Loyalty : What does it mean and how is it best used ?

[m1469]

I started thinking about this just this morning, as it relates to teachers and their students.  Something I noticed is that sometimes people become so loyal to their teachers as people, that they become blind to investigating the "methods" that are being used to teach with.  Yet, at the same time, I think there is a level of trust that a teacher must inspire within their students, in order for particular matters to actually take place.

So, I started thinking that perhaps it's not the person that one must become loyal to, but the methods.  However, that is not quite right either, since it's actually the methods that I am bringing into question.  Sometimes there is a need to grow out of particular methods because even if they were useful at one time or on a particular level, they are not actually serving "the purpose" anymore, and this needs to be recognized and properly dealt with.

Perhaps there is not an actual place for "loyalty" in the sense of sticking to something no matter what ?

At that point, I started thinking that perhaps it is "loyalty" to oneself and the decision to follow "results" or so, the decision to follow one's truth -- one of the problems with this notion is that I am not wholly convinced that people are even sure what their truth is and how to actually follow it, especially since it inevitably involves coming into contact with other people, whose information and knowledge will be sometimes valuable and sometimes not, in the individual's pursuit of being on a "true to oneself" path.

It seems that divergence at some point is inevitable -- divergence from person, divergence from method, divergence from even oneself.  In some form, I have considered loyalty as having an inseparable quality, something that one chooses to stick with through thick and thin.  Right now though, I am not convinced of its worth as outlined by my former thinking -- so, perhaps my definition and understanding of it is in need of improvement.

What are your thoughts ?

[keypeg]

Piano is my second instrument.  For my actual instrument, my teacher's method was along one school while the common method in this part of the world is another.  I didn't know that there were two main schools, and that one was incompatible with the other.  The way the body works and forces travel as you play is different in important areas and changes in those areas mess up the whole system.  So in my 2nd year something smaller had gone wrong elsewhere, I was curious, and I started to follow stuff I found in books and on the Net.  I destroyed the foundation of what my teacher had built and got hopelessly tangled up for a year.  It wasn't so obvious what I had done, either.  Finally when I figured it out I told my teacher and we have had to work to untangle the mess.  The trouble is that people who teach the one method aren't familiar with the other so it puts the teacher into unfamiliar territory.

So ... from that experience.  The first rule is that you have to choose your teacher with care.  Don't just take the first name in the yellow pages.  If you have a competent, knowledgeable teacher, trust him and follow the instructions.  That brings us into that loyalty, I suppose.

I understand that a good teacher will first build a foundation in his student's playing and understanding, but after a while will start fostering independence. Maybe he will allow guided experimentation of the most effective way that suits this particular student, give challenges that need more creative solutions - something like that.  So maybe what you are writing about might happen.  A student cannot be a marionette of a teacher upon graduation, but will hold the foundation and a lot of the characteristics of what the teacher has taught.

[Bob]

Loyalty to music.  That's it.  It's like a rock and never changes.

Loyalty for people and organization within certain rules.

[richy321]

I think loyalty has very little place in piano study (or in politics either, but that's another subject).   For adult players, at least, it is a collaborative project in which the best gauge of success is, first, the improvement in playing and, secondly, the intellectual and emotional satisfaction of the experience.  If these results are lacking, they need to find out what the problem is and adjust the methodology if possible. If they cannot resolve the discrepancy, they need to find a new partnership.  To me, it is a pragmatic issue, not one of loyalty. 

[m19834]

This thread reminds me of a singer that I know.  She believes her voice to be something that it is not and holds to a particular training that she had received at a particular time in her life, and at that time this training was very helpful to her; at the time it meant the difference between not being capable of singing at all, vs. being able to sing in a fairly satisfying way.  However, even now, she senses that her voice is bigger than where her particular training has taken her.  She has even experienced these bigger, fuller sounds from herself, but remains tied to what she currently views as "herself" and is convinced that her "old" technique, her particular training, her current sound is what she is.

I find this fascinating, actually.

For one, when learning and experiencing something new, sure, it's going to feel a bit foreign perhaps.  It's like crossing your arms one way all your life, and then one day crossing them the opposite way.  But, if it is practiced enough, it can become natural-feeling, and as a result, a person then has options.  In the case of this woman, it seems that she is unwilling to even give another option a chance, quickly dismissing a new experience as not being "her."

I started wondering how tied to a sense of loyalty toward her teacher this is.  This teacher helped her at a time of great duress in her life, and I think this teacher changed her life-picture of the time, so I can understand how this loyalty would be created.  I also see that it may be exactly the thing inhibiting her from moving forward in ways that she would ultimately like to be moving.

It's an interesting subject, I think.

[keypeg]

Karli, would this singer get the other training from another teacher, and she is resistant to it?  Or are you suggesting that she would find alternatives to her training by herself?

If you've only known "not trained" vs. "this training" then another training is inconceivable.  To imagine that there are alternatives and other realities is very scary because it is uncertaintly.  It also means letting go of what you believe supports you, meaning a certain fall.  It is not so, but it seems so.  But we also know that when we experiment the wrong way as beginners we can ruin a lot.  That knowledge stays, I guess.  Would this not have to happen with a trustworthy teacher, and involve letting go to that teacher, and letting go of one's present realities?  It means a risk of losing everything ... or it seems to mean that.  Is it true, as I surmise, that things that effect the biggest change go to the core of things?

[Essyne]

Very very thought provoking.

I recently switched voice studios, and can completely relate to your argument, keypeg - I think that being in this business DOES require taking some "educated risks" so to speak. After I left my first voice teacher, I was so incredibly scared and dwelled on the future (What was going to happen? Was the end of my career? I know the new teacher has a GREAT reputation, but can I "trust" the word of mouth?) I eventually came to the conclusion that in the end, you can only be loyal to your instrument.

Karli, I COMPLETELY agree with your story about the singer that you know. In fact, that is what I was going through when I switched studios about a month ago. I knew that I had this "other voice" within me (ie my true potential), but I was so "loyal" to the previous teacher that I was scared to let the small, manufactured voice go. In my mind, the old teacher was 100% correct, and the new teacher may/may not be "passable." In fact, the previous teacher became very angry and defensive when I switched studios, even though she had always said that it was okay if I outgrew her eventually (Looking back, that was the first sign - the not-so-subtle attempts to mask insecurities). My new teacher asked me how the previous teacher felt about me leaving, and I told her that she would be okay about it, because it was about the voice and the music, not my teacher, not even ME - just my instrument.

4 weeks later I am singing in a way that I never dreamed was possible. I just had to let that internal defense go and trust what I felt (ie being loyal to my voice).

I think that this thread brings up a good argument about teaching methods. How, for example, does a teacher stay open-minded while teaching his/her "method" that they are "loyal to"? When/If I teach, I do not want a student to feel obligated to stay in my studio because they think that my way is the only way, but I still need students! 

When friends ask me why I don't want a family, I laugh and say that "I'm too selfish." Although I am joking, there is an underlying truth to that statement. A musician must be true to his instrument 1st and foremost, and it just so happens that mine is lodged in my throat! Every musician's body is a mere extension of his instrument - so, in my opinion, if you are loyal to your "self," mentally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually, you are loyal to the right thing.

Teachers must make their priorities their students, not their "method." Otherwise, students will never reach a degree of mastery. They may have incredible reviews, and receive roses and sign glossy headshots, but is that what music is all about?

~Ess~

[musicrebel4u]

I started thinking about this just this morning, as it relates to teachers and their students.  Something I noticed is that sometimes people become so loyal to their teachers as people, that they become blind to investigating the "methods" that are being used to teach with.  Yet, at the same time, I think there is a level of trust that a teacher must inspire within their students, in order for particular matters to actually take place.

So, I started thinking that perhaps it's not the person that one must become loyal to, but the methods.  However, that is not quite right either, since it's actually the methods that I am bringing into question.  Sometimes there is a need to grow out of particular methods because even if they were useful at one time or on a particular level, they are not actually serving "the purpose" anymore, and this needs to be recognized and properly dealt with.

Perhaps there is not an actual place for "loyalty" in the sense of sticking to something no matter what ?

At that point, I started thinking that perhaps it is "loyalty" to oneself and the decision to follow "results" or so, the decision to follow one's truth -- one of the problems with this notion is that I am not wholly convinced that people are even sure what their truth is and how to actually follow it, especially since it inevitably involves coming into contact with other people, whose information and knowledge will be sometimes valuable and sometimes not, in the individual's pursuit of being on a "true to oneself" path.

It seems that divergence at some point is inevitable -- divergence from person, divergence from method, divergence from even oneself.  In some form, I have considered loyalty as having an inseparable quality, something that one chooses to stick with through thick and thin.  Right now though, I am not convinced of its worth as outlined by my former thinking -- so, perhaps my definition and understanding of it is in need of improvement.

What are your thoughts ?

I think, the core of 'loyalty' towards music teachers is illiteracy of students and their parents. They have no idea, what's right or wrong, because with current teaching situation the system of teaching music in general is so weak, that the dependency on teachers is very high. It reminds me situation with … cancer.  Due to the fact that we didn't find a fast, safe and effective cure for this disease, people have tendency to 'believe' in certain technique, hospital or doctor. I wouldn't call it 'loyalty', but insecurity and desperation,

As for teachers themselves, they would rather fool themselves, that their approaches are successful, because usually they find 3-5 exceptional students, who succeed their methods, but would try to avoid facts that majority of their class usually fail. Moreover, the successful prodigies are in fact being alone, because they are not widely appreciated by their musically illiterate peers.

I attended many teenager's parties and surrounding the piano and listening to one piano player or another is not they like to do.

We still believe in some 'miracle approaches', 'secrets of greatest educators'. Unfortunately, there are none. There may be 'chemo therapy' or 'radiation' procedures, but nothing radical to turn the way of music education around.

I think, the whole music education needs improvement and reform and the problem is much greater then described above (with all my respect to m1469)

[keypeg]

And I have picked my son up at a teenager party where kids had to be hunted up:  One group of them had gone to the basement to play pingpong but became engrossed in analyzing a complex rhythm and were found drumming on things and writing down numbers.  In another corner someone was playing guitar while another sang.  In still another corner someone played the piano.

I have seen these same kids knock on classroom doors, instruments in their arms, wanting a room for their music right away.  I met them first before I knew of them in a park, singing and composing.  Have you ever heard the Bach Ciaconne on viola?  Much more beautiful than the violin version, so rich.

I am sorry, Musicrebel, that music instruction is often so poorly done, and that you are finding so many helpless and unhappy people for whom music is spoiled and a mystery.  But not all teachers are bad, not all schools are bad, not all young people dislike music.  The teens who hang around together with music central do exist.  If there can be a lot more, that's what we want to see happening.

Loyalty can exist because of good teaching.  I would say that those students who are badly taught and struggling tend to be resentful and angry, not loyally minded.

[m19834]

Karli, would this singer get the other training from another teacher, and she is resistant to it?

I guess I have not thought it out that far, but yes, something like that, I think.

Or are you suggesting that she would find alternatives to her training by herself?

This might be part of it, too - but I won't conjecture on what her "feelings" are on that particular matter because I don't know. 

If you've only known "not trained" vs. "this training" then another training is inconceivable.

 

As far as I understand what you are saying, this is not the case.

It is all a bit more than any of that though.  This person is at a point in her life where she is also teaching (and has been for over 20 years), has had some form of a performing career, and whose main teachers have already passed away.  The reason the decision had been, at one point in her life, between not singing at all vs. singing in a fulfilling way, was due to health challenges and some internal surgeries that left her in a state of being unable to sing as she had before.  Somebody basically took her under their wing and retrained her, and that is the training she is loyal to, this is the training she sees as "herself."

This is not a matter of a beginner in their field.  This is a matter of somebody who was trained, started a career, the career became interrupted by health issues, the health issues left her as a different person afterward, and at some point somebody had invested in her enough to give her something she had thought was lost forever.  She has years and experience to her name and this is not the same thing as teenagers at a party doing one thing or another, or us trying to discuss -- seated in our thrones with our crowns on head and our scepters in hand -- whether it's better for kids to be learning to play the piano and read music by way of either computer interaction or human interaction. 

Perhaps I should not have brought this up, but I guess I thought it presented some time-worthy things to consider when it comes to teaching and learning.

[musicrebel4u]

And I have picked my son up at a teenager party where kids had to be hunted up:  One group of them had gone to the basement to play pingpong but became engrossed in analyzing a complex rhythm and were found drumming on things and writing down numbers.  In another corner someone was playing guitar while another sang.  In still another corner someone played the piano.

I have seen these same kids knock on classroom doors, instruments in their arms, wanting a room for their music right away.  I met them first before I knew of them in a park, singing and composing.  Have you ever heard the Bach Ciaconne on viola?  Much more beautiful than the violin version, so rich.

I am sorry, Musicrebel, that music instruction is often so poorly done, and that you are finding so many helpless and unhappy people for whom music is spoiled and a mystery.  But not all teachers are bad, not all schools are bad, not all young people dislike music.  The teens who hang around together with music central do exist.  If there can be a lot more, that's what we want to see happening.

Loyalty can exist because of good teaching.  I would say that those students who are badly taught and struggling tend to be resentful and angry, not loyally minded.

Dear Keypeg,

Here is objective facts.
Our eyes able to look like this. Point after point. When children learn how to read, they help themselves with pointer in order do not confuse one line of written words with another

[musicrebel4u]

And I have picked my son up at a teenager party where kids had to be hunted up:  One group of them had gone to the basement to play pingpong but became engrossed in analyzing a complex rhythm and were found drumming on things and writing down numbers.  In another corner someone was playing guitar while another sang.  In still another corner someone played the piano.

I have seen these same kids knock on classroom doors, instruments in their arms, wanting a room for their music right away.  I met them first before I knew of them in a park, singing and composing.  Have you ever heard the Bach Ciaconne on viola?  Much more beautiful than the violin version, so rich.

I am sorry, Musicrebel, that music instruction is often so poorly done, and that you are finding so many helpless and unhappy people for whom music is spoiled and a mystery.  But not all teachers are bad, not all schools are bad, not all young people dislike music.  The teens who hang around together with music central do exist.  If there can be a lot more, that's what we want to see happening.

Loyalty can exist because of good teaching.  I would say that those students who are badly taught and struggling tend to be resentful and angry, not loyally minded.

Music notation is objectively at least 10 lines and more then 10+ spaces ( which are NOT breaks between lines)

Here what ANYBODY'S focus ouught to do in order to deal with music writing and piano keys:

[m19834]

M4U, my mind has officially deemed you as SPAM.

[Bob]

How does that end up in a thread about loyalty?

Is anyone actually bouncing their eyeballs back and forth looking at the keys like that?

[musicrebel4u]

It has nothing to do with kids who create 'music' in basements' or with great teachers who is trying their best to make kids learn literacy.
People ALWAYS would have craving for music like human would always have craving to be healthy and live longer
Teachers will always try their best to be as effective as they are, like doctors would always try to find better chemo or surgery to cure uncurable.

Would it be cured without different approach? Would all the patience survive?

I don't think so.

If you, I, Karli. m1469 ( you name it!) made it - we are just survivals. Because... look at the pictures above.

[musicrebel4u]

How does that end up in a thread about loyalty?

Loyalty of parents = their music  ignorance and dependancy from teachers

Is anyone actually bouncing their eyeballs back and forth looking at the keys like that?

Well. alients from different planet don't (maybe). I just didn't have a chance to provide any research on them 

[musicrebel4u]

M4U, my mind has officially deemed you as SPAM.

Thank you for sharing.

[keypeg]

Musicrebel,

I am sure that the physical and mental function of reading music is as complicated and intriguing as you say, and that some people have difficulty with it, and that bad teaching methods probaby create the problems that you say they do.

However, you have stated that students stay with music teachers because they are musically illiterate, helpless, desperate, insecure.  You say that teens will not play the piano or instruments because it is too hard for them, because of this illiteracy and insecurity.  You state this as though this were the situation everywhere with everyone.  You describe these things as facts.

I have told you of students who play instruments with ease, have not considered it a difficult to learn to read music, do not have this helplesness etc. that you are describing.  You are nto hearing me.  You are saying that everyone has this love of music as an instinct (even if they cannot play, which is the supposition).

I have described students who play music with ease, who move from instrument to instrument, who will read in a variety of clefs, not just the bass and treble clef.  The kids drumming out the rhythms were involved in advanced complex modern music and theory,  since they were music students in a high school program where they had EXCELLENT TEACHERS both in the classroom and in their private lessons.  But they were kids at a party, there because they knew each other.

Good teaching exists.  Good music programs in schools exist.  Good private teachers exist.  Not eveyrone experiences difficulty.  Some people would be mystified that these dreadful difficulties are supposed to exist.  For some people the written music system is logical, music is easy to read, to play and to understand.  And they are not just the geniuses.

Some people are loyal to their teachers and methods because they, both teacher and method are effective.

Think of yourself, Musicrebel4U.  How much time have you put into your teaching system, figuring out how to teach, understanding music.  If a student is loyal to your method and your teaching because you are an excellent teaching with a good approach, is this a student's weakness and dependency?

Is it not possible that there are a few other enlightned, intelligent, dedicated teachers out there who deserve the same loyalty for the same reason?  Of course ignorance is rampant.  But it is not EVERYWHERE with EVERYONE.

I am impressed with what you do.  But in the last week you have attacked several things that are precious to me as an amateur musician and student, basically dismissing them as unimportant, or not existing, or not pertinent because I do not fit the stereotype of the helpless student who finds music so dreadfully hard.  There are others and they are not only the geniuses.  It hurts when you dismiss everything that gives me joy as non-essential.

There is a school whre "loyal" former students of one teacher meet year after year.  Some travel for hundreds of miles to be with each other and their former teacher.  The students range in age of 12 to 35 years, and they come every year.  None of them are helpless or lost about music.  Many are very adept.  They have been taught well, intelligently, in an enlightened school in a classroom environment.  There is no oppression about these people.  There is a light shining inside.  I have gone to a store and bought an item from a cashier, and there is something about that cashier's mannerism that makes me wonder.  I ask if that cashier attended that school under those teachers ..... yes, every time, yes.

People will accept what you are saying, and your solutions, if you do not try to force this 100% reality on them.  We must be allowed to be who we are, not who we are theoretically because science says we ought to have these problems.  We must be allowed to have our experiences as we have them.  We cannot be stereotypes - not the teachers, not the students, not the parents.  Nobody wants to be invisible.  Nobody wants a mask slapped on him.  To be heard you must listen.  You have something valuable to offer.  Do not close people off by not hearing them.  I would actually like your message to succeed, but not at the expense of those things that are going well in places that they are going well.  That will not work.

[keypeg]

Here what ANYBODY'S focus ouught to do in order to deal with music writing and piano keys:

This is off topic, of course, but ............

Why in the name of all that is logical, would anyone want to LOOK at the keyboard?

Why is it a given that it must involve going from visual representation to locational place?  The intermediary can be sound.  K has described the same relationship that I have: you hear the sound and your fingers are pulled to "where the sound is".  Extrapolate from this - you can see the notes, hear the notes, and your fingers go to where the sound is.

Secondly, one does not have to read the notes note for note.  The grand staff was invented at a time where people were illiterate.  They were not accustomed to reading things, looking at screens and paper, constantly visual visual visual, digital digital digital.  They saw things in pictures and symbols.  I began as a child and I read music in a childish way, and so I was in harmony with how they thought back then.

The grand staff is also a drawing.  If you see a scale, or "a run", you see a straight line.  Does anybody read music in a run G A B C D E F# G finding each of the notes?  Or do you hear that straight line of sound, follow the straight line of notes, popping over to visit the F# because it sounds wrong if it's not there?  I take in music at a glance, in patterns.  I will mark that it starts on G and ends on G.  I don't think as the youngest child, even, I went note by note by note by note.  That zipping back and forth of the eyes would not happen even on the "on page" level.  It certainly would not go "page to keyboard to page to keyboard".  I can feel where the notes are.  I can feel it as sound pulling my fingers down toward it.  I can also feel the knobbly black keys which on the piano, at least, are evenly spaced.

Why always eyes eyes eyes eyes?  Why one note at a time?  Broken chords are staircases.  The sound of a harmonic progression has a geometric shape.  A cluster chord looks as ugly as it sounds, all scrunched up.  This exists too.  Saying that we swivel our eyes like jumpers on a trampoline is not the only thing we do.  Why can your system not be an excellent system filling many holes, and even a complete system, without artificially limiting how we experience music?

[m19834]

I'm sorry, I have been part of forums for a while now and I have never said it before, but people are being jerks in this thread.  I guess I had thought more of this place and the people here.  Enjoy yourselves.

[keypeg]

Karli, I hope you don't mind my resuscitating part of your post of earlier today about the singer.   I can remember the gist of it.  Your friend was a professional singer.  Singing is "closer" to us because we are our own instrument, and I suppose that we can catch on to a number of things "naturally" without learning it as externally as with an external instrument.  Thus when her operation changed her body she would have to learn external controls for the first time, or at least to that extent.

Being able to do something, then not being able to it, is the most frightening thing, and it creates great insecurity.  I can identify with that because I zipped through the first year of my instrument, then made some drastic changes that were not that visible but changed alignment, forces etc. and could not get that ease back.  In fact I went into helplesness and the more I struggled the worse it got.  I cannot imagine the blackness of the experience anymore.  I'm not even a professional musician.

But to go from when you could play almost without thought, everything moving with ease, and you know that ease exists, you know this isn't how it should be, but you cannot, cannot get back to the ease - it is dreadful beyond words.

Your friend was then coached into use of her body and overcame her disability.  Whatever she was coached into became the framework of how she sings, and frames have borders and limitations.

There is a gift in the disability that befell your friend.  If you are a natural, then you will fall into what to do normally, you reach that kind of potential but you don't really surpass yourself.  Um, bear with me, this is a half-formed thought.  A person who is not a natural will be taught, will learn to use the body in a better way, and will surpass himself, though he might not reach the level of the natural. But if you "can already do it" a teacher may leave well enough alone.  Thus a natural, or gifted person, may remain limited because of the gift. ()  It doesn't seem necessary (to many) to teach what is already going well.

With the disability, your friend learned to use her body differently, and to control it.  This was a huge contrast to what she had known before.  Having experienced helplesness she certainly would not want to fool around with that.  One becomes afraid of falling back into it.  It's like people who have been robbed realize for the first time that their homes are not as safe as they assumed.

The personal reality becomes, wrong way or right way, before or after.  Therefore there is resistance to change.  There is dismissing of anything better that appears once in a while, because it doesn't fit into this dual reality - a reality limited to two options.

There is another lesson that your friend's experience can teach, which she has not caught on to.  That is the idea that different angles and approaches are each pathways toward growth along a different way.  Perhaps there is no final destination that says "now you have arrived".  Each angle or method or approach has a tendency to run into opposition of the previous one, and so there is conflict if one is thinking either/or.

But in fact before her accident your friend lived in one dimension.  After her accident she was exposed to a different dimension.  Singing became a different experience for her, yes?  The additional reality is that there are many dimensions, and if one can embrace that multimensionality, then a third reality will have been reached.  The first reality involves what we do naturaly.  The second reality is that there is one other way of doing it which will change how you experience music.  The third reality is that there is not one dimension but many which coexist.

It was once explained to me in the contradictory statement, "There is no technique.  Technique is everything.  There is no technique."  I'd be interested in knowing what you think of this.

In your friend's case I would imagine a very knowledgeable guiding teacher, or in the least, a guide who could give feedback on experiences if she experiments in order to expand.  That would give her a safe place, and would also protect her from going off track.

[keypeg]

This thread was potent, and full of good ideas.  Some people were interested in the topic such as it was.

The thread got hijacked.  Now the interesting information has been deleted leaving us with the hijacked off topic info.  That is disappointing.

I've tried to stay on-topic.  If I have strayed I'll both apologize and delete.  If I am on-topic, then my response, that of Essyne, end up being in the middle of nowhere since what we are responding to is gone.

In that case I will follow suit and delete my contributions.

Must these holes exist?

[m19834]

This thread was potent, and full of good ideas.  Some people were interested in the topic such as it was.

They are very few, as it seems, and not altogether obvious.

The thread got hijacked.  Now the interesting information has been deleted leaving us with the hijacked off topic info.  That is disappointing.

Honestly, I don't really care anymore.  I have given as much contribution to this forum and to various discussions as I know how, and they might as well be considered holes in and of themselves.  It is not my fault that the thread was hijacked and that people, instead of ignoring it, choose to respond and argue off topic -- creating further confusion -- rather than sticking with what the thread originally was -- I find that especially peculiar while the same people claim to be so interested in the topic and the thread as it was.

I've tried to stay on-topic.  If I have strayed I'll both apologize and delete.  If I am on-topic, then my response, that of Essyne, end up being in the middle of nowhere since what we are responding to is gone.

You don't need to delete your posts, and that is not really up to me anyway.  And, while I appreciate your contributions and your points -- and find them to be worthwhile discussion material -- we have how many threads now dedicated to M4u and the same business, over and over ? 

Must these holes exist?

Sorry, but my sincere posts were nothing but holes in what the thread became and was becoming, and they became just as odd staying in this thread as anybodies response to them would seem without the original posts they were responding to -- that's not my fault and not my responsibility.  I don't have to keep things that mean a lot to me in a place where they are worthless.  It seemed pretty obvious the direction the thread was taking, so I rather decided to just let it be as it was going, since that was apparently the true desire here, but that doesn't mean I have to leave myself "out there" just hanging around on a limb with my butt bare and so on.  I think you get the idea.

Now, the very fact that I am responding to this post is actually besides the point of the thread, and even further contributes to off topic speaking.  Yes, off topic happens in everyday life, and forums are not excluded.  But, at some point, enough is enough.  I basically give up.  If this thread is going to just become another one of all we have had around here lately, fine, but consider my contributions to be over with and my posts within this thread the last -- and I couldn't really care less how that looks for anybody else, at this point.  If the distractions in this thread were meant to be some kind of elaborate lesson on topic, consider the lesson lost on me.

[Bob]

They are very few, as it seems, and not altogether obvious.

Honestly, I don't really care anymore. I have given as much contribution to this forum and to various discussions as I know how, and they might as well be considered holes in and of themselves. It is not my fault that the thread was hijacked and that people, instead of ignoring it, choose to respond and argue off topic -- creating further confusion -- rather than sticking with what the thread originally was -- I find that especially peculiar while the same people claim to be so interested in the topic and the thread as it was.

You don't need to delete your posts, and that is not really up to me anyway. And, while I appreciate your contributions and your points -- and find them to be worthwhile discussion material -- we have how many threads now dedicated to M4u and the same business, over and over ?


Sorry, but my sincere posts were nothing but holes in what the thread became and was becoming, and they became just as odd staying in this thread as anybodies response to them would seem without the original posts they were responding to -- that's not my fault and not my responsibility. I don't have to keep things that mean a lot to me in a place where they are worthless. It seemed pretty obvious the direction the thread was taking, so I rather decided to just let it be as it was going, since that was apparently the true desire here, but that doesn't mean I have to leave myself "out there" just hanging around on a limb with my butt bare and so on. I think you get the idea.

Now, the very fact that I am responding to this post is actually besides the point of the thread, and even further contributes to off topic speaking. Yes, off topic happens in everyday life, and forums are not excluded. But, at some point, enough is enough. I basically give up. If this thread is going to just become another one of all we have had around here lately, fine, but consider my contributions to be over with and my posts within this thread the last -- and I couldn't really care less how that looks for anybody else, at this point. If the distractions in this thread were meant to be some kind of elaborate lesson on topic, consider the lesson lost on me.

Someone having a bad day?


I'm just amused by musicrebel.  But yes, those offtopic threads and then the ones where Thalbergmad vs. Ahinton debate, those do seem more common.

Strange times in the forum....

[musicrebel4u]

Musicrebel,

I am sure that the physical and mental function of reading music is as complicated and intriguing as you say, and that some people have difficulty with it, and that bad teaching methods probaby create the problems that you say they do.

Dear Keypag, I state that not SOME people, but majority of people have difficulty with music reading. This is why sheet music is sold only in 'reservations', such music stores and are sold in small quantities.

However, you have stated that students stay with music teachers because they are musically illiterate, helpless, desperate, insecure.

I state that 'loyalty' to music teachers are caused by the fact, that all approaches are too 'teacher intensive' and when students have to relocate or switch teachers results could be completely opposite. The weaker a system – the more important personality of teacher

 You say that teens will not play the piano or instruments because it is too hard for them, because of this illiteracy and insecurity.  You state this as though this were the situation everywhere with everyone.  You describe these things as facts.

I stated that 'cancer' = illiteracy could be cured in some cases, but it is still considers as generally incurable disease.  

I have told you of students who play instruments with ease, have not considered it a difficult to learn to read music, do not have this helplesness etc. that you are describing.  You are nto hearing me.  You are saying that everyone has this love of music as an instinct (even if they cannot play, which is the supposition).

You go from your personal experience and observation. I mostly rely on statistics, which show quite an opposite.

I have described students who play music with ease, who move from instrument to instrument, who will read in a variety of clefs, not just the bass and treble clef.  The kids drumming out the rhythms were involved in advanced complex modern music and theory,  since they were music students in a high school program where they had EXCELLENT TEACHERS both in the classroom and in their private lessons.  But they were kids at a party, there because they knew each other.

I am not questioning contribution of teachers into educational process. I am questioning the existing foundation of teaching, which is not considering essential  issues with human's ability to focus.

Good teaching exists.  Good music programs in schools exist.  Good private teachers exist.  Not eveyrone experiences difficulty.  Some people would be mystified that these dreadful difficulties are supposed to exist.  For some people the written music system is logical, music is easy to read, to play and to understand.  And they are not just the geniuses.

If this statement is true, why symphony orchestras and opera need donations? Why music is being squeezed out of many school curriculums?  Maybe, because majority of decision's makers are falling into category called 'musically illiterate'?

Some people are loyal to their teachers and methods because they, both teacher and method are effective.

Yes! Cancer survivors are also very grateful to their saviors and have special bond with them. But when we would have a cure for cancer and it would be treated like a simple cold, would this appreciation be so intense?  

Think of yourself, Musicrebel4U.  How much time have you put into your teaching system, figuring out how to teach, understanding music.  If a student is loyal to your method and your teaching because you are an excellent teaching with a good approach, is this a student's weakness and dependency?

Today I can transfer any of my students to any other Soft Mozart teacher and they would be as happy as with me teaching them. It is unfair for people who could come to my class being dependant of my personal goods, because if something would happen to me, I don't want them to be left in the middle of a desert.  

Is it not possible that there are a few other enlightned, intelligent, dedicated teachers out there who deserve the same loyalty for the same reason?  Of course ignorance is rampant.  But it is not EVERYWHERE with EVERYONE.

In Middle Ages when we taught to read with this ABC 'till the beginning of 20th century we also had writers and readers despite all the obstacles.

I am impressed with what you do.  But in the last week you have attacked several things that are precious to me as an amateur musician and student, basically dismissing them as unimportant, or not existing, or not pertinent because I do not fit the stereotype of the helpless student who finds music so dreadfully hard.  There are others and they are not only the geniuses.  It hurts when you dismiss everything that gives me joy as non-essential.

Agree! When it was discovered that our Earth in fact is not flat and it is not a center of universe, there were much of 'hurt feelings' of those who used to believe otherwise, published textbooks about Flat Earth. This is part of our scientific adverseness. m1469 started that very topic: should be hold on to our 'believes', or should we be able to examine these believes and trust the facts?

There is a school whre "loyal" former students of one teacher meet year after year.  Some travel for hundreds of miles to be with each other and their former teacher.  The students range in age of 12 to 35 years, and they come every year.  None of them are helpless or lost about music.  Many are very adept.  They have been taught well, intelligently, in an enlightened school in a classroom environment.  There is no oppression about these people.  There is a light shining inside.  I have gone to a store and bought an item from a cashier, and there is something about that cashier's mannerism that makes me wonder.  I ask if that cashier attended that school under those teachers ..... yes, every time, yes.

Well, when my students have to travel 1-2 hours to my lessons, because they have no Soft Mozart teacher in their area, it does not make me feel proud. It makes me feel sad and worried. I love my students and they are special to me, but 'shining' and personal qualities should go after solid and smart system of teaching.

People will accept what you are saying, and your solutions, if you do not try to force this 100% reality on them.  We must be allowed to be who we are, not who we are theoretically because science says we ought to have these problems.  We must be allowed to have our experiences as we have them.  We cannot be stereotypes - not the teachers, not the students, not the parents.  Nobody wants to be invisible.  Nobody wants a mask slapped on him.  To be heard you must listen.  You have something valuable to offer.  Do not close people off by not hearing them.  I would actually like your message to succeed, but not at the expense of those things that are going well in places that they are going well.  That will not work.

Agree.

[musicrebel4u]

This is off topic, of course, but ............

Why in the name of all that is logical, would anyone want to LOOK at the keyboard?

Why is it a given that it must involve going from visual representation to locational place?  The intermediary can be sound.  K has described the same relationship that I have: you hear the sound and your fingers are pulled to "where the sound is".  Extrapolate from this - you can see the notes, hear the notes, and your fingers go to where the sound is.

Secondly, one does not have to read the notes note for note.  The grand staff was invented at a time where people were illiterate.  They were not accustomed to reading things, looking at screens and paper, constantly visual visual visual, digital digital digital.  They saw things in pictures and symbols.  I began as a child and I read music in a childish way, and so I was in harmony with how they thought back then.

The grand staff is also a drawing.  If you see a scale, or "a run", you see a straight line.  Does anybody read music in a run G A B C D E F# G finding each of the notes?  Or do you hear that straight line of sound, follow the straight line of notes, popping over to visit the F# because it sounds wrong if it's not there?  I take in music at a glance, in patterns.  I will mark that it starts on G and ends on G.  I don't think as the youngest child, even, I went note by note by note by note.  That zipping back and forth of the eyes would not happen even on the "on page" level.  It certainly would not go "page to keyboard to page to keyboard".  I can feel where the notes are.  I can feel it as sound pulling my fingers down toward it.  I can also feel the knobbly black keys which on the piano, at least, are evenly spaced.

Why always eyes eyes eyes eyes?  Why one note at a time?  Broken chords are staircases.  The sound of a harmonic progression has a geometric shape.  A cluster chord looks as ugly as it sounds, all scrunched up.  This exists too.  Saying that we swivel our eyes like jumpers on a trampoline is not the only thing we do.  Why can your system not be an excellent system filling many holes, and even a complete system, without artificially limiting how we experience music?

Dear Keypeg,
Sorry, you asked me this question many times and I had no chance to answer them. Why is vision?

As you probably know, people can deal with one problem at a time in order to learn successfully.

You have good music ear. It is your point of support. By hearing every key and comparing them you find link between keys and notes with no struggle. It helps you to focus on coordination development, artistic playing etc.

People with great muscle's memory and good coordination, but with no ability to hear music sounds as well as you have their own 'way out'. They rely on their coordination as on the point of support and sometimes have enough 'room' in their mind for development of ear and reading through playing with finger numbers or from hands of their teachers. But they fall into 'risky' category, because sometimes they never learn how to sightread.

If people have both: good ear and good coordination, it is double winning situation, and they become prodigies: they learn to play and read music effortlessly.

But most of the students have no developed ear, need to improve coordination and reading at the same time. This is why visual support – support of their focus and ability to see keys, notes and connection between them is in fact only foundation or point of support for ear training and coordination development..

[Bob]

Here....
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,29304.0.html

What's with the pic?  

[keypeg]

 

[m19834]

There is a difference between talking about one's loyalty to a particular methodology, within the context of the thread, vs. talking about the methodology itself as the main subject of the thread.  Especially when the methodology being discussed (at great length) is one which has already many threads hijacked and started for that particular point.

[ahinton]

Someone having a bad day?

I'm just amused by musicrebel.  But yes, those offtopic threads and then the ones where Thalbergmad vs. Ahinton debate, those do seem more common.

Strange times in the forum....

I've only just chanced upon this thread and have no idea what is/was going on, but for goodness' sakes leave me out of it in terms of discussions with Thal, for these seem to me to be entirely irrelevant to whatever is (or was) under discussion here.

I do not wish to offend anyone here and I make a point once again of stating that I do not know what the problems in this thread are supposedly about, so...

Best,

Alistair

[Essyne]

woah - a lot happens in 24 hours around here . . .

I've tried to stay on-topic. If I have strayed I'll both apologize and delete. If I am on-topic, then my response, that of Essyne, end up being in the middle of nowhere since what we are responding to is gone.

idk if im correct in thinking this, but I don't believe that there is such a thing as an "off-topic" comment in a thread ((no sarcastic comments, please)) - - - the conversation just travels where it travels (and debating about whether/not something is "off topic" is quite hypocritcal, as that debate is off-topic as well . . . ).

so - circular reasoning aside - i think that musicrebel could potentially be used as a good example; obviously (he?/she?) is very loyal to his/her teaching philosophy.

i like what you said about the links w/ cancer, ali. great points (as usual  )

~Ess~

[m19834]

i think that musicrebel could potentially be used as a good example; obviously (he?/she?) is very loyal to his/her teaching philosophy.

It could appear this way to "us" anyway, couldn't it ? 

I could agree with you actually, however, at this point, I am much more interested in learning about how this kind of "loyalty" in general has either a positive or negative effect on those individuals directly or indirectly involved with it (which is actually the question and the topic), rather than us having a big discussion about the content of her or anybody else's method (which is actually not the question and the topic) and whether or not we agree with the particular method of teaching (this has already been done ad nauseum).  I don't think this is rocket science in determining the difference.

Also, I have already given an example of somebody for whom this is already seemingly true, and I would like to actually find some answers here, so please, forgive my desire to stay close to what I consider to be on topic.

[Essyne]

This is not a matter of a beginner in their field.  This is a matter of somebody who was trained, started a career, the career became interrupted by health issues, the health issues left her as a different person afterward, and at some point somebody had invested in her enough to give her something she had thought was lost forever. 

She may not be a beginner, but beginner or no, she IS human, is she not? Feelings of "loyalty" are universal ones. I am sorry to hear that she had a traumatic experience, but the fact is that she is still feeling this, erm . . . feeling.

Okay, aside from the horrible rhetoric, what I am saying is: There is not a difference in the teacher who teaches a student to sing for the first time and the teacher who stokes the flames again. (Of course there is a "difference," but the resulting feeling of loyalty is the same).

A side note: Regarding the "emotional" aspect of singing - yes, singing is somewhat more personal, but it bugs me when this is used as an excuse. There is a definate technique to singing, just as there is a definite technique to piano, etc. Sometimes a student just has to stand up, shut up, and sing correctly. Loyalty or no, you can't argue w/ results.

~Ess~

[m19834]

hmmmm ... okay  .   Well, firstly, I think there is a difference between somebody who is just learning and somebody whom has a past history and had to rebuild, and I think it's a very big difference actually.  There is a very different psychology involved with rebuilding than with just learning, and this is pertinent in potentially many ways both for the teacher who had to rebuild, as well as for the students of the teacher.

Also, just for the record, I never said a thing about voice being more personal or not ... but anyway.  I still need to read one of keypeg's last posts, perhaps you were responding to her/him with that comment.

[keypeg]

her/him

I'm a soprano, thus a she.   

[Essyne]

I was referring to the feeling of loyalty to the teacher, not the rebuilding process. I think the outcome is still the same. When all's said and done, you feel like you "owe your voice" to this teacher. I confess that I am guilty of it. Keypeg, do you not feel "loyal" to Maria?

[ahinton]

i like what you said about the links w/ cancer, ali. great points (as usual  )

Best,

Alistair

[Bob]

I'm a soprano, thus a she.

   I thought keypeg was a 50+ year old guy who played violin and some piano. 


I think it's still just a business relationship mainly.  Loyalty to music.   Just keep it business with the teacher.  You're there for a reason.  They're there was a reason, and they probably aren't going to teach you without you paying them.  It's business.  You have goal.  They're supposed to help you with the goal.  For whatever reason, you picked them and they let you.

[keypeg]

do you not feel "loyal" to Maria?

The opera singer Maria listened to me in a church bathroom which was the only room available, told me I was a natural singer, and offered to teach me occasionally.  I did not get to take her up on her offer.  However, her manner, her singing itself, and the few things she told me that day which debunked the nonsense that had been done to me made a huge impact.  She gave the choir exercises and these also helped tremendously.

To put others in the loop - I am an untrained singer.  I joined a choir in which an unqualified person decided to "teach technique" during warm-ups.  I am highly responsive so I absorbed it despite myself.  It turned out he was using an antiquated system that has been identified with damaging the vocal chords through excess pressure to them, or causing choking.  Supposeldy we were controlling the diaphragm.  He only had to point to his diaphragm, which he did at every difficult passage, for me to start choking and it got worse.  I managed to prepare for the performance by getting a handle on my breathing in a warm-up at home and prayed we wouldn't do any of that stuff before we performed: mercifully he left his "coaching" aside.

It took me a year to overcome the effect.  I quit the choir only because of this coaching.  I began to be able to sing naturally again.  But as soon as I auditioned for the new choir, the mere fact of being in a choir environment brought the reflexes on again to a large measure.  The singer ( a real singer) who coached us in real warm-ups offered to help anyone with technical questions if they asked, and I got her ear on that very day.  Having one's singing ruined by insensitive training is very common, apparently, but can also be overcome.  That little bit of exposure to this wonderful person had a huge impact on me.

[Bob]

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,29307.0.html
for keypeg

I'm not sidetracking the original thread this way.

[keypeg]

I don't think so.  I hope I haven't.

[Bob]

How do you "use" loyalty?

[m19834]

Loyalty or no, you can't argue w/ results.

I guess my entire point is that, apparently, one can argue with results because of loyalty.  In this sense, I mean that people become blind to what is actually happening because of their mental concept of what should be happening.  I think it's possible that somebody can achieve something *better* than what they had previously achieved before, but if it's not the way their teacher taught them, or the way they have believed it should be all along, they will not actually perceive the results in an objective way and because of this, they may ultimately not be willing to truly grow. 

Objectivity is important and perhaps more important than loyalty. 

How do you "use" loyalty?

So perhaps it's best to become loyal to objectivity .  Of course, objectivity is probably pretty subjective, as it turns out  .

[Bob]

So perhaps it's best to become loyal to objectivity . Of course, objectivity is probably pretty subjective, as it turns out .

And maybe black is white.  Maybe white is black.   Oi...

Make up your mind already.   

[keypeg]

Thank you for that one, Karli.  A puzzle piece just fell in place with a sproing.  

[m19834]

Keypeg, I am always happy to know of puzzle pieces falling into place, especially with such a wonderful falling into place sound such as sproing  .

And maybe black is white.  Maybe white is black.   Oi...

Make up your mind already.   

Okay, Bob.  So, tell us, what is objectivity ? 

and -  How does a person "remain" loyal to objectivity ?

[Bob]

You're getting to far out with words for me.  That's what I mean. 

Maybe if this answers that though...

Stay loyal to music.  Have your goals in mind.  The teacher is just there.  You can stick with them if they help you reach your goals, or you can go to someone else.  I wouldn't stick with them out of a sense of loyalty though.  If you've plateaued or just want a different angle on things, try someone new. 

If that's what you meant. 

But you ask a question and then start going off on the meanings of the words.  What is subjective?  What is objective?  Can something objective be evaluated subjectively....   Ugh...   Twists my mind up.

(Bob politely, and in a manly way, sticks his tongue out at K and braces more more mental twister.)  Nah!        Chew on dat!  The idea, not the tongue.  That's just gross.

[m19834]

You're getting to far out with words for me.  That's what I mean.

I actually didn't know what you meant. 

Maybe if this answers that though...

Stay loyal to music.  Have your goals in mind.  The teacher is just there.  You can stick with them if they help you reach your goals, or you can go to someone else.  I wouldn't stick with them out of a sense of loyalty though.  If you've plateaued or just want a different angle on things, try someone new. 

If that's what you meant.

Well, heh, if I could somehow encapsulate my own learning experiences I would encapsulate them -- believe me, if it were *that* simple and clear at all times when I am doing what with music, I would be first in line to do whatever it is that I need to be doing next.  It's not clear though, and there are tricky situations sometimes !  Overall though, I think you are right.

I love how people talk about having goals -- well, that's all fine.  But, being able to truly set a goal (and reach it) means that you could see to other side of whatever the pathway is to getting there, enough to know what you are truly aiming for (though maybe when you can't see a clear path, it's a good sign that the goals are too big for the time-being ).  That is not always the case and this is actually one reason a teacher is there, to help a student see what is on the horizon.

But you ask a question and then start going off on the meanings of the words.  What is subjective?  What is objective?  Can something objective be evaluated subjectively....   Ugh...   Twists my mind up.

Bob, I was kind of joking about objectivity being subjective in that I was perfectly aware that it was getting too pedantic (I don't know what other word to use for it -- maybe you will help me out, Bob ) for the situation -- personally, I thought it was lightly funny ... just lightly though, just lightly.

(Bob politely, an in a manly way, sticks his tongue out at K and braces more more mental twister.)  Nah!        Chew on dat!  The idea, not the tongue.  That's just gross.

Yeah, thanks but I am really trying to cut down actually .

[Bob]

Oh yeah?    

Maybe "overly philsophical" is the word.  You're stepping into the words too much.

If the teacher can see the direction better than you, go with that person.  Someone who has set up other people along that path, or at least is giving you many different paths to choose from.

(Bob pokes fun.)  Yes, it's tough to tell about things in words posted on a forum.  Isn't that odd?  That it's "tough" to perceive these things on "soft"ware?  Eh?  Tough on soft?  Get it?  Get it?  Nudge, nudge.  

Actually overly philosophical is two words...

And you can't "tell" something in type...

[dan101]

A good teacher should always know if they've reached their limit in being able to give useful advice to an advancing student. Unfortunately, sometimes ego gets in the way.