Re: I hate hand positions! HELP

[kulahola]

I dont understand why people on this forum seem to all use pointless methods. I use only 2:
- the Russian Nikolaieva
- the Ukrainian Mylich

And as soon as possible, I select own pieces from the children repertoire. There are so many ! If you spend all the lessons on dumb pieces, there wont be any time for the student to learn real repertoire.

Of course all my students play scales, Czerny and exercises such as Jozefy, in addition to real composers pieces included in Nikolaieva and Mylich.

[monk]

Yeah, I also got students from other students who, instead of reading the notes, read the fingering numbers *moan*.

One possibility is: Let the student play the piece (or a section of it) really slowly with ONE finger in each hand! Disregarding exact rhythm. Piano. Don't take the 2nd finger, but preferably the 3rd or 4th.
You can also let him play with only 1st and 2nd fingers - that can be fun because of the awkward positions you have to go in sometimes when you play legato! (Helps freedom of arm and torso movement also.)

And don't use sheet music with many fingering numbers in it. Printing many fingerings is really a stultifying criminal act! (And, of course, never write fingerings on the sheet yourself.)

Best Wishes,
Monk

[kulahola]

Yeah, I also got students from other students who, instead of reading the notes, read the fingering numbers *moan*.

One possibility is: Let the student play the piece (or a section of it) really slowly with ONE finger in each hand! Disregarding exact rhythm. Piano. Don't take the 2nd finger, but preferably the 3rd or 4th.
You can also let him play with only 1st and 2nd fingers - that can be fun because of the awkward positions you have to go in sometimes when you play legato! (Helps freedom of arm and torso movement also.)

And don't use sheet music with many fingering numbers in it. Printing many fingerings is really a stultifying criminal act! (And, of course, never write fingerings on the sheet yourself.)

Best Wishes,
Monk

Are you a real teacher ?
I have some doubts when I read your posts. Serious and traditional teachers know that fingering is 50% of piano playing. I teach my kids to come back to the next lesson with right notes and right fingering, this is the ground for any further work .So you teach your kids pieces using 1 finger. How great. This way they will surely develop a secure piano technique.
No no no. Learning the notes requires 10/20 minutes intensive reading and writing everyday. There is no other way. No colors, no stickers. No miracle.

[bernhard]

Are you a real teacher ?
I have some doubts when I read your posts. Serious and traditional teachers know that fingering is 50% of piano playing. I teach my kids to come back to the next lesson with right notes and right fingering, this is the ground for any further work .So you teach your kids pieces using 1 finger. How great. This way they will surely develop a secure piano technique.
No no no. Learning the notes requires 10/20 minutes intensive reading and writing everyday. There is no other way. No colors, no stickers. No miracle.

Real? What is reality any way?

Is he a teacher at all? Yes if he has one single student. That is the ultimate definition of a teacher: no student, no teacher.

More to the point: Is he a “good” teacher?

What is good anyway?

If the student leaves the lesson having learnt something, the teacher has fulfilled his role.

A teacher is ultimately a communicator.

Here are the rules of communication that every communicator must ultimately follow if communication is to take place:

1.      A communicator must have a goal.

2.      A communicator must keep changing his/her behaviour until s/he reaches his/her goal. (This implies that the communicator have a large enough repertory of behaviours at his/ her disposal and is able to switch between them).

3.      A communicator is sensitive enough to know when the goal has been achieved and stop changing behaviours.

If a teacher is stuck in a teaching situation, that is the student is not learning, the reasons maybe related to one of the three items above:

1.      The teacher has not established a clear enough goal – either to the student or to him/herself.

2.      The teacher is too limited in his/her behaviour and is afraid/unable to try new possibilities (this applies both to teachers who only believe in teaching by fear as those that only believe in teaching by fun).

3.      The teacher is too unobservant/insensitive to realise when s/he has actually achieved the lesson’s goal, and cannot stop him/herself.

Monk’s previous post (and many others) tell me that – according to the criteria above – he is indeed a superb teacher. He is constantly suggesting alternative behaviours that may (or may not) achieve the goals. It does not really matter if someone agrees of disagrees with his suggestions. It is an alternative, and for someone who is stuck it may well be the way out. If it is not, then for crying out loud, DO SOMETHING ELSE.

If you only have a hammer, you will have little success with screws. It is little use complaining that the screw is not responding to your traditional hammer (and from now on I swear I will only deal with nails). Get yourself a screwdriver!

And by the way, I do not believe in miracles: I rely on them.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[kulahola]

Real? What is reality any way?

Is he a teacher at all? Yes if he has one single student. That is the ultimate definition of a teacher: no student, no teacher.

More to the point: Is he a “good” teacher?

What is good anyway?

If the student leaves the lesson having learnt something, the teacher has fulfilled his role.

A teacher is ultimately a communicator.

Here are the rules of communication that every communicator must ultimately follow if communication is to take place:

1.      A communicator must have a goal.

2.      A communicator must keep changing his/her behaviour until s/he reaches his/her goal. (This implies that the communicator have a large enough repertory of behaviours at his/ her disposal and is able to switch between them).

3.      A communicator is sensitive enough to know when the goal has been achieved and stop changing behaviours.

If a teacher is stuck in a teaching situation, that is the student is not learning, the reasons maybe related to one of the three items above:

1.      The teacher has not established a clear enough goal – either to the student or to him/herself.

2.      The teacher is too limited in his/her behaviour and is afraid/unable to try new possibilities (this applies both to teachers who only believe in teaching by fear as those that only believe in teaching by fun).

3.      The teacher is too unobservant/insensitive to realise when s/he has actually achieved the lesson’s goal, and cannot stop him/herself.

Monk’s previous post (and many others) tell me that – according to the criteria above – he is indeed a superb teacher. He is constantly suggesting alternative behaviours that may (or may not) achieve the goals. It does not really matter if someone agrees of disagrees with his suggestions. It is an alternative, and for someone who is stuck it may well be the way out. If it is not, then for crying out loud, DO SOMETHING ELSE.

If you only have a hammer, you will have little success with screws. It is little use complaining that the screw is not responding to your traditional hammer (and from now on I swear I will only deal with nails). Get yourself a screwdriver!

And by the way, I do not believe in miracles: I rely on them.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

You always need to pose yourself as the Supreme Authority and Wisdom of this forum.

Dear Supreme Wisdom,
most "teachers" on this forum seem to have very low-level problems with their students. They dont even seem to be able to read the notes nor to coordinate hands properly. It s a fact that none of my students have this kind of problems. They come to the lessons and always can play the notes right. This seems to be extremely basic, right ? I would not even consider a kid who come to the lesson without playing the notes right.
I want to concentrate only on true technical problems, such as a beautiful legato, and musical sense and phrasing. When I read that a "teacher" makes his kids play with 1 finger, excuse me, but I dont call that piano playing. Rather button pressing.

[Shagdac]

Yeah, Bernhard!!!


Kulahola, I wouldn't even go there if I were you.....

you know the sad thing is Kulahola, you mostly likely DO have a great deal of valuable knowledge and information that you could share with the rest of us. That would be wonderful. But for some reason, you seem to always be so defensive in your posts and put others down. You don't have to agree with anyone, but there's no reason to be so nasty to everyone either. I would love to hear your opinions on things, but it would be great if you were to shed perhaps a more "positive" outlook on things. There is never only one way to do something....so please remember that you are not the only person in this world that could possibly give the correct advise.  This is a serious forum, and I think most of us are here to learn, if you can't be a part of that in a positive way, why do you bother at all?

Please continue to share with us, but don't put others down.

[monk]

Kulahola, you will surely jump up laughing in your chair now because you have made me answer you once again seriously although, with 95% probability, you are a FAKE.

But here my serious answer:

You on one side and Bernhard and me on the other side are NOT COMPARABLE because you take only "gifted", very engaged students. That is a possibility, and indeed then you don't have to worry about certain basic things and practice time and so on.

But we also take "un-gifted" and "lazy" students. I have to because I am at a district music school and a music university and I get the students allocated. Only in really severe cases of laziness or dumbness I can dump a student. So I have to develop techniques to make the best of the "material" I get.

And sometimes (Bernhard surely can tell you much about that) after some times a "un-gifted" student gets more "gifted". That can take a long time.

If I only had "gifted" students, I could also easily boast that I'm a "great teacher".

But now I will resume silence, because you are a fake anyway, and these words were again a waste of time.  

Best Wishes,
Monk

[kulahola]

Kulahola, you will surely jump up laughing in your chair now because you have made me answer you once again seriously although, with 95% probability, you are a FAKE.

But here my serious answer:

You on one side and Bernhard and me on the other side are NOT COMPARABLE because you take only "gifted", very engaged students. That is a possibility, and indeed then you don't have to worry about certain basic things and practice time and so on.

But we also take "un-gifted" and "lazy" students. I have to because I am at a district music school and a music university and I get the students allocated. Only in really severe cases of laziness or dumbness I can dump a student. So I have to develop techniques to make the best of the "material" I get.

And sometimes (Bernhard surely can tell you much about that) after some times a "un-gifted" student gets more "gifted". That can take a long time.

If I only had "gifted" students, I could also easily boast that I'm a "great teacher".

But now I will resume silence, because you are a fake anyway, and these words were again a waste of time.  

Best Wishes,
Monk

Well, up to you to waste your time the way you wish. My point is that it is difficult and arduous to play the piano, and it s not for most kids. Except if you want to embark in music therapy or something like that.
To be perfectly honest, I must admit that I did the mistake of accepting one untalented kid (the 6 year old I wanted to kick out last week). I thought she would be fine because she learnt to read and write by herself at the age of 4 and she has a very strict father from Iran. Well, the fact is that she absolutely cant concentrate, interrupts me all the time, cant put two notes together... I was very kind with her at the beginning (after all, she was only 5) but since she doesnt make any progress, I used my military approach and I am as strict with her as with my talented kids. She is so insolent, I really cannot stand that. For instance she plays her piece, I ask her: let s take it from the beginning once more. She says immediately: but I just played it ?  - i say: yes, but it was very bad. Once more.

It s going slightly better now, i will see how it s going after the summer. But I think I did a big mistake taking her, i am absolutely sure she will be one of these teenages giving up without having learnt anything at all.

[kulahola]

Kulahola, you will surely jump up laughing in your chair now because you have made me answer you once again seriously although, with 95% probability, you are a FAKE.

But here my serious answer:

You on one side and Bernhard and me on the other side are NOT COMPARABLE because you take only "gifted", very engaged students. That is a possibility, and indeed then you don't have to worry about certain basic things and practice time and so on.

But we also take "un-gifted" and "lazy" students. I have to because I am at a district music school and a music university and I get the students allocated. Only in really severe cases of laziness or dumbness I can dump a student. So I have to develop techniques to make the best of the "material" I get.

And sometimes (Bernhard surely can tell you much about that) after some times a "un-gifted" student gets more "gifted". That can take a long time.

If I only had "gifted" students, I could also easily boast that I'm a "great teacher".

But now I will resume silence, because you are a fake anyway, and these words were again a waste of time.  

Best Wishes,
Monk

I forgot one thing. All kids are lazy. ALL. Why would an 8 year old like to sit and practice one hour a day instead of playing silly video games ?
That s why I believe in the military approach to put kids in the right tracks. They are just too young to know what is right and wrong. But I also think it s useless to care about untalented kids. These should continue with their Nintendo instead of trying to deal with music.

[xvimbi]

But I also think it s useless to care about untalented kids. These should continue with their Nintendo instead of trying to deal with music.

It is just as useless to care about untalented teachers! What are your accomplishments as a teacher? Is it worth sending my kids to you, or will it be useless? Are you a talented, renowned, well-respected teacher? I guess not, otherwise you wouldn't have to spend so much time on this forum dealing with us low-lives and asking all those trivial questions. To ask with your own words: "Are you worth talking to"?

[kulahola]

It is just as useless to care about untalented teachers! What are your accomplishments as a teacher? Is it worth sending my kids to you, or will it be useless? Are you a talented, renowned, well-respected teacher? I guess not, otherwise you wouldn't have to spend so much time on this forum dealing with us low-lives and asking all those trivial questions. To ask with your own words: "Are you worth talking to"?

1) My accomplishments as a teacher as best said by my kids performing very well when they have to. I know how to prepare kids for a performance.
2) Yes, No, Yes. I dont advertise nor market myself as a teacher, since I dont want to make a living out of it. However, I get frequent requests from people to send me their kids and if they seem sufficiently talented and if I am not too busy, I will give 150% to them and demand the same in turn. I dont have any problem to teach, I am good at it, and I like it as long as my kids are committed to make progress.
3) Time = all my kids are on holiday and I am myself off tomorrow, going 1 month to China on holiday!! So I spent a little bit more time than usual before my computer, what s wrong with that ?
4) Dont talk to me if you dont want to, I could nt care less.

[bernhard]

Dear Supreme Wisdom,

In Robert Henry’s Immortal Words: “Flattery will get you nowhere”.



Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Bernardswatch]

Kulahola wrote;

'But I also think its useless to care about untalented kids'

[ted]

Well, speaking as a dyed-in-the-wool headstrong amateur, who has always sacrificed correctness for creativity, I have to say that I have read nothing that Bernhard has written which is not at least sensible or, in one or two cases, brilliantly perceptive.

I hardly do anything correctly at the piano, but that is a conscious choice and I accept its consequences. The fact that I have taken a strange path does not stop me admiring those with the discipline to remain on the highway. It does not blind me to the existence of general principles in music.

I wish I had had a Bernhard for a teacher when I was  young. I would now definitely be a much better pianist and perhaps, just perhaps even a better musician.  

[rlefebvr]

Kulahola wrote;

'But I also think its useless to care about untalented kids'

He must work for the American School System.

That is one of the dumbness things I have ever heard.

First of, there are very very few untalented kids.
Second there are very very very very few talented kids.
Those in the middle(most of the world) can learn with proper teaching and environment. A good teacher will even make them better then they should have been.

The old saying stays true...There is no bad student, only a bad teacher.

How hard can it be to teach the brilliant. Of course we are assuming you are a teacher of normal capacity. However, maybe you are up there with the great and should only work with the great since your talent at teaching is at such a High level that it would be a waste of your talent to teach kids of lesser abilities. That is a possibility.

Then again, why would a man of such talent be wasting his precious time asking really simple questions to a bunch of uneducated pianists and teachers that roam this forum.

Makes you wonder.

[kulahola]

He must work for the American School System.

That is one of the dumbness things I have ever heard.

First of, there are very very few untalented kids.
Second there are very very very very few talented kids.
Those in the middle(most of the world) can learn with proper teaching and environment. A good teacher will even make them better then they should have been.

The old saying stays true...There is no bad student, only a bad teacher.

How hard can it be to teach the brilliant. Of course we are assuming you are a teacher of normal capacity. However, maybe you are up there with the great and should only work with the great since your talent at teaching is at such a High level that it would be a waste of your talent to teach kids of lesser abilities. That is a possibility.

Then again, why would a man of such talent be wasting his precious time asking really simple questions to a bunch of uneducated pianists and teachers that roam this forum.

Makes you wonder.

He must work for the American School System.

That is one of the dumbness things I have ever heard.

First of, there are very very few untalented kids.
Second there are very very very very few talented kids.
Those in the middle(most of the world) can learn with proper teaching and environment. A good teacher will even make them better then they should have been.

The old saying stays true...There is no bad student, only a bad teacher.

How hard can it be to teach the brilliant. Of course we are assuming you are a teacher of normal capacity. However, maybe you are up there with the great and should only work with the great since your talent at teaching is at such a High level that it would be a waste of your talent to teach kids of lesser abilities. That is a possibility.

Then again, why would a man of such talent be wasting his precious time asking really simple questions to a bunch of uneducated pianists and teachers that roam this forum.

Makes you wonder.

What I mean by "talented" kids is kids with a quick understanding, no motoric problems, and willingness to work. From there I have a chance to develop them. Indeed most kids I have lack musicianship anyway but this is the interesting part of the job.
So, I exaggerated claiming that my kids are talented. But when I read the content of the other posts (playing with one finger, cant read the notes....), I think they can indeed be considered as super-talents. Actually they are just normal kids able to follow piano lessons. I dont ask that much really.
No bad student.... in which world are you actually living ? the world described days in and out on TV, that kids are always right and their educators always wrong, that kids know as much or more than adults.
Indeed I completely disagree. In my opinion it is very necessary before starting to learn the piano to accept that the teacher knows more than you.
It s funny that you all assume on this forum that I am a bad teacher. Come here and listen to my kids, and you will change your mind. Only the result counts.

[rlefebvr]

That is the first reply that you have given that is not full of contempt and is not insulting and your message came across very nicely.

"the world described days in and out on TV, that kids are always right and their educators always wrong, that kids know as much or more than adults. "

I agree with you here that the lack of respect is a problem in today's society.

As far as one finger playing, if you read Monks first post before this all got out of hand you will notice he is just giving another possibility to get away from the fingering method. I think we all assumed this was for very very early beginner students and it might be a useful technical for a couple of lesson just to get the student going.

I doubt very much Monk would even use such a method. It was just a possible suggestion.

Hope we are starting to clear up this thread and you will continue your input in a positive informative manner without resulting in insults. I doubt that was your original intent anyway, but the written word often gets you into trouble as you have already noticed.