak, see and walk, that would be more than satisfactory - unlike this one, where good players are a relative rarity.

Attention all students of the piano!,

Look around you. 

What do you observe about the “world” of piano playing?   

Do you observe that your friends are successful in their endeavor to play the piano? 

What do you see happen to their excitement of music as they proceed in their “music educations”? 

What is by far the most common outcome of that education?

How would you rate the performance of the “education system” in producing excellent piano players and people who continue to love music?

How many people that you know continue to play the piano after their “educations”?

If you think everything’s hunky dory in the piano world, then stop reading right now and run to the keyboard!  Otherwise, keep on reading.

What your endeavor to play the piano needs is a ROLE MODEL, not a “teacher”, another book, more study and analyses.  If you want to learn a piece of music, find a person who plays it beautifully and use your entire body - as they use theirs - to COPY WHAT THEY DO! 

If you must have a teacher, find one that agrees with the “emulation” philosophy of learning, and is willing to do most of the playing when you interact with him/her. 

Remember, YOU are the model’s customer!   Know what you want “going in”, and be sure to ask for it.  Communication is the key.

If possible, sit or stand next to the performer and try to learn their rhythm as they play, and keep your attention more focused on the rest of their body rather than just their hands and fingers.   Once again, communicate what you want to your model.

If possible, make a video of the performance so that you can play it often while trying to learn the piece on your own between “performances”.  Do not be satisfied with a once-a-week, “pay-me-and-leave-me” style of “education”.

Do not attach too much importance to what is said or written by the model (performer).  Do what they DO, rather than what they SAY about the performance.

At first, learn pieces by ear and in an outlined, but still rhythmic, fashion.  DO NOT begin an intensive study of standard notation until AFTER learning “how to play the piano” (the understanding of the necessity of using the entire body).  The necessarily slow, stodgy, thoughtful behavior which learning standard notation cultivates, greatly inhibits learning the particular “dance on the piano” which is required for each piece.

Be prepared to fail and be frustrated at first, but be absolutely certain that with enough observation and emulation of the model, “it will come”.  Don’t be afraid to use your body in any way, shape, or form that will EASILY produce the desired result – the more imaginative, the better.  Keep watching that model for clues as to how to dance.

BELIEVE IN YOUR OWN INNATE ABILITY, IMAGINATION, AND THE “EQUIPMENT” ALREADY IN YOUR POSSESSION – THEY ARE ALL YOU WILL EVER NEED.
.
As I’ve just said, reading is a very poor substitute for a playing role model, but if you are desperately looking for “something” to lead you forward toward brilliantly playing the piano, you just may find some inspiration in my other posts here:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,1808.0.html

and here:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,5573.msg54956.html#msg54956

and you will certainly find it in the writings of Abby Whiteside.

[danny elfboy]

Wow. Thank you for making teenagers sound like mindless idiots.  As a teenager, I enjoy playing piano very much and know a number of others like myself.  Teenagers aren't individuals?  You should hear yourself.  Ironically, you sound like one for the way you pass judgement.

The stereotypical one you see on TV is, the ones in reality actually differ from that false mold considerably. 

I agree with you ccnokes ... that was a very bad stereotypes based rant
There's no "average teenager"
Each person is an individual and age doesn't determine our level of individuality or even maturity and vulnerability. There are thousands of 40 years old less individual and mature than thousands of teenagers or even younger people.

[danny elfboy]

I don't think the analogy is sound
First of all driving a car is just a ramification of basic neuromuscular programming we're all exposed to in our life. That's why eventually everyone learn it and in fact when you find children living in the farms and being allowed to drive the tractors they often don't even need to learn it ... it just happens naturally as a pretty straight-forward application of very basic motorcordination process we all are familiar with through walking
In fact it can be easily claimed that 95% of what you have to learn to get a driving licence involve traffic rules and signals .... but the motor coordination to do it has always been there: as any 4 years old riding a bicyle or driving one of those electronic big toy cars knows

The piano is another story.
The movements involved in piano playing are not at all that basic but more complex and clearly in need of a pretty new neuromuscular reprograming. Just the most basic movements at the piano requires three distinct movements (gravity falling, alignment and contraction, release) [the price of not getting/learning/internalizing them by the way: tendonitis, nerve damage, carpal tunnel, tenosynuvitis] and all of them are not basic movements we have experienced often in our life but actually new movements and the mastery of each of them so that they become internalized requires even more "alien" neuroprogrammation
In other words the piano requires a will to become a pianist, passion and dedication because unlike driving cars it requires a deep and longterm internalization of new neurophysiological usage. So comparing driving cars and comparing piano playing is like comparing something that everyone can learn in a day because a strong neurocoordinated foundation is already been laid to something that requires the will to spend years reprogramming your neurophysiology to pretty "aliens" and "new" and "very complex" movements

Add to that that many people just never feel the need to play the piano because they love the harp, the violin, the trumpet, the clarinet, the drums, the flute ... and they put as much  desire and love in learning their instrument as their amount of disinterest to the piano is
And it's thanks to them that we have orchestras

In other words there's no reason to believe that everyone should feel the need to be a pianist. First of all because there are many ways to experience music that doesn't involve becoming a pianist either as a composer, a chorister or another instrument player. And on second place there's no reason to believe that since most everyone learn how to drive we should also all learn to play the piano ... because the two are so different in the kind of amount of required physioneurological conditioning that you can easily claim that while with piano playing is a matter of "learning" how to play piano with driving a car is just a matter of "knowing" how to drive a travel mean; and in fact it's something that comes natural to many children in less than an hour without any kind of training

[keyofc]

If it needed to be said, elfboy - I think it was well said.

I hope that the original writer doesn't use the pedals on the piano
like the pedals on the car.  Too many overtones for sure