What do you think is the leading "enemy" to students' progress ?

[m19834]

I am just thinking about stuff again  .  I started this post and then thought, well, "not practicing, of course !" but, I don't think that's altogether true.  I do wonder though, is it possible for somebody to be practicing consistently and not progress ?  Other than that, if they are not practicing consistently, why not ?  So, yeah.   What is it that gets into the way for people, what makes them stagnate, I wonder.

[pianisten1989]

The teacher is the biggest enemy and the same time the students best friend.. Kind of.

A crappy teacher might remove all the students talent, and the student's intrest in piano.

It's not the TV as everyone else will say, in my opinion.

[michel dvorsky]

Lack of talent.
Lack of motivation.
Lack of qualified instruction.

[keypeg]

Lack of talent.
Lack of motivation.
Lack of qualified instruction.

Reverse that, and leave out the talent.  Qualified instruction coupled with cooperation with that instruction will lead results and change, which will produce further motivation.  The "talented" student might move on faster.  Get misteaching, and what are you left with?  Confusion, failure, self-blame.

[michel dvorsky]

Reverse that, and leave out the talent.  Qualified instruction coupled with cooperation with that instruction will lead results and change, which will produce further motivation.  The "talented" student might move on faster.  Get misteaching, and what are you left with?  Confusion, failure, self-blame.

Motivation and good instruction are necessary but insufficient to long-run success.

The most driven student with the best teacher will not in itself make a good pianist or a true artist.

[allthumbs]

Motivation and good instruction are necessary but insufficient to long-run success.

The most driven student with the best teacher will not in itself make a good pianist or a true artist.

I think you are missing the point slightly. What are you considering 'long run success’?

Maybe someone doesn't have a great amount of talent, but through shear determination and perseverance can become a decent pianist.

They may not become a professional concert pianist, but they could still enjoy playing to whatever level they achieve.

After all, isn't that we as teachers should strive for.

If your only motivation for teaching is the hope of producing a 'good pianist or a true artist' (reading into it, a concert pianist), you will not only have a long wait but a very unsatisfying teaching career as well.

I personally think that in order to keep alive classical music in general and the playing of the piano specifically, teachers need to focus on and encourage those who may not be as gifted.

Remember that there are lots more 'duffers' out there who want to learn to play than there are prodigies.

Lack of motivation.
Lack of qualified instruction.

I do agree with you on these two points though.

Cheers,

allthumbs

[rc]

As a student, what I notice has the most effect on my progress is whether or not I have a sense of direction in my practice.  If I have an idea of what I want to work on and why, I'm excited about it, motivated.  The motivation gets me practicing, gets me out to find information and teachers...

If this sense of direction is lost, it's like the whole process is cut at the root.


I don't find the talent debate useful.  If talent is some inborn thing, talking about it will change nothing.  If it's learned (I believe it is), then we might as well talk about learning instead.

[db05]

It's the general attitude. In life, we are expected to study up to high school or college, then get a 9-5 job somewhere that doesn't necessarily require those things you learned in school (LOL, what's the point?) and work until you die. Or at least until you're really old. Most people are taught to work hard, but not work smart. And most teachers fail to motivate since teaching isn't exactly their dream job either, and they just want to get the job done. Students pick up this attitude, some become parents and teachers and thus perpetuate the cycle.

Sometimes this general attitude leaks into the arts and music, and makes for less quality teachers and students. "Traditional" and "conservatory-type" students and teachers sometimes have bad attitude, as my guitar teacher would point out, because they learned music like some subject in college to pass instead of a lifetime pursuit of excellence.

Never mind talent. What you need is desire. A talented person with no desire would be content with mediocrity like everyone else. A not-so-talented person can go beyond mediocrity, though not the top.

[pianochick93]

A lack of confidence in one's own ability can be a massive hinderance. If a student believes that they can't do something, it's likely they wont put their full efforts into doing it. This can also lead to low self esteem.

[iheartpiano]

Perhaps attempting pieces beyond their technical ability?

[dan101]

Many good answers have already been given. From my standpoint, it's probably a combination of of lack of fun and lack of practice.

[josefine]

Reverse that, and leave out the talent.  Qualified instruction coupled with cooperation with that instruction will lead results and change, which will produce further motivation.  The "talented" student might move on faster.  Get misteaching, and what are you left with?  Confusion, failure, self-blame.

When the student don't belive in practising anymore the motivation disappears.

[shortyshort]

From my experience as a child, and seeing my step-daughters' lost piano interest, it is the thought of having to learn "scales" and the like.
And learning stuff that you don't like.

The P.C. and/or PS2 and/or all the American kids rubbish that is on TV, also has a little blame, I think.

[Petter]

and/or all the American kids rubbish that is on TV, also has a little blame, I think.

American TV, especially kid rubbish is the no1 enemy against everything. Cultural imperialism? 

[hyrst]

I don't think there is a no.1 enemy, because everyone is affected differently by different things.  However, for young students I would suggest a passive or subtly negative parental attitude is serious.  For older students it is playing to satisfy interpreted expectations (from parents, teachers, friends, whatever) rather than from one's own motivation.  It's not that parents get the blame for everything because kids interpret parent reactions, but we all exist socially.  I think it is how the kids deal with parent responses, not the responses alone, but not a lot of kids have an undying source of internal motivation in the face of negative messages.

That only looks at kids and those who don't practice adequately.  For learners who really try but don't progress, I think there are many things:
Trying too hard
Doing the 'time' without the attention or goal
Actually progressing but not seeing it
Lack of confidence and other cognitive battles
Use of inefficient movements.

I would be weighing up between confidence and practice efficiency.

[pianisten1989]

I really don't get it... Why does everyone blame the tv?! If the teacher is good enough, he/she will make sure the student thinks it more fun than TV. And I mean more fun. Everyone does what they think is fun. The "I do it because I have to"-feeling only works for short periods for students... or atleast the one I've met.
If everyone would think "I could watch tv... but I rather play the piano. It's more fun", none would blame the tv (ofcourse). But since all teacher aren't able to make their studens think like that, everyone blame the TV... So I still thinks the teacher can be the worst enemy, along with the parents. At the same time, they are the ones who inspire the children to start playing at the first place, In most cases.

Is there atleast one who agrees with me? ^^

[db05]

I really don't get it... Why does everyone blame the tv?! If the teacher is good enough, he/she will make sure the student thinks it more fun than TV. And I mean more fun. Everyone does what they think is fun. The "I do it because I have to"-feeling only works for short periods for students... or atleast the one I've met.
If everyone would think "I could watch tv... but I rather play the piano. It's more fun", none would blame the tv (ofcourse). But since all teacher aren't able to make their studens think like that, everyone blame the TV... So I still thinks the teacher can be the worst enemy, along with the parents. At the same time, they are the ones who inspire the children to start playing at the first place, In most cases.

Is there atleast one who agrees with me? ^^

I agree it's a teacher's job to make it fun, otherwise, find another one or do something else. It's not just piano or tv or PSP, there's so many things that can be fun.

Of course, you'll have to find your own motivation, but the initial inspiration that only a good teacher can give is a good springboard for improvement. My first teacher for guitar, I'll never forget. He made me happy and excited for the first time in years. But I decided I like piano music better, so I took piano. I still see him though.

[0range]

Weekly lessons and lack of desire to play.

[lostinidlewonder]

Lack of time and effective use of it.

If there was infinite hours in a day everyone could become a master. But there is limited time. Since there is limited time we require discipline to study anything at our most efficient rate. This throws up a whole heaps of variables which different people must learn to deal with if they want to progress at their music.


I think it is wrong to say that ALL piano practice is FUN. I love music very much, more than most people in this world, but I still find it very frustrating and difficult to study. It is always a mental struggle, to push ourselves, to practice when we don't want to practice. If we only practice when we feel like it, or when we are motivated or excited or see the "fun" in the practice, we will not have a very disciplined approach to our music. Try to practice when there are relationship troubles, or when you are feeling down, or when you are sick, or when you have 100 other things to do in the day. That is the reality of life, and to think that we can only practice when conditions are perfect is a fantasy.

We are very emotional beings, we will one day love someone then the next forget about that love and be very annoyed with them. The same applies for piano, you can be in love with it one day, then hate it the next. What separates the good music students from the norm are those who can practice when they don't want to practice. They will get through a lot more and be much more persistent than those who only practice when they find they are enjoying the practice. Yes, we can get a lot of satisfaction when getting parts of music under our hand and memorized, but the entire process to get there is riddled with excuses for us to get up and leave the piano.

[keyofc]

Not to be political  - but I think it's all those hockey Moms!



Kids are not expected to funnel their energy into their gift
like they were 20 years ago.

Now they get bored so easy - they have to go from one thing to another.
My friends who took piano with me - all learned on CARDBOARD keyboards
until our parents could get us pianos - and we all went to each others houses and used
the pianos. We learned a lot about fingering before we were able to play real pianos.
And it wasn't boring - it was fun and exciting.

But we didn't have 10 other hobbies to compete.with our time....

[janef88]

I think bad teachers might be part of it, but only in the sense that the student is less likely to practice when they don't appreciate (or don't like whatsoever) their teacher.  If a student respects their teacher it's a bit (yes only a bit) more likely that they will practice because they want to please their teacher by obeying them.

[Bob]

Everything.  Culture.

[gyzzzmo]

The best teacher can recognize a problem, knows how to deal with it and can explain that properly. Pity there are only few of those....

[musicrebel4u]

I am just thinking about stuff again  .  I started this post and then thought, well, "not practicing, of course !" but, I don't think that's altogether true.  I do wonder though, is it possible for somebody to be practicing consistently and not progress ?  Other than that, if they are not practicing consistently, why not ?  So, yeah.   What is it that gets into the way for people, what makes them stagnate, I wonder.

Any progress in learning based on 2 things:
I CAN and I WANT

If someone CAN but do not want to - there is no progress. Lack of motivation ...

Many talented students today CAN but DO NOT WANT TO, because their skills to play is not in high demand (there are no many people who can play and understand true value of making music). CDs, DVDs, I-pods etc replaced live performances and need for skill to perform.

If someone CAN'T but want to - there is no progress, because only one loves to learn who CAN.

[mswaller]

Often comes from a lack of understanding (on the teacher's part) where the student/s are at in their learning.  You must strive to find their Zone of Proximal Development.....connect to what they already know. 

I'd type more, but I have to get back to my psp .

[timothy42b]

Kids are not expected to funnel their energy into their gift
like they were 20 years ago.

Now they get bored so easy - they have to go from one thing to another.

Maybe so, but I'm not so sure this is the whole story, or even a large part ofit.

We are discussing this without data, and that is dangerous. 

It is true that 20 years ago (well maybe more like 30? or is it 40) every home had a piano and few had a tv.  I don't know how many people actually took lessons and I don't know how many "succeeded." 

If we are going to compare today to 20 years ago, we need this data:  what percentage of students succeeded then, and what percentage succeed now?  It may not actually be any different. 

But we can't return to the good old days anyway.  What we really need to ask is what happens today.  1) what percentage of piano students make progress, and 2) how does this compare to students who study other instruments? 

It is possible to have talented motivated students with highly professional teachers but not have optimum results if there is some fundamental flaw in the way we teach piano.  Or, there might not be a flaw per se, but there might be a drastically better way to do it.  In that case the enemy to progress is neither the student nor the teacher, but a gap in pedagogical theory. 

I don't claim that's the case because I don't have any data.  I would observe, rather cautiously because I don't know what it means, that pretty much all kids who pick up a guitar will be able to jam with friends and play in a band; most kids on a wind instrument get to the point where they can have fun playing in a community band; and only a tiny percentage of piano students will ever play in public for anyone. 

[a-sharp]

I think there are many reasons, but the absolute leading cause in MY studio is lack of regular practice at home - stemming from a lack of parental support and involvement, as simple as that sounds.

There are many reasons WHY there is a lack of parental support - and I will say that the culture here (southern CA, usa), does not place formal music study high on the list of priorities - we learn this from where our government chooses to spend the money, or cut it out, the ridiculously high price of concert tickets making it prohibitive for most people, the pop-music culture - etc.

But, again - in MY studio - I also blame myself to a degree. Firstly - when I first started, I was willing to take *anyone* who'd be willing to write me a check. Even somehow rationalizing a way to accept a student who's parents flat-out told me piano lessons would take a back seat to the other activities (sports mostly) in their life (when it should be as important as doing their math or spelling homework). I did "require" practice in my policy - but it wasn't *strictly* enforced in reality... and I've re-written my policy since the first couple of versions to emphasize parental support (in a bulleted list at the top) and practice and indicating the consequences of it doesn't happen (dimissal). (My policy reads big and mean b/c I'm essentially NOT, lol).

I have recently introduced certain tools and methods that make it much more clear HOW parents can help (such as, an assignment book - which I make myself & have spiral bound - that shows more clearly what the assignments are, and a simple "instruction" sheet on how to practice a piece, just for my students - which I *enforce* by doing the practice steps IN the lesson)... Plus, I've started talking about it more - meaning discussing it with the parents.

ALL of the above simple things have helped.

Lots of these little things I've grabbed directly from pedagogy class at school - at about the same time my frustration with certain students not practicing week after week after week - and then *quitting* - was really getting to me. Thing is - I think *most* of my students' parents would help if they knew how to help. SO, I'm helping them with that - and its working so far. The ones that aren't genuinely supportive, well, you can't do anything about that.

Story:

My son rides the bus with the girl across the street. I drop him at her house before I leave for school b/c I have to leave earlier than the bus comes. The little girl was my student (until last week). She smart, curious, interesting - smart enough to try to find ways around thinking - you know the type . Every day I drop him off, her dad is drilling her with her spelling words for school. It hit me - THIS is the level of involvement kids need! HOWEVER, in their defense, I chose to accept them without even a *weighted* key keyboard (on the basis they'd purchase one later); and, I didn't require they come to the first few lessons to obvserve... They were neighbors/friends/ etc... I was desperate for cash. etc etc.

I LOVE the parents that say "I just want to see if little Johnny likes (the piano/music lessons) before I invest in a piano."

What I say to that *now* - Great idea. Sing them up for recreational *class* piano. At least they are going to have GOOD quality keyboards - hopefully they'll develop an interest and curiosity to know more. If they start playing on a toy - with the expectations that private teacher is going to have, you can guarantee they'll end up HATING it! OR, I tell them to RENT a piano.

I don't say that to be mean or insulting to them - it's just a matter of fact.

....
Hmm - as for the comparison to other instruments ... they can take the things into their rooms - so they have the private space and sense of freedom they need to practice. It's portable - cheaper to rent (i.e., to "try out").

...
Even for older kids - my intermediate level 14 YO would be doing perfectly fine - great probably - if it wasn't for the fact that she's overbooked! Is this entirely her fault? NO! When I was a kid, I wasn't allowed to do EVERY activity - I had to make decisions. (Partly on the basis of common sense, partly b/c we weren't rolling in $$$). I think requiring older kids to make decisions - what to cut out and what to keep, so they can excel at the stuff they want to do most - is just good parenting.

Anyway - that is MY data and what's been true for my students.

Forgive me for rambling...

[irespire]

I think it's lack of motivation combined with parents often not getting the kids to practice. Granted, you can't always force the kid to play (and you shouldn't), but many parents of kids that I've taught have not even TRIED much to get them to practice. So the kid sees that his parent seemingly doesn't take it very seriously, and doesn't take it seriously . Some kids also lack concentration and are more interested in playing than seriously learning, and when it comes to any method of learning, they just give up even if you try to squeeze fun in there. This is probably also because a lot of these energetic kids don't get enough exercise and are bored in school, so they don't feel like sitting in a chair at home (completely understandable).

I completely agree with a-sharp on multiple accounts. I did avoid taking kids who probably weren't ready even if the parents were ready to pay, though. That just leads to frustration longer down the road. But the lack of parental involvement seems to be a big one, and not just telling them 'practice', but actually sitting down with them and helping.

[m]

Any progress in learning based on 2 things:
I CAN and I WANT

While hypothetically it might look like having some validity, it is secondary. Any progress in learning is based only on 1 thing: KNOW HOW and a good teacher is 99% of success.

M

[keypeg]

While hypothetically it might look like having some validity, it is secondary. Any progress in learning is based only on 1 thing: KNOW HOW and a good teacher is 99% of success.

M

As a student ... Yes!

[allemande]

Well, perhaps this is a bit off topic, but I want to share an anecdote concerning motivation my teacher told me a few times…

My teacher studied about 10 years with Vicenzo Scaramuzza, I’m sure a few of you know who he is, and aside from being a real Maestro, he had a special personality..and temper, you could say.

She always tells me how many students couldn’t handle him being so strict and demanding that many times when parents would go and complain and talk to him about their child needing motivation, or if he could help motivate them, he would respond..

“Ha! It’s my students who should motivate ME into wanting to teach!”

Haha!!…and to be honest. I find a lot of truth in this.

[timothy42b]

I think it's lack of motivation combined with parents often not getting the kids to practice.

That's reification, I think, and it's counterproductive to even use the term.

Take the emotion out, operationalize the concept, and work on the practical level. 

You still might not get results but you're out of the blaming game. 

[a-sharp]

tim -

at least on my part - I believe I was actually blaming myself mostly - what you quote above (which is similar to my own statements) is just a cause - simply a matter of fact. But the root of that problem, at least in MY situation, largely was due to my own lack of initiative with regard to clear communication in terms of expectations... For me, it was pure fact, zero emotion, as I've come to terms with a huge part of what I need in order to solve the problem... *so far,* ... I do see a change in attitude in my student's parents, AND in how much my students are practicing - the student that quit - it was really for the better as her parents didn't have the same motivation to participate at this time - which was probably the best decision for them...

bottom line is - it doesn't matter how awesome you are as a teacher, kids need to be taught self-discipline - it times time to develop that. So, you could be the best teacher on the planet, but since we know they are not going to practice without being reminded to do so, at least, then they are just not going to learn.

One thing I know for sure is - with my 6.5 YO - He isn't going to do his homework simply by my telling him to do it. I have to help him get started... Make sure he understands it, and finishes it - and help him solve a few problems along the way. Piano study isn't any different.

And - he likes school - and does really well ... he is motivated to do well, so obviously, this alone, plus his awesome teacher (whom he sees FIVE days a week) is not enough...

Perhaps, also being a parent is helping me to understand some stuff too!

Just speaking for myself, of course.

[javacisnotrecognized]

I'm not a teacher, but based on my own experience with the instrument, I think I can contribute here. Now - get ready for this! - I think that the main reason a student would lose their motivation is because they get disconnected from the resources of the instrument. What the hell am I talking about? I am talking about a student thinking of piano as a routine instead of the endless magical exploration of sound. This routine could consist of something like "Get out a new piece. Memorize it, learn it. Practice all the difficult passages until they are mastered. Perform it to some standard", or any other combination of steps with a definite beginning and a definite end. Once this end is reached, that's it. But there is no end to piano. It goes on and on forever. Even within a single compisition, there are myraid ways to create different moods, effects, etc. by altering the properties of just a few notes. This endless exploration, I believe, is a large part of what keeps the pianist coming back to the keyboard, messing with this and that phrase, playing this staccato, etc. I also believe this is the process by which the individual musicians voice is discovered, (Or created). It is the continual process of refinement which never gives way to boredom. When piano becomes just another object on the "Things to do" list, then everything flies out the window.

[m19834]

I'm not a teacher, but based on my own experience with the instrument, I think I can contribute here. Now - get ready for this! - I think that the main reason a student would lose their motivation is because they get disconnected from the resources of the instrument. What the hell am I talking about? I am talking about a student thinking of piano as a routine instead of the endless magical exploration of sound. This routine could consist of something like "Get out a new piece. Memorize it, learn it. Practice all the difficult passages until they are mastered. Perform it to some standard", or any other combination of steps with a definite beginning and a definite end. Once this end is reached, that's it. But there is no end to piano. It goes on and on forever. Even within a single compisition, there are myraid ways to create different moods, effects, etc. by altering the properties of just a few notes. This endless exploration, I believe, is a large part of what keeps the pianist coming back to the keyboard, messing with this and that phrase, playing this staccato, etc. I also believe this is the process by which the individual musicians voice is discovered, (Or created). It is the continual process of refinement which never gives way to boredom. When piano becomes just another object on the "Things to do" list, then everything flies out the window.

hmmm ... I think this sounds good or looks good in writing, and I even think that it is actually true to some extent, just like with anything in life (even life itself can become just a sad routine).  But, on some level I have to slightly and briefly disagree (briefly, since I have to get back to the practice ball and chain quite soon  ).

I think that hugeness is just always there, and I think it can indeed be explored, but I find it most motivating when there are very specific ways to go exploring it, and that may indeed involve a large bit of repetition.  However, even in that repetition, there may be a consicousness each time of wanting to do the task better.  I actually can become completely stuck when I am just left staring at the hugeness of it all with little direction as to how to go about addressing what I "see" before me.  Right now I very much appreciate some kind of structure, and sometimes I need it to be very specific and tight, otherwise I could easily just float away into the clouds and never find my way back .  Perhaps there is always a balance that is necessary, but if it's really as vast as that, some specific guidelines are pretty darn useful !

[a-sharp]

I am talking about a student thinking of piano as a routine instead of the endless magical exploration of sound.

This makes a lot of sense. And with little kids - they need guidance at home for this to happen. With older kids, and adults, the has to come from within - out of desire to play the instrument. If practicing/playing ceases to become part of their routine, they'll lose motivation/interest. I have experienced it myself... In both directions. Losing it (the routine/motivation/etc)... and then, getting it back again - which ends up being a result of having sat down & practiced something. The activity then becomes it own reward. The more I play, the more I'm driven to play more... and vice-versa.

A lot like anything else. The better we are at something, the more we enjoy doing it - usually.

[keyofc]

Great point - Java!

Helping them learn how to compose at a beginners level
really keeps them going too and keeps the magic happening.

[javacisnotrecognized]

I think that hugeness is just always there, and I think it can indeed be explored, but I find it most motivating when there are very specific ways to go exploring it, and that may indeed involve a large bit of repetition.  However, even in that repetition, there may be a consicousness each time of wanting to do the task better.  I actually can become completely stuck when I am just left staring at the hugeness of it all with little direction as to how to go about addressing what I "see" before me.  Right now I very much appreciate some kind of structure, and sometimes I need it to be very specific and tight, otherwise I could easily just float away into the clouds and never find my way back .  Perhaps there is always a balance that is necessary, but if it's really as vast as that, some specific guidelines are pretty darn useful !

I essentially agree with everything you say here - with caveats, of course. First of all, I think there is a big difference between the repetition that you speak of, and the routine that I speak of. Presumably, you repeat with some kind of subtle improvement with each repitition - faster, more even, better tone quality etc. A "routine", by contrast, will not change given an infinite amount of time. My father, for example, has woken up at 6:00 AM, gotten dressed, gone to work, come home at 5 PM, gotten out of his work clothes, watched television until he falls asleep on the couch at around ~10 only to wake up an hour later, turn of the television and go to bed for at least the last 30 years of his life. This is a routine. (And an extremely long run-on sentance!)

Secondly, I think the "hugeness" is much larger for you than it is for the average student. This ties in to what I think of as "Musicality levels". At the lowest level of musicality, a student requires a score to play from (Not in front of him, I mean, but he cannot compose/improvise, only play works written by others). Playing/interpreting this work consists of sitting down at the piano and reproducing, as written, the markings on the score to some degree of accuracy. At the highest level of musicality (Horowitz, Richter, Michelangeli, Gould, etc) an interpretation of a work can contain many concurrently running ideas and require many considerations. These include, for example: Articulation, voicing contrapuntal textures, rubatos, tone, pedaling, phrasing, etc. Invariably, there are some other musical outlets/interest as well.
Now, if you take two "level 1" musicality students and have them play the same piece, it will sound exactly the same, accounting for differences in the score they used. If you take two high level musicality players and have them play the same work - someone who had never heard the work but knew both of those players well could likely identify who was whom.

I think, for the "level 1" student, the piano is a very boring instrument - he will probably quit soon, unless there is a very important reason to continue. For a student whos best means of expression is rubato and articulation, piano is slightly more interesting. And the higher the "musicality level" of the student, the huger the hugeness is. So what am I trying to say here? I don't remember, but this post is too big to delete so here you go.

Great point - Java!

Helping them learn how to compose at a beginners level
really keeps them going too and keeps the magic happening.

Yes! Do not forget improvising

[dan101]

Two top "enemies" would surely include student laziness and an uninspiring teacher.

Interesting topic.

[timothy42b]

I do wonder though, is it possible for somebody to be practicing consistently and not progress ? 

Most of the posts in this thread assumed students don't practice and focused on how to fix that. 

But karli's OP was a two parter, and we've neglected this part. 

[a-sharp]

I think that depends on what, and more importantly, how they are practicing.

In which case, this a more a function of both student, and teacher.

[keypeg]

I am talking about a student thinking of piano as a routine instead of the endless magical exploration of sound.
------------------------

This makes a lot of sense. And with little kids - they need guidance at home for this to happen. With older kids, and adults, the has to come from within - out of desire to play the instrument. If practicing/playing ceases to become part of their routine

Um, I think the poster you quoted was saying that the routine ** is ** the problem and that it is important to get OUT of the routine, and INTO the magic of the instrument.

You seem to be talking about creating more routine, and parents enforcing that routine (killing the magic, if we go by the OP?) which is the opposite.

I never forced routines, supervised or directed homework, and I now have two diligent, motivated, self-directed young adults.  I suppose that different things work for different people.

[a-sharp]

I didn't mean so much a specific routine with respect to time of day & rigid schedules - but piano practice has to occur daily - regularly - whatever time. That in itself is a modified "routine." Most kids just won't do (lots of stuff) by themselves - at the age of 6, 7, or 8. I mean - that is just normal parenting stuff. i.e., I couldn't leave my 6 YO alone for 24 hrs (hypothetically) and expect him to have brushed his teeth, fed himself & cleaned, bathed AND practiced his music by himself - without any guidance or assistance whatsoever. I do know certain teenagers that need frequent reminders - to be quite honest.

(Maybe I'm retarded, but I need to make lists sometimes just to remember to do things. I guess that is what has become my "parent" now, lol.)

This is what I meant. If a child lives in a home with certain things are a priority, and other things are not, that is what the child learns. That's all I'm saying. I'm not sure I even meant supervision - Did say supervision? If so - I don't meant that *at all* in the sense of "hovering" ... but certainly the certain activities are emphasized or not on a regular, daily basis. This is all. However ... it IS great and MUCH better when parents do take more of an active role - such as helping them with flashcards 'n' stuff.

It does make good sense to attempt to establish a few certain routines - we all have them at various times - if we are truly honest (even I don't like to admit I have any routines at all - but I AM willing to admit the making coffee in the morning is certainly top of the list).

I don't believe that is the "endless exploration of sound" is what makes a student musically *literate* - what that does is perhaps develop great improvisational skills. A bit like doodling doesn't make you good at learning how to print. But you may get really good at abstract expressionism-type art. I guess it depends on what type of progress you're after then. School is a routine.... Most people would agree that it's a helpful one for most kids - and necessary in terms of educational "progress." Thing is - they only come to us once a week - so the "routine" for piano study can't occur at our studios, unfortunately.

Anyway sorry for the confusion and I don't mean to offend anyone who did things their own way & it worked. There are always exceptions to the statistical norm, which is cool.

Is

routine

really a bad word? Perhaps I'm just totally confused. It does happen. I could list a thousand things as an excuse.

*off to take my Gingko Biloba now*

[javacisnotrecognized]

To clarify what I mean - I am certainly not suggesting that we must aim to never have ANY routines at ALL, EVER - that would be a completely random existance, musically & physically. However, we must be very careful about routines - if our whole life becomes one large routine, there is no need to live it; I could write a computer program to tell me what I'll have acomplished at what age, and maybe tell me in what situation I'll be in when I die. Then I have the rest of my life to just wait for that to happen while endlessly repeating this routine.

No.

Furthermore, we must be critical of a routine - if it stops working effectively at any point, it must be either revised or thrown out, and we must be careful not to go down with the ship.

Also, "The endless exploration of sound" does not mean exclusively improvising. Take any chord progression, run, contrapuntal section [especially counterpoint] from some piece, and try accenting different notes/chords, emphasizing different voices, etc. This is exploring music written by someone else - that hopefully says what we want to say much better than we can say it. But then you take these words and make them personal again. Depending on what you do, you can make a single measure sound like entirely different things.

Finally, I suspect that a particular sound (Or character) attracts many people to the piano to begin with. You might be captivated by some fun, bubbly piece, only to get drilled in key signatures and "Every good boy does fine" on your first lessons. I'll admit right now, I don't have statistics on how many teachers still teach like this, but I doubt it's a negligible amount. I think it might be better to start off by showing the student how to play a fast arpeggio, and get that kind of watery/shimmering sound. Or smash some bass notes and get a scary loud sound! I've read accounts from members on this forum who said this was how they percieved the music they played, and I just think teachers do not capitalize on this.

[keypeg]

Thank you for your explanation, Asharp.  It makes a lot of sense.  I guess I did imagine a rather rigid routine.

While I homeschooled for a decade and had ideas about not quashing self-directed motivation, such as I had seen in the school where I taught previously, there was indeed the kind of routine you are talking about.  Homework was laid out on the table at night for the next morning, and they knew that this had to be done before they could go off and play, for example.  I was looking through our stuff in a fit of nostalgia last night and in the "daily writing" book (rule: at least one sentence, no matter what) there were a few, "I don't know what to write." or "Do I have to write?" or "I don't know what to write, so I have written this, but then I did write, didn't I?" in there. So much for the totally libertarian attitude that I thought I had.  There were definitely routines, and things that had to be "practised" every day.  That "daily writing" was one of them - at least one full sentence with a subject and predicate, period at the end, and date written on the bottom.  "I don't want to write." is a sentence.  It passes.  The words were always spelled correctly, so I must have insisted on that too.  They had dictionaries, and used them.

I guess that the d.wr. book could be a model for minimum practising routine.  It had to be done each day without fail, and it had to be correct (complete sentence = grammar; spelling; dictionary use) and these were habits that serve you for a lifetime.  The routine that you did your morning work and then were free to play set up another habit.  The fact that the d.wr. book could have any content under the sun liberated toward creativity.  The most delightful tangents with full illustrations are present in these books.  Can this translate into music practise?  A scale or arpeggio, perhaps, that morphs into musical inventions?  Practising louds and softs that suddenly become I don't know what?  But if you never practise specific skills such as dynamics or patterns in music, your inventions would remain random and perhaps eventually peter out.

The son who needed no help in setting up a practise routine when he began music lessons was 12 years old.  The age makes a difference.  He had actually tried the instrument some years before, decided he did not want to learn to play it at that time, and it sat in the closet for four years.  When he did pick it up again, it was with the clear goal of acquiring proficiency and working with a teacher.  Was it good to let him drop it?  How much would he have progressed if forced to continue with it, and how would the practising have been?  But on the other hand, this set up the scenario for someone about to enter high school, needing to scramble to get the necessary skills for auditioning in only four years - because it did lead to entry into a university music program.  Was that fair?  Or did the scramble itself create adrenaline that caused progress and a habit of finding the most efficient way of playing anything well?  Could a more leisurely pace have created a more lackadaisical attitude.  I know that I am wired to enjoy a certain amount of pressure, and I hate too easy a pace.

Lots to think about.

[arensky]

It's the general attitude. In life, we are expected to study up to high school or college, then get a 9-5 job somewhere that doesn't necessarily require those things you learned in school (LOL, what's the point?) and work until you die. Or at least until you're really old. Most people are taught to work hard, but not work smart. And most teachers fail to motivate since teaching isn't exactly their dream job either, and they just want to get the job done. Students pick up this attitude, some become parents and teachers and thus perpetuate the cycle.

Sometimes this general attitude leaks into the arts and music, and makes for less quality teachers and students. "Traditional" and "conservatory-type" students and teachers sometimes have bad attitude, as my guitar teacher would point out, because they learned music like some subject in college to pass instead of a lifetime pursuit of excellence.

Never mind talent. What you need is desire. A talented person with no desire would be content with mediocrity like everyone else. A not-so-talented person can go beyond mediocrity, though not the top.

Brilliantly put! I agree.

In terms of the whole issue, it's an individual choice on the part of the student. Bad teaching will interfere with and can derail a student's progress, but if that is not the case then it is only the student's choice, as db05 points out. Without desire, there will be nothing substantial achieved.

Now, there's that "talent" word that's always cropping up in these discussions; what is that stuff, anyway? It seems to be some kind of voodoo charm, or an excuse for people to cop out: "I don't have talent". Anyway, that's for another thread...

[tds]

Without desire, there will be nothing substantial achieved.

yes, i agree

[m19834]

I essentially agree with everything you say here - with caveats, of course. First of all, I think there is a big difference between the repetition that you speak of, and the routine that I speak of. Presumably, you repeat with some kind of subtle improvement with each repitition - faster, more even, better tone quality etc. A "routine", by contrast, will not change given an infinite amount of time. My father, for example, has woken up at 6:00 AM, gotten dressed, gone to work, come home at 5 PM, gotten out of his work clothes, watched television until he falls asleep on the couch at around ~10 only to wake up an hour later, turn of the television and go to bed for at least the last 30 years of his life. This is a routine. (And an extremely long run-on sentance!)

Secondly, I think the "hugeness" is much larger for you than it is for the average student. This ties in to what I think of as "Musicality levels". At the lowest level of musicality, a student requires a score to play from (Not in front of him, I mean, but he cannot compose/improvise, only play works written by others). Playing/interpreting this work consists of sitting down at the piano and reproducing, as written, the markings on the score to some degree of accuracy. At the highest level of musicality (Horowitz, Richter, Michelangeli, Gould, etc) an interpretation of a work can contain many concurrently running ideas and require many considerations. These include, for example: Articulation, voicing contrapuntal textures, rubatos, tone, pedaling, phrasing, etc. Invariably, there are some other musical outlets/interest as well.
Now, if you take two "level 1" musicality students and have them play the same piece, it will sound exactly the same, accounting for differences in the score they used. If you take two high level musicality players and have them play the same work - someone who had never heard the work but knew both of those players well could likely identify who was whom.

I think, for the "level 1" student, the piano is a very boring instrument - he will probably quit soon, unless there is a very important reason to continue. For a student whos best means of expression is rubato and articulation, piano is slightly more interesting. And the higher the "musicality level" of the student, the huger the hugeness is. So what am I trying to say here? I don't remember, but this post is too big to delete so here you go.

ha ha ... you're funny !  Well, thanks for your comments.  I have no idea how it happened but somehow I missed your post here until just now  .  So, I just wanted to say that I have read it now preliminarily, but if I have something to comment on regarding it, I will later.  I just wanted to acknowledge that I have finally read it and, whether you remember what you were trying to say or not, I appreciate it very much and it is somehow quite helpful and actually perfect timing that I happened to read it just now  , so thanks !

[communist]

most kids would rather learn the chords on the guitar and play a bunch of rubbishy rock and pop songs.

[pianistimo]

a bad instrument

practicing every other day

eating while practicing

watching tv while practicing

pretending to practice

petting the cat while practicing

generally not knowing how to get 'into the moment'

or...oppositely - having too narrow of a focus

**Maybe not everyone should look at piano as a solo instrument.  Maybe more families should get together and have family music night and mix it up.  The great composers came from families that liked to jam.