Who else uses Nikolaieva and Mylich ?

[kulahola]

By reading the posts on this forum, I get the feeling that most of you use pointless methods such as Alfred, Bastien, instead of teaching music and proper pieces composed by decent composers.
It s quite appalling if it s really the case.
Do you really think that Kissin learnt with Bastien ?

I personally stick to the methods I was taought with as a child and which are still in use in Eastern Europe countries.

They are great methods since all the pieces, even in the most beginner level, are truly beautiful and thus are a true initiation to music.

The difference between me and you might be that I dont teach piano only, I teach music. There is a big difference of approach. If the only piano pieces existing were the Alfred and Bastien pieces,I believe I would never have been interested in playing the piano.

Teach miniatures by Gretschaninov, Dvarionas, Glinka instead ! Studies by Nikolaiev, Schitte !

[Hmoll]

Kulahola,

Is there any way you could try to be nicer in your posts?
There are ways of framing questions that do not presuppose your superiority.

For example: "Does anyone use Nikolaieva and Mylich? I find that they are useful because they combine a disciplined technical regime with actual repertoire even in the earlier stages." - as contrasted with - "I use Nikolaieva and Mylich, which is a lot better than the stupid pointless methods you other teachers try to pawn off to your slacker students."

Just a thought. How you frame your questions have a lot to do with how your ideas are received. After all, if you didn't care about that, why are you posting here anyway?

Sorry but you sound too much like a one-note-Johnny.

[ivoryplayer4him]

By reading the posts on this forum, I get the feeling that most of you use pointless methods such as Alfred, Bastien, instead of teaching music and proper pieces composed by decent composers.
It s quite appalling if it s really the case.
Do you really think that Kissin learnt with Bastien ?

I personally stick to the methods I was taought with as a child and which are still in use in Eastern Europe countries.

They are great methods since all the pieces, even in the most beginner level, are truly beautiful and thus are a true initiation to music.

The difference between me and you might be that I dont teach piano only, I teach music. There is a big difference of approach. If the only piano pieces existing were the Alfred and Bastien pieces,I believe I would never have been interested in playing the piano.

Teach miniatures by Gretschaninov, Dvarionas, Glinka instead ! Studies by Nikolaiev, Schitte !

Are there books by these people you are talking about?  I couldnt find them on the internet...i'm really actually interested in finding some with more quality then Alfred's.  That is currently what i'mk using, aside from some of my own teachings.  GIve me a name of some books i could order, or tell me why i'm not finding them on the internet. Please

[monk]

I teach jazz piano at a German music university, kulahola.

And I must say that the Russian piano students are very often the best students.

BUT: They are also exceptionally often mentally ill. Very many of them are disciplined at the piano, but lack important other human abilities. They simply often are unhappy, internally disrupted people.

And that - besides other causes - is caused by a very unbalanced, one-sided, blinders-wearing lifestyle. Caused by unbalanced, one-sided, blinders-wearing parents and teachers.

I prefer students that are a tad less proficient at the piano but know how to live a satisfying life.

Best Wishes,
Monk

[Hmoll]

I teach jazz piano at a German music university, kulahola.

And I must say that the Russian piano students are very often the best students.

BUT: They are also exceptionally often mentally ill. Very many of them are disciplined at the piano, but lack important other human abilities. They simply often are unhappy, internally disrupted people.

And that - besides other causes - is caused by a very unbalanced, one-sided, blinders-wearing lifestyle. Caused by unbalanced, one-sided, blinders-wearing parents and teachers.

I prefer students that are a tad less proficient at the piano but know how to live a satisfying life.

Best Wishes,
Monk

That sort of begs an important question. There are an awful lot of people who go through that - as you say - blinders-wearing type of training. Are the few who go through that, and actually develop into artist become artist because of that training or despite that type of training?

That is why exchange of ideas is important.  

There is not doubt that studying piano can be a great way for kids to learn discipline, and the fact that you can only accomplish something meaningful through hard work.  It's not very useful if that message is so one-sided that the joy and love for music is sucked out of students.

[monk]

It's obvious that they become great piano players BECAUSE of that training.

And they love music (in most cases).

What I wanted to point out that a life is worth little in which one part is developed into monstrous dimensions and other parts suffer.

If you manage to practice 8 hours a day and be a positive and socially competent human being, it's fine. But just that isn't the case with many of the Russians. They even have their own corner in the cafeteria where they sit together, smoking and looking tired and depressive. While students e.g. from US, Scandinavia or Asia almost always happily mingle with the German students.

Best Wishes,
Monk

[kulahola]

Are there books by these people you are talking about?  I couldnt find them on the internet...i'm really actually interested in finding some with more quality then Alfred's.  That is currently what i'mk using, aside from some of my own teachings.  GIve me a name of some books i could order, or tell me why i'm not finding them on the internet. Please

Indeed they are unfortunately unavailable over the internet. But if you go to Russia you ll find them at every corner and they are amzingly cheap. I should mayeb set up a business ?
they are also available in Helsinki in the Sibelius Academy shop.

[kulahola]

It's obvious that they become great piano players BECAUSE of that training.

And they love music (in most cases).

What I wanted to point out that a life is worth little in which one part is developed into monstrous dimensions and other parts suffer.

If you manage to practice 8 hours a day and be a positive and socially competent human being, it's fine. But just that isn't the case with many of the Russians. They even have their own corner in the cafeteria where they sit together, smoking and looking tired and depressive. While students e.g. from US, Scandinavia or Asia almost always happily mingle with the German students.

Best Wishes,
Monk

For once, I agree with you about the description that you make of Russians. But what does it have to do with my primary question. Yuo mean they would be happier if they had been taught with Alfred instead ?I believe melancholy goes together with the Russians. Otherwsie how could Rachmaninov have written such music ? Horowitz was very depressed too. I believe Kissin has Asperger. I think there is a point in that playnig the piano so many hours a day causes psychological problems. But again, what does this have to do with my primary question.

[monk]

I think there is a point in that playnig the piano so many hours a day causes psychological problems.

Yes, Kulahola, and exactly because of this I find it O.K. when the piano students are a bit lazy and just want to enjoy life in their spare time. And I find it O.K. when they want to play some crap piece they like (and I not).

Because I love HUMANS more than MUSIC!
Because the sanity and happiness of people is WORTH MORE than the 158778699465623th perfect rendition of Liszt's B minor sonata. Period.

Best Wishes,
Monk

[Saturn]

Yes, Kulahola, and exactly because of this I find it O.K. when the piano students are a bit lazy and just want to enjoy life in their spare time. And I find it O.K. when they want to play some crap piece they like (and I not).

Because I love HUMANS more than MUSIC!
Because the sanity and happiness of people is WORTH MORE than the 158778699465623th perfect rendition of Liszt's B minor sonata. Period.

Best Wishes,
Monk

Wow!

If only more teachers (or people in general) thought like this.

I really respect you, man (and wish I could take lessons from a teacher like you).

- Saturn

[xvimbi]

Wow!

If only more teachers (or people in general) thought like this.

I really respect you, man (and wish I could take lessons from a teacher like you).

- Saturn

Cheeze! For once, I got to side with Kulahola here. I think it's a bit questionable to respect someone, because he allows his students to be lazy and focuses more on a holistic teaching approach, and not respect someone, because she is strict with her students. A priori, there is nothing wrong with either approach. The problem is to find what approach is the right one for a given student.

In ANY activity - not just piano playing, but chess, biochemistry, marathon, climbing, etc., if one wants to excel, one practically has to devote one's entire life to it. No slacking, no "playing crap". One needs to have complete focus, or in other words, one must wear blinders and be unbalanced, and one will develop psycological problems. It's inevitable. In such a case, a teacher who lets you slack is utterly worthless and would not deserve any respect.

On the other hand, if someone likes to learn the piano for fun and doesn't have the desire to become a world-class performing artist, s/he should find a teacher who lets them be lazy. Most teachers are quite happy with that, because they know that playing the piano is not the primary goal in these people's lives. In this case, there is nothing wrong with using Alfred or Bastien, and teachers are free to devote their time to make the students "happy".

Respect deserves who does the "right" thing. The same thing can be right in one case and can be wrong in another. It's all relative, therefore, respect is relative!

[Saturn]

xvimbi, I agree with some of what you said, but not all.

But as for you calling "cheeze" on my respect, I can only conclude that you misinterpreted both monk's post and mine.  You said this:

For once, I got to side with Kulahola here. I think it's a bit questionable to respect someone, because he allows his students to be lazy and focuses more on a holistic teaching approach, and not respect someone, because she is strict with her students.

First, I doubt monk allows his students to be lazy.  I don't know him personally, but I can gather that based on his posts to the forum.  For instance, see his resonse to the "I'm lazy" thread here:
https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=stud;action=display;num=1087468817
He merely allows his students to be "lazy" in the sense that he does not require them to be machines which only practice all day and have only a single goal.

Second, notice that in my post, I didn't say I respect him because he allows his students to be lazy.  This would be very stupid of me, because there are thousands of teachers who allow their students to be lazy, which largely results in the acceptance of mediocrity.  The reason I respect monk is because he genuinely cares for his students.  This is, in my mind, something very worthy of respect.

Also, I completely disagree with this here:

In ANY activity - not just piano playing, but chess, biochemistry, marathon, climbing, etc., if one wants to excel, one practically has to devote one's entire life to it. No slacking, no "playing crap". One needs to have complete focus, or in other words, one must wear blinders and be unbalanced, and one will develop psycological problems. It's inevitable. In such a case, a teacher who lets you slack is utterly worthless and would not deserve any respect.

Are you saying that one who wants to excel should dedicate himself blindly to that activity at the expense of all else, even his well-being?  Wow!  If a student were so silly as to do this, the BEST thing the teacher could do is to make the student realize there is more to life than being the best piano player in the world.  Of course, one must be dedicated and focused to excel; this is a given.  But why do musicians excel to the point of greatness?  Is it because they want to sell cd's, or because they want to be discussed and revered by students who post on online piano forums?  No, it's because they love music (I hope).

Excellence does not necessarily imply the development of psychological problems.  And if it did, what would be the point of it (excellence)?  What if the student decides to dedicate himself completely to excelling in the piano, and then he incurs a Repetitive Stress Injury, or has one arm severely (and permanently) injured in a car accident?  Since there's no chance he can excel in what he focused himself on, is there no longer purpose for his life?  Is he ruined?

At that sort of crisis, the student will realize what a fool he was for limiting himself.

Also, one minor thing.  I'm not being nitpicky here, but your use of "a priori" is not correct.  "Per se" would be better.  I don't care about this kind of thing, because the meaning was clear, but I thought you'd like to know it anyway.

- Saturn

[monk]

To be clear here:

I ONLY said that I don't demand something from a student that diminishes his sanity and happiness.

And Kulahola herself admitted that certain strict teaching and practicing methods DO with high probability diminish the sanity and happiness of the students. Their health is sacrificed for some dubious musical goal.

That's analogous to some economic phenomenons where in order to make money and gain power, employees are exploited (and often they themselves agree to be exploited).

I say NO to everything where something abstract (like money or "artistic musicianship") is being assigned a greater value than the condition of humans!

And I think anyone who has some kind of compassion toward his fellow men will think and feel similarly.

Best Wishes,
Monk

[xvimbi]

xvimbi, I agree with some of what you said, but not all.
First, I doubt monk allows his students to be lazy.

Well, I took this directly from his own statement above.

Let me be clear also: I like Monk's approach. It is exactly how I would do it. All I'm saying is that the approach depends on the goals and the expectations of the student. What is good for me and my goals might be entirely useless for somebody else.

Second, notice that in my post, I didn't say I respect him because he allows his students to be lazy.  This would be very stupid of me, because there are thousands of teachers who allow their students to be lazy, which largely results in the acceptance of mediocrity.  The reason I respect monk is because he genuinely cares for his students.  This is, in my mind, something very worthy of respect.

Good we cleared this one up. I am completely with you.

Are you saying that one who wants to excel should dedicate himself blindly to that activity at the expense of all else, even his well-being?

What I said is, if you want to become world-class in anything, one must (not should), must dedicate all efforts towards this goal. This is a given in today's world. Look at athletes, scientists, artists, business people. The consequence of that is that one has to go through life with blinders, because no distractions are allowed. I am not saying that I want to do that, but for most people, that's the only way to get to the top.

Wow!  If a student were so silly as to do this, the BEST thing the teacher could do is to make the student realize there is more to life than being the best piano player in the world.  Of course, one must be dedicated and focused to excel; this is a given.  

I'm sure people would take offense to be called "silly" just because have the goal to become world-class in something and dedicate their life to it.

But why do musicians excel to the point of greatness?  Is it because they want to sell cd's, or because they want to be discussed and revered by students who post on online piano forums?  No, it's because they love music (I hope).

They probably start out playing music because they like it, realize that they are so good that people would pay money to hear them, finally realize that they can play the same Chopin nocturnes every five years, put them on CD, and people will still buy them.

Excellence does not necessarily imply the development of psychological problems.  And if it did, what would be the point of it (excellence)?

There is a very good correlation between truly world-class performance and psychological problems, for one reason or another. There are of course some exceptions, but I believe it's inevitable, because getting to the top means making severe social sacrifices. Many outstanding individuals have problems to start out with, so there might be a mutual relationship.

The point of excellence? Hmm. You have to ask the individuals who are so ego driven that they think they need to excel nor matter what; or perhaps, you need to ask society why they admire excellence so much that people would go through all this.

What if the student decides to dedicate himself completely to excelling in the piano, and then he incurs a Repetitive Stress Injury, or has one arm severely (and permanently) injured in a car accident?  Since there's no chance he can excel in what he focused himself on, is there no longer purpose for his life?  Is he ruined?

At that sort of crisis, the student will realize what a fool he was for limiting himself.

Completely true. How many athletes end up with career-ending injuries and realize that all they could do was throwing balls?

Also, one minor thing.  I'm not being nitpicky here, but your use of "a priori" is not correct.  "Per se" would be better.  I don't care about this kind of thing, because the meaning was clear, but I thought you'd like to know it anyway.

I did not intend to say "per se". I was quite specific with "a priori". The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” refer primarily to how or on what basis a proposition might be known. A proposition is knowable a priori if it is knowable independently of experience. A proposition is knowable a posteriori if it is knowable on the basis of experience. The a priori/a posteriori distinction is epistemological and should not be confused with the metaphysical distinction between the necessary and the contingent, nor the semantical or logical distinction between the analytic and the synthetic. Two aspects of the a priori/a posteriori distinction require clarification: the conception of experience on which the distinction turns; and the sense in which a priori knowledge is independent of such experience. The latter gives rise to important questions regarding the positive basis of a priori knowledge.

[ahmedito]

I use Nikolaeva sometimes with begining students, if they are not too young. But I dont dismiss the methods you mention as useless. Everything has its uses, and I assure  you that Nikolaeva and other eastern European methods have huge deficiencies. Especially in this day and age in which a pianist is also required to improvise and do a lot of things in contemporary music that require a more open mind. A teacher must carefully select his methods depending on the particular deficiencies of his students. I go back to Bastian with some students who I fear are getting a bit too stressed.

[kulahola]

I use Nikolaeva sometimes with begining students, if they are not too young. But I dont dismiss the methods you mention as useless. Everything has its uses, and I assure  you that Nikolaeva and other eastern European methods have huge deficiencies. Especially in this day and age in which a pianist is also required to improvise and do a lot of things in contemporary music that require a more open mind. A teacher must carefully select his methods depending on the particular deficiencies of his students. I go back to Bastian with some students who I fear are getting a bit too stressed.

ONE !!! One knowing and using Nikolaieva on this forum!!
I agree that Nikolaieva is too quick, and therefore complete with Myclich for slower or younger students. The first book of Mylich (a series of 5) does not contain hand together and mostly all pieces are 4-hand. And still BEAUTIFUL pieces. Many Ukrainian melodies also.
Improvisation, and other important composers, for instance French are not included in these methods.
Contemporary is. There is some Schnittke, Dvarionas... But I complete of course with other pieces, I am not stuck to any method. Bastien contains more drawings than music and notes are written so big that it takes all the paper space. I dont call that a serious method.Anyway, the most important for me is that my students play beautiful and real music from the start, so that they know why they are learning to play the piano and not only Jingle Bells. If they dont hear beautiful music in the childhood, it will be too late after that. How can you love Beethoven and Chopin if you only heard Bastien all your childhood

[ahmedito]

I hate to disagree, but the biggest flaw I find in most russian methods is precisely what you criticise in Bastian and others.
I find that when teaching younger students (sometimes without a real interest in learning other than in pleasing their parents) recognizable melodies are the best aproach. Suzuki is credited with basing his method in aproaching the unfamiliar with something familiar. A student who has never heard the lovely ukranian songs, or grechaninoff... or whatever usually practices making mistakes without realizing it and isnt really motivated to play for others when even he or she doesnt have a clue to what he is playing. If he is playing something familiar (like jingle bells or ode to joy or whatever) he knows when hes playing the wrong notes and he takes every chance he gets to play for others.
This is part of the reasoning behind newer methods and the reason why I usually dont use Nikolaeva with very small children.

[BajoranD]

If they dont hear beautiful music in the childhood, it will be too late after that. How can you love Beethoven and Chopin if you only heard Bastien all your childhood

I'm a full-time elementary/middle school band teacher, and a part-time piano teacher. I began piano at age 4 with some method that I don't remember, then moved to a new teacher and the Bastian method when I was 5. When I was 10, my teacher started supplementing with the easy Bach and Beethoven pieces. When I was 12, I had to quit (for a variety of reasons), but I resumed piano lessons in college in addition to my trombone major. I am fortunate enough to continue studying with a talented teacher and a great friend, and am working through Brahms, Beethoven, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, Mozart, Haydn . . . and I LOVE music. And I don't mean that in the over-the-top-American way of loving everything, I mean I love it. Deeply, passionately - it makes my heart beat faster and get that floaty feeling. It gives me butterflies in my stomach. Oh, and, by the way, do you recall that I spent my early music education with Bastian? But, see, it wasn't JUST Bastian. I remember my dad sitting in the living room playing Rachmaninoff on the piano. I remember having free access to the record player and a huge collection of classical records (mostly Baroque). I remember going to the symphony regularly. I remember watching my big sister in marching band, and watching my dad sing cantatas (cantati?), and all of us singing together on family road trips.

My point? I believe that any teacher of any instrument who relies solely on one method for their students' musical education is sorely misled (and perhaps a little lazy themselves). I have yet to find a perfect method that simply allows me to teach the book, the whole book, and nothing but the book. Hearing great music played well is every bit as important as technique drills on the keyboard. If a child grows up hearing nothing but Bastian, then that is certainly a failing on the part of everyone involved in that child's life. But how often does that really happen? Playing Bastian and hearing great music are not mutually exclusive. I think any teacher who is truly passionate about music, and not just pedagogy, will transfer to their students a love of the art, an appreciation for the masters, and a desire to play "the good stuff," regardless of the method they're using. Don't get me wrong; pedagogy is, of course, important, and passion alone does not a good musician make. But the holistic approach is far more likely to create musicians who grow into adults that still make time to play for pleasure, and parents who think music is important enough to warrant enrolling their own kids in piano lessons, or choir, or band, or orchestra. And for the majority of us who are not teaching in a studio reserved exclusively for Cliburn contest-bound students, shouldn't that be the ultimate goal?

[MrsMusic]

Bravo!(or Brava!),BajoranD. I've been reading this forum every day for a long time but have never posted...until now.  Your comments made me post for the first time:-)

I have been teaching for 30 years and am not locked into Alfred, Bastien, Faber and Faber, Hal Leonard. Russian method books or ANY particular "method" book. They all have their merits.  Your thoughts are very similar to mine. I teach music. Yes, I teach piano, but I teach MUSIC.

My students are all different and their learning styles are different. I do use method books, but when doing so I do my best to mak sure the method book suits the individual student. I always supplement too and my "kids" listen to music here, borrow CDs, go to concerts with me, compose. Whatever it takes... I do it.


I teach students of all ages who will never win a competition, but I have also had big contest winners and students who are currently professional musicians, touring musicians, composers, artists with recording contracts.  Many of my students whose first instrument was piano, now play 3, 4 and 56 instruments WELL. All of them, despite their level of achievement  have foundation and a love and appreciation of music.  

After 30 years I can say that the vast majority of them are still playing the piano, making music and have a passion for it.

Nice to meet you.

[ahmedito]

Bajoran, Mrs. Music

I couldnt agree more!

One of the biggest flaws in newer students, stubborn parents and lazy teachers is trying to find one sure fire method and discrediting all other methods as trash. They don't realize that what the students learns from the method itself is an infinately small percentage of of the total. If this wasnt so, everyone could learn music straight from the book. Id say almost everything that counts in teaching is the quality of the teacher and the environment in which the child is brought up.