What constitutes a 'teachable' attitude ?

[m1469]

In your opinion of course.  Pianistimo made an interesting comment, in another thread, about student's attitudes and how a student with a "good" (or teachable ?) attitude but less talent will sometimes practice more than a student with more talent but a "bad" (unteachable ?) attitude :

what i find 'right' - is not so much what i think their potential is - but their attitude.  if you have a student with a high potential and bad attitude...they might not practice as hard as a student with lower 'potential' and a good attitude.  i can't say that i've had any terrible attitude students - but some think they're all that at first (until they learn some things take time and practice and there's no way to get around it). 

So, what is it that constitutes these attitudes, in your opinion ?

[pianistimo]

mayla.  you make me think.  ok.  i was thinking about how some students tend to compare what you do with what they've been taught previously.  most of my students have been beginners - so i haven't had to deal a lot with this...but you know occasionally there are times when you have to explain yourself.

nowdays i kind of hope for students like these, actually.  they are challenging what you know and if you can actually do what you are expecting them to.  i'm not saying this is bad.  in fact, it may be good to have several students with 'attitude.'  maybe it takes all kinds to be a good teacher.

perhaps it is learning not to be threatened by different ways of doing something.  to ask them to play it your way and their way and give both ways a chance.  sometimes explaining reasons for why you do it a certain way - (whatever it is) gives them time to digest a new concept.  one that perhaps they thought was pointless at first.

do you think being a teacher is somewhat like being a lawyer?  you have to remember what you said, why you said it, and stick to your word.  also, i try to practice my own students repertoire several days before they come.  have to be able to do what you teach - so that will save embarassment (which some students might like - if they have 'the attitude').

it's funny - but i think it's a presumption with some students to keep the teacher from thinking 'they're all that' - too!  it's like testing fire with fire.  older teachers don't try to impress so much.   

* a little sidenote.  i still tend to use five-finger exercises (not so much for strengthening as for dexterity).  i can envision someone saying - those are pointless.  why practice them?  but, there are many ways to just 'warm up' and you have to do it some way or other.  some like to warm-up on repertoire.  i don't see a problem there.  but, i think that reviewing keys and chords can't hurt a person either.  it's kind of like saying - do you want an appetizer or not?  nobody's going to die if you don't eat the appetizer.  but, it's kinda mean for a student to say 'i won't do this.  it's pointless.'  thankfully, nobody has said this.  and, i don't think i'd be so shocked nowdays (what with three kids of my own).

[m1469]

hmmm... okay.  Thanks pianistimo. 

Anybody else ?    What constitutes a 'teachable' attitude ?

Any lurker want to join the conversation ; somebody brand new ?  I am summoning you

[opus10no2]

m1469, have we touched on the fact I'm self taught? I wonder what you think of that.

[counterpoint]

teacheable attitude - I never thought of this, but it's an interesting point.

If I look back when I was a teenager and went to piano lessons, I was very interested in everything in music and piano playing - but I was not a very teachable student 
Often I practised other pieces than I should, often I used pedal when I was expected not to use it, often I disagreed with my teachers. But I had really cool teachers, and they didn't make a problem out of it. I got many, many impulses from the lessons. I used what I liked and I ignored what I disliked. If I had got the sort of teachers, that were very strict and if they would have forced me to play in a way, that I didn't like, then I would rather have stopped taking piano lessons than do it. It seems to me, that some students want to be forced by the teacher, I can't understand that, and I - as a teacher - will not do it. Music means freedom to me - and you cannot get freedom, if you are forced to it.

[ramseytheii]

teacheable attitude - I never thought of this, but it's an interesting point.

If I look back when I was a teenager and went to piano lessons, I was very interested in everything in music and piano playing - but I was not a very teachable student 
Often I practised other pieces than I should, often I used pedal when I was expected not to use it, often I disagreed with my teachers. But I had really cool teachers, and they didn't make a problem out of it. I got many, many impulses from the lessons. I used what I liked and I ignored what I disliked. If I had got the sort of teachers, that were very strict and if they would have forced me to play in a way, that I didn't like, then I would rather have stopped taking piano lessons than do it. It seems to me, that some students want to be forced by the teacher, I can't understand that, and I - as a teacher - will not do it. Music means freedom to me - and you cannot get freedom, if you are forced to it.

I wonder if the students you refer to (students who "want to be forced" by a teacher) are students who just prefer the teacher to give them more comprehensive discipline.  After all, there is nothing forcing about a teacher insisting on doing things correctly.

let's say you have a child, and when the child is learning to speak and growing a vocabulary, they want to say something that doesn't make sense to other's ears, in other words they bastardize grammar in some way.  Of course this is cute, but what if it persists?  You have to correct them; you have to tell them the right way to do it. 

The same goes for piano teachers: we encounter students who play in an idiosyncratic way, in a way that only they can understand.  These students have to be told, for their own benefit, what the grammar of the passage or piece is.  If not, they are being trapped in place where their only understanding of music is from a vague idea, with no source, and no definition.

The way we feel about a passage has to have some correlation to what we know about it.  When Glenn Gould was interviewed about retiring from the concert platform, he confessed it was because he felt uncomfortable performing.  Only then did he say, "But I am glad I discovered an intellectual rationale which corresponds with my feelings."  Even Glenn Gould, the most idiosyncratic of pianists, was not dealing solely with how he "felt" about something, but tried always to find a reason, a way to organize those feelings into a coherent philosophy.

The philosophy of "I feel it therefore it must be" leads ultimately to doom, as we can see from the great falling star of Ivo Pogorelich, who made no attempt to relate any of his personal impulses to a greater system of thought, and plays in a mannered, incomprehensible way. 

To address a bit of the original post, too much emphasis is placed on how the student feels about taking lessons.  If we always think, the student's reaction determines how well we can do our job, we will never do our job good enough.  Yes, to a certain extent we have to find out what inspires the student, but never at the expense of teaching a solid foundation; not catching a fish for them, but teaching them how to fish.

Walter Ramsey

[oscarr111111]

teacheable attitude - I never thought of this, but it's an interesting point.

If I look back when I was a teenager and went to piano lessons, I was very interested in everything in music and piano playing - but I was not a very teachable student 
Often I practised other pieces than I should, often I used pedal when I was expected not to use it, often I disagreed with my teachers. But I had really cool teachers, and they didn't make a problem out of it. I got many, many impulses from the lessons. I used what I liked and I ignored what I disliked. If I had got the sort of teachers, that were very strict and if they would have forced me to play in a way, that I didn't like, then I would rather have stopped taking piano lessons than do it. It seems to me, that some students want to be forced by the teacher, I can't understand that, and I - as a teacher - will not do it. Music means freedom to me - and you cannot get freedom, if you are forced to it.

I think I'm a bit like that.  Due to playing other instruments and a decent knowledge of music theory and aural ability I have a tendency to skip ahead of myself.   This isn't helped by the fact that I can be a bit obsessive about stuff I really want to do, so if theres a piece I *really* want to learn then I'll go at it hour after hour, note by note until I have it down to memory and can play at least my favourate parts, this just boosts my confidence (and confidence in my playing and performing has never really been an issue in any area, its when I play music best and my public speaking assignments at university are my highest scoring assessments) and causes me to feel like I'm dumbing things down when I go back to stuff at my level.

I think the fact that I play other instruments makes me want to be where I am with them on piano, *now*.  Its kind of frustrating knowing what I want to play, hearing it in my head and yet not being able to play it because of technical limitations .  I've got 4 months coming up though with no job to sap my time (well, I have a few gigs over the course of them which should pay my rent) and no uni studies, so I hope to fix that.

[counterpoint]

Walter, only a little question, a very personal one:

do you really think, you understand music better than Ivo Pogorelich, whom you call a "falling star"?

I'm always suprised, if people are that selfconfident.

[rc]

Pianistimo:  That reminds me of something I read in a book recently, Mastery by George Leonard, where he relates the story of teaching aikido to two advanced karate students.  One took his knowledge of karate with him, always assuming karate stances and doing things his way, as a result he slowed his progress.  The other acted like a complete beginner, left his karate out of the aikido dojo and as a result was free to learn the unfamiliar style without letting his familiar style interfere.

It makes sense to me.  Not that a little disagreement is a bad thing, but that a knowitall will be the last one to learn anything new.

It's a good book.  I lent it to a friend a few months ago, he also liked it.  I wonder if I'll ever see it again?

[rc]

Oscar:  I can relate, my imagination is far ahead of my ability

But with recently preparing for an RCM exam to get into university, I'm starting to think that learning what we like is the best way to progress.  I'm consumed when learning favorite rep and practice like a man possessed.  Learning assigned rep and having to keep it in shape and fine tuned too far in advance has sapped my motivation.  I only look forward to being free of this burden so I can continue learning, ironically. 

I can't help but feel I'd be further ahead on a self-guided journey.

[m1469]

m1469, have we touched on the fact I'm self taught? I wonder what you think of that.

Well, I think that we are all, in one way, always self-taught -- and in another, we also always have a teacher.

No matter who is "teaching" us, it is up to each one of us to actually apply the ideas and eventually make them our own -- this is the element of being self-taught in all of us.  Having a teacher can range anywhere from having another person (or even set of persons) right there with you while you go along, to just reading a book and applying ideas, or even the knowledge being seemingly divined right out of the sky (in my opinion, it had to have come from somewhere -- and even if not, the knowledge itself would cause me to think and learn).

If you are curious about my opinions on something beyond this, I guess I need a more specific question  .

[ramseytheii]

Walter, only a little question, a very personal one:

do you really think, you understand music better than Ivo Pogorelich, whom you call a "falling star"?

I'm always suprised, if people are that selfconfident.

If we are confronted with something incomprehensible, maybe we don't understand.  If we encounter it again and again, and it remains incomprehensible, and in fact only becomes more so, we have to stop blaming ourselves.  There comes a point when a person has to realize that this feeling is not a matter of understanding or not, but a deep sense of right or wrong.

Do I understand music better than Pogorelich?  I have no idea.  But his versions of music I know and love doesn't correspond to the way I know it should be, based on the knowledge that I do have.  And furthermore, I haven't heard anything convincing enough to make me think he has a comprehensive system of interpretation, like a Gould, or a Horowitz, two very idiosyncratic pianists whose interpretations spoke to people, and made sense. 

Eventually we have to have confidence in ourselves, and not think that fame elevates another person beyond understanding and criticism.

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

rc - it's interesting you bring in a new concept of akido vs karate moves and how learning something new takes unburdening yourself of previously known concepts.  i think this has a lot to do also with mental jumps that one makes from year to year.  you suddenly 'see' more and understand more.  therefore, are less prone to make hasty judgements about something.

i agree with ramseytheii, too, up to the point about glen gould and pogorelich.  i've seen videos of glen gould - and actually have his recordings from 1961? of the preludes and fugues.  the thing is - he was rather more self-taught than pogorelich wasn't he?  pogorelich seems to have more finesse.  i thought glen gould was like a moose when he walked to the piano - and rather boorish in some of his ideas and movements.  kind of like walking to a pristine lake and then throwing in a rather idiosyncratic fishing lure. 

but, you know what - ramseytheii - i like it that everyone here has their own ideas of what is perfection in pianism.  perhaps when it is one on one - whether with glen gould or pogorelich - youcome to expect what it is that is the strong suit of the pianist.  glen gould seemed to have perfected the idea of giving the unexpected.  pogorelich also.  pogorelich - though - could play scarlatti in the most unassuming way.  i don't think he's full of himself as people say.  i actually think he is a very shy man.  and - i think he is intuitive (much like glen gould - but a different way - more refined).  i believe he knows in his heart what sounds good and just does it.  that's also what glen gould did.  they are very similar - imo - actually - even though different.  they were both shy.  both expressed this 'pristine lake.'

[opus10no2]

Well, I think that we are all, in one way, always self-taught -- and in another, we also always have a teacher.

No matter who is "teaching" us, it is up to each one of us to actually apply the ideas and eventually make them our own -- this is the element of being self-taught in all of us.  Having a teacher can range anywhere from having another person (or even set of persons) right there with you while you go along, to just reading a book and applying ideas, or even the knowledge being seemingly divined right out of the sky (in my opinion, it had to have come from somewhere -- and even if not, the knowledge itself would cause me to think and learn).

If you are curious about my opinions on something beyond this, I guess I need a more specific question  .

haha well, for me it's a source of pride, and pride is one reason why I have never sought instruction, even on this board I use it for a relaying of ideas.

One of my favourite phrases is 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', whatever we do that is somehow great and whatever artistic 'heights' we achieve, they are never achieved completely independantly, there is always the influence of the greatness that brushes us , inspires us, and came before us.

Are we indebted to it? I think so of course! But as I've said before all effort and pride on our own part is not in vain, and whether it be selfish or not, it is *admirable* and can be great.

Hate me for it all you like, but when asked where I study and who I was taught by when I play, I like to swifly toss up some shadez and say 'It's all me baby, all me' 

I also wonder about teaching stifling individuality...in artistry aswell as method.
What I am and moreover what I'll be...is unique, and I wonder if I had traditional instruction ..would I be as unique?

[counterpoint]

Eventually we have to have confidence in ourselves, and not think that fame elevates another person beyond understanding and criticism.

Of course it's important to have confidence in oneself. But that is only one side of the medal.
We also have to respect the value of different approaches and different views.
To say "I'm right, because it's me and I am more intelligent than others" is just silly.

[m1469]

haha well, for me it's a source of pride, and pride is one reason why I have never sought instruction, even on this board I use it for a relaying of ideas.

Yes, I understand.  It's interesting, so, you must feel as though you have a choice in the matter ?  As though there is an instruction that you could just find in a person if you wanted to, that would lay everything out for you, individually, and you would not have to figure it out on your own ?  Personally, I don't think I have ever found that kind of instruction in another person for almost anything.  I won't close doors and windows, but, I have just never found it yet.  So, as far as being a self-learner, I don't really feel as though I have a choice in the matter, and actually, I don't feel any of us do.  Nobody has all the answers for any of us -- we always have to find those on our own.  So, I don't know, I don't really see the pride in that -- at least not in a way where I can feel as though I am doing something that everybody else is not; I don't feel that this would make me "unique" -- or any more of who I am already.

On that note, I value what others have discovered and that which, I find, saves me time in my own journey -- I am grateful that I don't have to completely reinvent the wheel, so to speak.   I have found that I tend to latch onto certain things that resonate with me, and other things I don't do that with -- or at least not right away.   If I run across a teacher who is trying hard to "make" me learn something, even if the lesson is "independence" -- I pull away.  That's just how I am.  Should I be proud of that ?  Not in a way that I think this makes me "unique" -- I think we all do this to some extent, depending on our individual needs at the time.  We really don't have a choice about independence, and any teacher claiming to teach me it, well, they aren't really giving me the goods then, are they ?

Anyway, I don't seek independence at all.  I seek full dependence because it's an entirely different frame of mind, and an entirely different experience in life, too -- but, on what, makes all the difference. 

I also wonder about teaching stifling individuality...in artistry aswell as method.
What I am and moreover what I'll be...is unique, and I wonder if I had traditional instruction ..would I be as unique?

I see.  Yes, that is a good question.  You know, we are all unique in our own individual ways .

[counterpoint]

I also wonder about teaching stifling individuality...in artistry aswell as method.
What I am and moreover what I'll be...is unique, and I wonder if I had traditional instruction ..would I be as unique?

I can understand this fear very well, and I think, it's not an unreasoned fear. Therefore it's so important to find a teacher who fits to your own wavelength - if you need the help of a teacher.

If you don't need the help of a teacher - you're lucky: nobody will hinder you in your personal style of playing music.

[opus10no2]

Yes, I understand.  It's interesting, so, you must feel as though you have a choice in the matter ?  As though there is an instruction that you could just find in a person if you wanted to, that would lay everything out for you, individually, and you would not have to figure it out on your own ? 

No 

My own self-teaching suits my aims, and I doubt anyone has identical aims, and as much as anyone can attempt to empathise or vicariously attempt to understand what I want, they can't completely.

I like discovering things on my own, it gives the perspective of discovery, even if it isn't a new discovery, it should feel like one, because it just feels more precious and feels more multidimensional.

Other people may not have the intellect or disposition to think in the direction I do and with the same fortitude(definition - strength of mind that enables one to endure adversity with courage..love this word).

I feel pride in my method because I feel pride in the result I suppose! and I really KNOW that the result would be different If I hadn't followed this path, for better or for worse? I just like to believe it's for the better

[m1469]

I like discovering things on my own (...)

Yes.  My point is, we don't actually have much choice, whether we like it or not.

You know, interestingly, an "independent" mind-frame pushes others away because it fears it can lose itself within others -- however, a truly unique mind is never in danger of being lost; it simply cannot be -- it is the only one like it in existence.   It is like trying to hide a unique puzzle piece within a giant puzzle that it was never meant to fit into -- the piece just never really blends.

[opus10no2]

I discovered that on my own, all by my itty bitty self 

I do understand, actually I was briefly sort of in a band, playing teh rhythm geetaw, I just couldn't collaborate with them because I wanted to do my own thing, and my own thing is vally vally importent 

[m1469]

... and my own thing is vally vally importent 

Well, perhaps we don't have much choice along those lines, either 

[counterpoint]

Well, perhaps we don't have much choice along those lines, either 

m1469, why do you insist that "we" don't have much choice?
I don't understand, from where you came to this conclusion?
I don't think, you're right in that.

[opus10no2]

Well, perhaps we don't have much choice along those lines, either 

Perhaps

But then, do you think all volition is an illusion?

Do you feel that way?

Destiny is interesting, do you feel it is preordained?

[m1469]

m1469, why do you insist that "we" don't have much choice?
I don't understand, from where you came to this conclusion?
I don't think, you're right in that.

Well, I don't think it matters whether or not I am right; all that matters is whether or not it is true.    I could write it all out for you, my explanations for what I say, but it wouldn't mean anything to you unless you see it for yourself -- and there is no way for me to force that to happen, regardless of what I say or do -- is there ?

[counterpoint]

Well, I don't think it matters whether or not I am right; all that matters is whether or not it is true.    I could write it all out for you, my explanations for what I say, but it wouldn't mean anything to you unless you see it for yourself -- and there is no way for me to force that to happen, regardless of what I say or do -- is there ?

Wow, what an answer 

The Sphinx couldn't have given a more enigmatic answer...

[counterpoint]

My point is: we can do, what we are supposed to do.

Or we can do something other.


In the first moment, it seems to be easier to fulfill the wishes of other people.
But on the long term, you will get very unhappy, if you don't do what you are convinced of.

[m1469]

My point is: we can do, what we are supposed to do.

Or we can do something other.


In the first moment, it seems to be easier to fulfill the wishes of other people.
But on the long term, you will get very unhappy, if you don't do what you are convinced of.

Yes, I can appreciate this and I agree.  However, (couldn't you just feel that "however" coming along ? hee hee), simply doing what one is supposed to do is not the same thing as "learning" -- in my opinion -- or at least it is not the same thing as understanding.  For me, though, I learn in hopes to understand (at least to some degree).  And, my point is that nobody can make us understand something in our own individual way -- no matter what the other says or does, the light has to go on in each of us.  So, whether we are formally taught with another or not, doesn't really change the fact that it's still up to us as individuals to make sense out of what is taught.

As a teacher, my hope is to provide ample opportunity for a person to have a learning moment -- and, I suppose, the most I can hope for in a student is for them to be receptive to these opportunities and use them in whatever way makes sense to them -- at the end of the day, a large extent of the learning process is simply up to the individual.

[counterpoint]

nobody can make us understand something in our own individual way -- no matter what the other says or does, the light has to go on in each of us. 

Okay, perhaps one can help to understand something. But most of the time teachers do not help understanding things - they expect, that students do it the way, they (the teachers) do it, and if the students don't, then there is a big problem in the room. Not the problem of understanding, but the problem of who will win the fight.

[opus10no2]

Hmm, so a teacher could be like a supermarket, but it still depends on us to buy the goods we are inclined to, and consume them also in the same way.

Information can be like food, and 'understanding' (as in , our own unique perception) is the way it is digested and distributed in our bodies..and we know this is different for every person.

When growing up( back to the clone thing..) we eat, and what we eat is translated to what we physically are...but if a clone werre to eat a completely different diet...physically I think it has been proven that the person would more or less look the same, with maybe variability in height, weight, slight hormonal differences etc.

So with the analogy of looking at the mental process like this, learning is dependant on 2 things - the stimulus we are given, and how we are predisposed to mentally digest it.

With ME , this hunger is strong, and I feel a need to hunt for it myself, even with supermarkets around 

[m1469]

Hmm, so a teacher could be like a supermarket, but it still depends on us to buy the goods we are inclined to, and consume them also in the same way.

Information can be like food, and 'understanding' (as in , our own unique perception) is the way it is digested and distributed in our bodies..and we know this is different for every person.

When growing up( back to the clone thing..) we eat, and what we eat is translated to what we physically are...but if a clone werre to eat a completely different diet...physically I think it has been proven that the person would more or less look the same, with maybe variability in height, weight, slight hormonal differences etc.

So with the analogy of looking at the mental process like this, learning is dependant on 2 things - the stimulus we are given, and how we are predisposed to mentally digest it.

With ME , this hunger is strong, and I feel a need to hunt for it myself, even with supermarkets around 

Yes, I suppose one can see it like that -- however, having actually worked in a supermarket for a few years, I know that they can be pretty tricky in getting people to actually buy something they didn't intend on buying ... hee hee.  And, of course, along those lines, there are some pretty tricky teachers out there, too  .

In terms of the hunger for it and the desire to hunt for it, I don't see finding a teacher as any different, really.  It's part of the hunt.  Sometimes my teachers are strictly books, sometimes my teachers are people, sometimes my teachers are my own pupils, sometimes it's the wind and clouds, sometimes it's a line of ants -- really the list goes on and on.  I just don't like to limit myself in any way.  In this respect, I am not picky, I will really take it wherever it is -- you know ?  What matters most to me is being able to deliver what I want -- the skill and art-- and I will be first to admit that I need all the help that I can get -- wherever that help comes from (even from myself ).  The message is more important than the messenger, on all fronts, in my book.  But, obviously, everybody is different.

However, I will say that I don't imagine my life would be any better had I never run across certain individuals.  Why ?  Because it's similar to the difference between reading about love vs experiencing it first-hand.  I guess I enjoy both .  I could read method books all I want, but, it's different when I was actually sitting in lessons, studio classes, and so on, every week with an extremely talented teacher -- and treating it like a performance, and my teacher getting to know me from the soul outward -- it's an experience that I just can't get all alone, no matter how smart I am.   Interaction with another individual, especially one that you are drawn to, is bound to bring out certain qualities of one's persona that weren't necessarily even known about before . 

It can be really wonderful .

[opus10no2]

Yes! of course, and I understand just about everything you say..

Practically...teachers, in the traditional sense, cost money, and on top of that - while there may be good teachers around my area, it is nevertheless still a more remote place, with a city 30something miles away - possibly some good teachers there, but again, money!

Nothing has convinced me that getting a teacher is worth it, though I have no doubt I'd learn things, I don't think it would be worth the money, time, and loss of pride...however ignorant that feeling may be, I enjoy it.

Now the final things you say are something I wish I had - interaction...oh how I wish..

[oscarr111111]

Yes! of course, and I understand just about everything you say..

Practically...teachers, in the traditional sense, cost money, and on top of that - while there may be good teachers around my area, it is nevertheless still a more remote place, with a city 30something miles away - possibly some good teachers there, but again, money!

Nothing has convinced me that getting a teacher is worth it, though I have no doubt I'd learn things, I don't think it would be worth the money, time, and loss of pride...however ignorant that feeling may be, I enjoy it.

Now the final things you say are something I wish I had - interaction...oh how I wish..

The best 'teaching' is just playing with other musicians and trading criticism and advice.  Some of the greatest musicians learned to play just by taking an instrument and playing along with their family, friends or the radio with no prior knowledge at all.

[loops]

Nothing has convinced me that getting a teacher is worth it, though I have no doubt I'd learn things, I don't think it would be worth the money, time, and loss of pride...however ignorant that feeling may be, I enjoy it.

This is the only thing that worries me about your replies. It is the repeated use of the word "pride".
It calls to mind the proverb, "pride before a fall".
I would also have equal trouble with the opposite idea, ie slavishly following what you are taught without
thinking/experiencing it through. That is not how you produce a genuine performance.

The genuine learning moment is free of all such emotions. Original mind considers everything without
prejudgment and chooses this or that in a clear way.

[m1469]

Yes! of course, and I understand just about everything you say..

Practically...teachers, in the traditional sense, cost money, and on top of that - while there may be good teachers around my area, it is nevertheless still a more remote place, with a city 30something miles away - possibly some good teachers there, but again, money!

Nothing has convinced me that getting a teacher is worth it, though I have no doubt I'd learn things, I don't think it would be worth the money, time, and loss of pride...however ignorant that feeling may be, I enjoy it.

Now the final things you say are something I wish I had - interaction...oh how I wish..

Yeah.  I will say that at the times I found the teachers I have, I felt that I would have payed my weight in gold dust to be their student -- even just to observe them.  When something feels "worth it" to me, it just doesn't seem expensive, exactly -- I am willing to cope with it.

On another note, I think that nothing besides the right teacher will convince a person to have a teacher.

And, we all have pride in some way.  One thing that I have tried to become better at, as my own teacher, is in discerning whether a particular sense of pride is truly helping me, or if it is just standing in my way -- afterall, I want for myself what I think is most progressive; ironically, that's exactly where the pride that stands in my way may have originated. 

As far as interaction goes, maybe you are imagining something specific that you feel you don't have, but, I believe you do have some interaction in your life that is worthy of beneficially serving you in some way.

This is the only thing that worries me about your replies. It is the repeated use of the word "pride".

We all have it in something or in some form -- we wouldn't be human if we didn't -- and nobody knows the whole story on another. 

There may just be some really good reasons for it .

[opus10no2]

I believe you do have some interaction in your life that is worthy of beneficially serving you in some way.

You mean you and the forum? If so, I agree. However I have zero intimate interaction, and I'd love to find it.

This is the only thing that worries me about your replies. It is the repeated use of the word "pride".

Wouldn't I be worse if I *didn't* use it? If I weren't aware of the force.

I am happy but by no means content with my progress..

The best 'teaching' is just playing with other musicians and trading criticism and advice. Some of the greatest musicians learned to play just by taking an instrument and playing along with their family, friends or the radio with no prior knowledge at all.

I can understand this, but taking criticism and advice that is in my own best interests is what I'd find valuable...not conforming to what they prefer.
Using their preferences to shed light on my own and to learn from the whole thing, always in pursuit of how I want things to sound.

[loops]

Wouldn't I be worse if I *didn't* use it? If I weren't aware of the force.

I am happy but by no means content with my progress..

No you wouldn't be worse if you didn't use pride....or put it positively, I think you'd be better off
without it. And to answer m1469 at the same time, you, opus10no2, can obviously
think and feel what you want for whatever reason you think appropriate. I think anyone
would respect that.

But if I noticed myself using a word like pride to describe myself I'd worry, because behind pride is
usually fear (that you are really the opposite of what you are proud of) and fear is debilitating. It clouds your
judgement. So I'd be looking at what lay behind it. Maybe it's innocent. Maybe you use it
as energy to achieve. That's fine.

So, to get back to the topic, I think a teachable student is fearless.
fearless to take instruction, fearless to ignore it. fearless to try something,
fearless to leave something to one side.

[m1469]

No you wouldn't be worse if you didn't use pride....or put it positively, I think you'd be better off without it.

I think this is true of any 'coping mechanism,' provided the unfoldment of a more appropriate one comes along with the stripping of the other.  It can stunt a person's progress to be stripped of one 'coping mechanism' without being guided toward another. 

And, if it's a teacher stripping a student of their pride without knowing how to help them find another "way" -- then I believe it is simply pride on the teacher's part in doing so, not understanding, and by default, not any better -- because in this case then, it is ultimately the blind leading the blind.

So, to get back to the topic, I think a teachable student is fearless.
fearless to take instruction, fearless to ignore it. fearless to try something,
fearless to leave something to one side.

I like this, but I do detect a trace of pride in it  .

[opus10no2]

I understand but I play for enjoyment, and part of that enjoyment comes from the pride of being better at things than others, or at least the projected pride from the positive feeling of security that I *will* be good.

Now this is what makes me feel good, so it is good for me, but I understand that you mean to single out my playing, and what is good for me and my playing ...if they're not the same, they should be?

It's not that I'm not open minded, it's just that I like being 'self-taught' and the reaction that brings out in others,

[pianistimo]

i'm actually agreed that going to school for music isn't the only way or THE way.  it's one of many.  and, even though i joke around with stevie about being good looking but needing a teacher - in my mind i applaud him for sticking to what he thinks is working for him.  to prove that it is working  - we need to hear him play.

of course, after taking many years of lessons and then having a family - i can't say that my return to music professionally has taken off like a lightening bolt.  fairly slow and strong progress. but, i call it strong because i have mentors i can call or talk to.  and, probably stevie does too.  you don't have to have teacher forever - but it is nice to know someone who has studied further than you.

discovering everything on your own could take three lifetimes.  why not get as good as possible with a little help?  and, why bother going to school if teaching is a useless profession.  i do think that teaching helps to expand our ways of understanding the process of learning.  and what it is that we are attempting to teach.  for me - it is to discover music.  the essence of whatever the composer was trying to get across.  i don't care if sometimes there is a mistake anymores.  like first year teachers who stop a student every 2 seconds.  how can you play something through this way and ever become confident?  you can't if you are stopped too much.  it's like reinforcing 'you are bad, you are bad.  you will never play piano well.'

[keyofc]

Poor self-image or good self image?  Sometimes I think people think that teachers that take lessons and have other mentors do not value themselves enough.

But for me - it's all about the music.  In my opinion - you can't have a teachabe attitude if you are self-taught and do not want to go any further.  It's great if you were able to teach yourself - but it's like being your own lawyer - I think.  You are the one giving yourself the thumbs up - and not getting any feedback from others.

If you play for someone who doesn't play piano period ( and you're reasonably good) - of course, you are going to sound good.

I really think having a teachable attitude - is having a respectful attitude that someone else has something to offer.  One should takes notes, record the lesson -

I started teaching part time over 25 years ago - and now do it full time.  I still take lessons throughout alternating seasons!   I go to one person - who is my coach - he is 20 yrs my senior - and has been in the music profession all of his life.   It helps me consider my music - not just my teaching, how I could enhance it - and to see different approaches.  Sometimes he incorporates part of my method into his teaching -we learn from each other's creativity

The other one - I alternate with does the flip side of creativity - and really encourages me and helps me grow.  You can never stop growing unless you decide not to grow anymore.
Plus - the experience - the exchange of ideas, the new sound, the new approach, the repoirte of those who have gone before you and have no greater desire but to impart some of the things that waters their desert - is incredible.


Anyway - if you don't have this attitude that they have something to offer - you will try to show them how to do it - and believe your way is the only way.

I knew everything there was to music until about 20 years ago.

[ramseytheii]

Of course it's important to have confidence in oneself. But that is only one side of the medal.
We also have to respect the value of different approaches and different views.
To say "I'm right, because it's me and I am more intelligent than others" is just silly.

We don't have to respect different views if in our estimation those views do damage to the things we love.  All we have to do is accept that those different views are not illegal, unfortunately. 

If we felt that everything was equally right and good, nothing would be right or good.  So we don't say, "I'm right, because it's me and I am more intelligent than others" we say, "That's wrong, because.. [the reasons.]" 

Walter Ramsey

[counterpoint]

If we felt that everything was equally right and good, nothing would be right or good. 

We can say "I love it" or "I don't like it".

So there is good and bad, but in most cases this is only a subjective statement.

If the composer would say "I love it" or "I don't like it" - this would be a definitive statement. Only he, the composer, knows what's "right" and what's "wrong".

[ramseytheii]

We can say "I love it" or "I don't like it".

So there is good and bad, but in most cases this is only a subjective statement.

If the composer would say "I love it" or "I don't like it" - this would be a definitive statement. Only he, the composer, knows what's "right" and what's "wrong".

Although I don't believe in idolatry, it's rather easy to use your argument against you.  If the composer makes the definitive statement, then all those who go against it are by definition wrong, and it becomes easy to make the distinction between those who are right and those who are wrong without engaging our egos at all.  Then we can have the satisfaction of having made an entirely objective complaint.

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

but, we don't play the same instruments as some composers did many years ago - so we are in 'two worlds.'  one where we attempt to play the music as closely to what is written as possible - and also make some value judgements as to what 'sounds good' on the modern day piano.

perhaps we are mixing attitudes towards performing as well as attitudes towards teachers.  now - when i see a person sit down to perform - my attitude isn't 'let's see if he/she can get through this and still be sane.'  or, 'i just know they're going to mess up in spot A.'  or, previously conceived biases.  now - i just think - this person has spent years practicing and they might do some things i don't particularly like or agree with - but there's always something interesting in every performance.

i think the utube of lang lang and his father performing together on some kind of ethnic instruments made me see the absolute craziness and love for music that these two share.  i think lang lang has a lot of expression and enthusiasm.  so - now - i'm not looking at him with really critical eyes and thinking - 'look at him roll his eyes towards the ceiling.'  i've seen enough pianists that look like a stiff block.  i probably play this way now because of keeping myself from swaying back and forth like i used to. 

it's hard to find that happy medium in teaching and performing.  it kind of depends on the day for me - as to how enthusiastic i am with teaching (although usually i love it) and performing as i want to.  i want to express mostly through the notes what i am thinking (or the composer was thinking) - but am understanding that audiences look for signs that the performer is alive.

[counterpoint]

Although I don't believe in idolatry, it's rather easy to use your argument against you. 

Oh, it's not about me, it's about the music itself    If I would play the piece of a living composer - of course, his comment was of absolute importance to me.  But in most of the music we play, the composer doesn't live any more. So we have to guess, how the composer wanted his music to sound. Sometimes we have recordings with the composer playing his own works - thats the best help we ever could get. Advices in form of written words are not as valuable, since words can be misinterpreted as well as musical scores.

[loops]

  It can stunt a person's progress to be stripped of one 'coping mechanism' without being guided toward another. 

And, if it's a teacher stripping a student of their pride without knowing how to help them find another "way" -- then I believe it is simply pride on the teacher's part in doing so, not understanding, and by default, not any better -- because in this case then, it is ultimately the blind leading the blind.

heavens yes; I hate the whole thing of a teacher stripping away someone's self worth.
That is really really bad teaching and is why people end by giving up. You hear horror
stories about college-level teaching (not just music but drama, dance and so forth)
all in the name of getting the student to give a "deep" performance when in fact it's just
abuse.

[a-sharp]

Funny reading this again today ...

I'd say - a student who is *not* like one of mine ... she must be the most spoiled/coddled child. She's really sweet, a tad bit precocious ... her mom - she is the one with the 'musical background' - and apparently "helps" her with everything. She's at about a level 2 [in a group class at this school where I teach her - just barely]- and just cannot read to save her life. If I ask her to do anything, and she doesn't get it right away - she essentially "flops" and sighs, and whines, "it's haaard!" OMG. I'm like - so, who ever said this was easy? [She's about 8 years old or so]

I essentially told her today [with 12 minutes left in the lesson], we'd spend the next 12 minutes on these next 5 notes if that's what it took - I said - "I could tell you how to do it [play & demonstrate - meaning, teach her her by rote], but that is not going to help you ... I said - what are you going to do when you have something that is 6 or 10 pages long? All I was asking for was 2 measures of the 2nd Hanon excercise. And, then I told her to go home figure out the the notes *without your mom helping you* ... lol. yikes. oh well - after 6 months of this - I guess I had had enough.

I "threatened" to get out the flashcards next lesson. I'm gonna. She'll be surprised, I'm sure. but please. !

At some point you have to ask, "Do you want to learn how to play the piano?" Seems so obvious, but sometimes, one has to wonder.

I've seen people ask the question - why does it matter if one is getting paid if the student is an active participant/pracitcing/whatever ... for me, it's about quality of life [my own], and also, for every student who is not participating, there is another potential student who really wants to learn, and the non-willing student is taking up their valuable space.

OK - I'm on a bit of soapbox today - sorry! :p

[oot]

rc
We all have felt that playing the music we enjoy most negates the need for the other stuff.  I have found though that music suggested for learning that I would not have considered on my own turns out to be an extreme advantage because it teaches concepts and requires technique I perhaps might not seek on my own.

A lot of the music for learning though is, in my opinion, not all that musical but just a bunch of notes.  I guess that is because it perhaps doesn"t "speak to me" as other choices do.  I have also found that changes with time and experience.  The music I enjoy now is not at all the same as a few years ago.  I think this is true of students also.  A student of mine came to lesson time who had two compositions assigned the week before.  The more difficult of the two was done very well but the other was poorly done.  Naturally some excuses were offered but I feel the real issue is that the poorly done one was not, even in my opinion, as interesting musically as the other.

Under these circumstances I have to force myself to consider what would be gained or lost if this one was just dropped and we move on.  I am working with this student to improve her ability to read the music and play at the same time since she has a very good ear and has fallen into the habit of learning more by ear than by reading the written page.  Does it really matter what music is used to accomplish this goal.  My answer is NO, it doesn't and so we move on.  The downside of expecting this other composition to be done regardless is conterproductive to the primary objective.

[oot]

like first year teachers who stop a student every 2 seconds.  how can you play something through this way and ever become confident?  you can't if you are stopped too much.  it's like reinforcing 'you are bad, you are bad.  you will never play piano well

I'm sorry, I have to comment on this.  It is not just annoying I think it is destructive as you stated.  I have gone to great lenghths to avoid such a practice in my teaching.  Instead I keep quiet and have the student play it again for me and sometimes more than twice.  I find this relaxes the student and they do better and it helps me to determine whether a mistake was just a mishap ro whether it is a practiced error.  If a practiced error it will happen at exactly the same place and in the same way every time, if it was a mishap it will usually be played correctly the 2nd time or 3rd time or it may be wrong in different ways each time which points out that it has not been focussed on to resolve the issue.

[oot]

  Re: What constitutes a 'teachable' attitude ?
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2007, 05:18:18 AM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmmm... okay.  Thanks pianistimo. 

Anybody else ?    What constitutes a 'teachable' attitude ?

Any lurker 

Well I have never before been refered to as a lurker but perhaps.  I became interested in the word "attitude" when I brought it up in a group seting of young people only to see their eyes glaze over and their receivers turn off.  During my early years of life all I had heard about attitude was that mine was bad.  No one ever said I had a good one even when I did.  The word takes on a little different meaning for me now because I have read up on how it relates to other fields, like aviation for example.  The attitude of an aircraft is its position to some point of reference.  I began to think about attitude as ones mental position with respect to some real or imagined point of reference.  In electronics repair a meter is used to measure voltage when looking for a solution to an undesired function.  The measurement requires some "point of reference" or it is worthless.  Pondering this further I realized hat the measurement could be totally diferent by simply changing the point of reference so I tried applying this to the mental "attitude" and my conclusion is that if the point of reference is changed the attitude is automatically changed with no choice.  All kinds of attitudes from this perspective exist.  Physical attitude being ones position with respect to another object.  The mental position like was menioned above.  A person could conceivably have dozens of attitudes one of which could be his/her piano lessons or just the music or jsut one composition as compared to another.  So where am I going with this?  If a student exibits a bad aittude the first thing that pops into my head is the question, "I wonder what the point of reference is for this attidude" and find myself looking for the point of reference even by asking questions of the student.  Sometimes the point of reference can be changed and the attitude then changes with it.  Example:  A student said to me, after struggling with a piece for a bit, that she did not like it much.  She had played it slowly and with errors along the way and didn't like how it sounded.  I pointed out to her the metronomic indication at the beginning of the piece and asked if she thought it might sound better if it were played at that tempo.  She did not know but was willng to consider it.  I played the first 6 measures or so at the correct tempo and "attitude" changed immediately with no further effort on my part.  She left the lesson excited about getting home to work on it some more and returned playing it quite well the following week.  Commenting on how I like a students attitude to the student has a very positive affect.  Maybe that could be thought of as "Bad attitude preventive maintenance."