essential learning requirements for beginning students

[mcdiddy1]

I know nothing about teaching, so can't contribute much to this thread. What do you think of this though???

I think there are a great deal of good things being demonstrated in the video. I wish there was an interview where she explained her thought process.

But the good things being taught are independence of fingers, an up lifted arch of the finger knuckles, loose relaxed wrist, supported knuckles etc. She also teaching letter names, pitches by singing, rhythm, musical phrasing (short slurs) and demonstrates it the concepts by demonstrating for her student and checking her understanding by having her do it on her hand. The concepts are pretty commonly she is just using a lot of physical touching and moving to teach it.

My main issues is if the student at age 5 really going to retain the information and more importantly know why the teacher is doing what she is doing.  Another issues I have with teaching that way is suggesting that my way of executing the passage is the one correct way and in my opinion creates a dependency on movements of the teacher. The technical execution of the passage depends on your musical interpretation of the music. If you view the music as playful, light and springy then you would want to have lifting wrist movements. If the music is fast and articulate then you would want the wrist still and less active to stay closer to the keys. Even if you disagree with the interpretation of the music/ use of the wrist, it does not discount all the other aspects the kid is learning albeit by demonstration and less verbal description.

[nyiregyhazi]

Check the OP - you're way off base.  If you want a thread on the dynamics of the wrist start one!

If you don't want this thread to involve discussion of the wrist, why did you post a highly dubious critique of how the wrist is used in the video? It's okay for you to make abrasive dismissals on the subject, but not for anybody to follow up on your dubious claims about what is suppsosedly better?

[nyiregyhazi]

My main issues is if the student at age 5 really going to retain the information and more importantly know why the teacher is doing what she is doing.

That the student is young is exactly why this style of teaching makes sense. What better way of getting a student to retain things that giving a chance to experience them? What alternative do you propose for a young student? If the student is "too young" to retain anything, they're just "too young" for lessons. If anything, there's substantial evidence that younger people learn more readily from physical experiences than older people. Look at how gymnasts are taught. I don't understand why anyone would be skeptical about a method that clearly offers something.

  Another issues I have with teaching that way is suggesting that my way of executing the passage is the one correct way and in my opinion creates a dependency on movements of the teacher.

? It creates potential for independence. You have to experience something to go on to do if for yourself. Who cares about the fact that different things work, when a child is 5? Are they going to object and ask to do it their way? There's plenty of time to learn different things later. What matters is that the student experiences things that work.

[mcdiddy1]

That the student is young is exactly why this style of teaching makes sense. What better way of getting a student to retain things that giving a chance to experience them? What alternative do you propose for a young student? If the student is "too young" to retain anything, they're just "too young" for lessons. If anything, there's substantial evidence that younger people learn more readily from physical experiences than older people. Look at how gymnasts are taught. I don't understand why anyone would be skeptical about a method that clearly offers something.

I agree students learn best by experiencing effective movements. But I would venture to say most people learn effective movements without having someone hold their hand and make the movements for them.

There are ways of letting the child discover what works best through controlled trial and error and experimentation. I think gymnastics and piano playing are different in that there is a precise technique to be executed flawlessly  each time while piano playing the technical movement differs from piece to piece a great deal more. I am no gymnast so I am ignorant in that avenue but what I think they have to learn how to balance their bodies in respect to their own levels of weight and balance and that is going to differ from student to student. So even with the precision, the student has to take that concept and apply it is a way that works for them and achieves the wanted results.

 Like I said , I think the content is great and I do believe you should  each efficient movement but I don't like the idea of" spoon feeding"- every precise movement because creates a sense of learned helplessness where the student rely on information rather than teacher lead discovery.

[keypeg]

If this system of teaching leads the child to experience different ways the body can move for doing different things, so that the child has these things in the body, then if the child can go on from there to experimenting and bring these things further, it's good.  If it becomes meaningless choreography, then maybe not.  I have already described seeing students do motions that seemed to have no effect because there seemed to be no connection to the instrument and sound.  But IF you can form some associations through the experience, maybe it's useful.

[mcdiddy1]

If this system of teaching leads the child to experience different ways the body can move for doing different things, so that the child has these things in the body, then if the child can go on from there to experimenting and bring these things further, it's good.  If it becomes meaningless choreography, then maybe not.  I have already described seeing students do motions that seemed to have no effect because there seemed to be no connection to the instrument and sound.  But IF you can form some associations through the experience, maybe it's useful.

I agree. I also think it depends on the kind of student. For a quiet, attentive girl this way of teaching may be learned and be very useful technique for her in her pieces but another student may not want to learn that way. Many students (and parents) are not fans of teachers touching the student . I don't think the way this teacher teaches is necessarily bad, I just have reservations of how successful it will be applied to all students. It would be nice to see the results of the students to see if the technique is more remarkable then students taught in the normal way.

[keyboardclass]

The child is not initiating any motor control patterns hence no learning is taking place.

[nyiregyhazi]

There are ways of letting the child discover what works best through controlled trial and error and experimentation. I think gymnastics and piano playing are different in that there is a precise technique to be executed flawlessly  each time while piano playing the technical movement differs from piece to piece a great deal more. I am no gymnast so I am ignorant in that avenue but what I think they have to learn how to balance their bodies in respect to their own levels of weight and balance and that is going to differ from student to student. So even with the precision, the student has to take that concept and apply it is a way that works for them and achieves the wanted results.

I'd have to disagree here. I think the problem with the piano is individual notes basically sound okay whatever you do. No violin teacher would let a student figure out how to do basic bowing for themself- because the results sound terrible. At lower levels we easily forgive inefficient movements if the overall musical shape is pretty good. But to acquire a piano technique that allows truly high levels of technique and expression requires basic qualities of efficiency. Otherwise this type of beginning hits a plateau, due to the poor foundation. There's no easier way to access efficient movements than to feel them- whether self induced or not. Until then, you can scarcely conceive that they exist. Also, if we're talking about "most people", then it has to be said that most people never acquire a terribly efficient technique at all- never mind by experimentation.

Like I said , I think the content is great and I do believe you should  each efficient movement but I don't like the idea of" spoon feeding"- every precise movement because creates a sense of learned helplessness where the student rely on information rather than teacher lead discovery.

I really think it's the opposite though. Gymnasts don't depend on coaches to manipulate them. Learning that way in the first place does not render them incapable of doing things on their own. There's nothing stopping the methods from being used as a foundation for later independence. I can't think of a better foundation for independence.

[nyiregyhazi]

The child is not initiating any motor control patterns hence no learning is taking place.

Just like bears in captivity (presumably) don't learn how to dance, when trainers move their limbs for them? Your logic just isn't accurate- as can be illustrated by a wealth of counter-examples. If the above stood up, it would also stand to reason that ANY form of physical contact during teaching serves no purpose. That is clearly not true.

[keyboardclass]

If the above stood up, it would also stand to reason that ANY form of physical contact during teaching serves no purpose.

Yeh, right Mr Hyperbole.

[keypeg]

Could name calling and other ad hominem stuff please stop.  Even though we are all able to notify the moderators whenever that occurs, it would be nicer if members resorting to it stopped on their own.  This is unpleasant for every participant, gives us no useful information, and is unnecessary.  Thank you.

[nyiregyhazi]

Yeh, right Mr Hyperbole.

Mr "illustrate a situation that renders your claim logically unsupportable", I think you'll find. If you feel that these movements are worthless in the film, would you like to give a direct explanation of what differentiates between these and any other instances where physical touch is used in teaching? If they are so useless in this context, precisely what makes them useful in other contexts?  What is the difference, please? How could ANY physical teaching be of any use, if what you claimed (as if it were fact) had a trace of verifiable validity? Physical stimulus has a wealth of uses in teaching.

[keyboardclass]

Very little contact is required.  At one point EPTA's Guidelines on Physical Contact (anyone got a copy?) simply stated - none!  The only possible use is in adjustments of static postures such as hand/finger position.  Moving for them does nothing - as I've said, it fails to initiate any motor control.

[fleetfingers]

I had a teacher who did this sort of thing to teach me how to touch a piano and move my fingers, wrists, etc. I was older - took lessons with her from ages 10 to 16. I had thought it rather silly and didn't understand what she wanted me to do. But, you know, eventually I got it and understood what she was demonstrating.

I don't think it'd be fair to watch a video of the student playing independently and judge from that whether or not the method works. The benefits certainly would not come immediately.

You'd also have to be careful not to do this for too long with young children. I was a quiet, little shy girl and this would have bored me after a minute or so. Anytime a child's attention begins to drift, it's a good idea to move away from the activity and on to something else. By all means, spend four and half minutes on it if the child is engaged and attentive. It seemed a bit long to me, though.

[starstruck5]

This teacher has posted quite a few videos of her older students. Just click on the name of the uploader -

To my mind this method is very nurturing, though I can understand why some would think it a bit overbearing -and have technical shortcomings- but to my mind there is something beautiful going on and more good than harm being done. Also I think that all methods have their strengths and weaknesses. I don't think anyone has ever invented a perfect method for teaching everyone.  People are complex individuals.

I remember my first piano lesson as a 7 year old, and the piano seemed very large and alien and intimidating. Personally I would have liked to have been taught this way.

[keypeg]

This teacher has posted quite a few videos of her older students. Just click on the name of the uploader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98AV-A1KlVc&feature=autoplay&list=UUB4jQ5pGoirOIPsPzRfM3wg&lf=plcp&playnext=2
Can the teachers or advanced pianists tell anything from this?

[nyiregyhazi]

Very little contact is required.  At one point EPTA's Guidelines on Physical Contact (anyone got a copy?) simply stated - none!  The only possible use is in adjustments of static postures such as hand/finger position.  Moving for them does nothing - as I've said, it fails to initiate any motor control.

As I already pointed out,  manipulation works for training animals- to perform the same movements independently of further manipulation. For that matter the very same techniques are used to restore motor control after a stroke. Your argument falls at the first hurdle due to these glaring and irrefutable counterexamples. Are you going to deal with this evident falsification of your claim, or are you just going to bury your head in the sand and repeat yourself regardless?

It's one thing to be dismissive of an approach,  but to base dismissal on unevidenced and logically unsupportable claims (that it's somehow impossible for this to offer anything) is a whole other matter. While I believe strongly in improving technique by improving mental conceptions, touch is invaluable. All of the most useful lessons I have had on technique have involved it. If I went to a teacher for technical advice and they only talked, I wouldn't waste time or money on going back to them. There's nothing more useful than touch, when it comes to taking yourself outside of your range of experience.

[keyboardclass]

As I already pointed out,  manipulation works for training animals-

I take it you also advocate inserting a hot needle through your students' muzzles for the control rope.   You've come up with some pretty bizarre ideas in the past but bear training (and I'm not at all interested in what you seem to know about the process) would seem to take the cake.  Relevance???  Who needs relevance? 

[nyiregyhazi]

I take it you also advocate inserting a hot needle through your students' muzzles for the control rope.   You've come up with some pretty bizarre ideas in the past but bear training (and I'm not at all interested in what you seem to know about the process) would seem to take the cake.  Relevance???  Who needs relevance?  

I don't "advocate" anything. I used counterexamples to illustrate beyond doubt that your basis for dismissing the woman's touch based teaching as a "joke" is founded on a false premise that does not stand up to scrutiny. What a tediously predictable manner of response. Nothing to add about the stroke victims who regain motor coordination and control over movement as a result of manipulation (contrary to your invented claims). No, just take the usual path of trolling by pretending that reference to animal training means that I advocate cruelty and focus on that.

The relevance is to YOUR ignorant dismissal of a teacher's methods (which are basically standard to Russian teaching.)  as a joke and to the claims that you plucked out of thin air to support that.

[keyboardclass]

I don't "advocate" anything.

But you do - the crazy change in the direction of motion needing no energy input thing which, as it can't be done, will only add tension.  Also you're advocating a hands on approach which, as EPTA made quite clear, is mostly unnecessary.  Or are you here in your role as the people's champion, taking on - how you put it - those who 'ruin the forum for everyone'?

[keypeg]

Niereghazi and Keyboardklass in particular:
You have been arguing back and forth for several pages whether hypothetically this teacher's method would work according to hypotheses that you each hold.  We now have links to videos where this teacher's students are playing independently, so nobody has to hypothesize about what the results might be.

So again - what about the videos of students playing independently who are further along.  Did the principles taught by touch gel?  Is this playing effective or ineffective, etc?

[nyiregyhazi]

But you do - the crazy change in the direction of motion needing no energy input thing which, as it can't be done, will only add tension.  Also you're advocating a hands on approach which, as EPTA made quite clear, is mostly unnecessary.  Or are you here in your role as the people's champion, taking on - how you put it - those who 'ruin the forum for everyone'?

If EPTA sincerely feels that way, I have far more respect for that woman's approach than theirs. Most likely it's an over-cautious protection against potential harrassment law-suits, by teachers who would sooner put over-cautiousness before quality of teaching. When I had lessons with the Russian president of the organisation, she certainly didn't hold back on using touch. For that matter, neither did your guru Carola Grindea. Anyway, my last post was specifically about the unequivocal (yet spectacularly unsupportable) claim that

"Moving for them does nothing - as I've said, it fails to initiate any motor control."

However, if you want to branch out in the idea that changing direction adds tension, let's deal with that claim too. Again, this is greatly dubious. When the wrist ascends due to a slight forward press of the forearm, the change of direction is not sudden and neither is it a direct reversal. It's like the slight circular action that a violinist uses to change direction of bowing. There's no abrupt reversal but a curved path. Compare that to a wrist drop. You cannot carrying on dropping the wrist forever- so it will be forced to stop abruptly, unless you use such an action to smooth out the stop. I am sorry, but you have it completely in reverse. Without adding the tiny forward press to smooth out the deceleration, you are left with an abrupt stop- just like a car crash. Redirection of momentum is fundamental to avoiding heavy impacts. In films of the teacher's students, I personally see the movement as being exaggerated to unnecessary excess- but this is greatly preferable to an abrupt stop and the inefficient energy transfer that comes from flopping the wrist down during depression.

[nyiregyhazi]

Niereghazi and Keyboardklass in particular:
You have been arguing back and forth for several pages whether hypothetically this teacher's method would work according to hypotheses that you each hold.  We now have links to videos where this teacher's students are playing independently, so nobody has to hypothesize about what the results might be.

I am hypothesing about nothing. I am highlighting the abundant evidence that being indirectly manipulated CAN lead to ability to perform movements independently. The claim that they cannot is utter nonsense and can readily be verified as such. There is an abundance of evidence to contradict it. It's also true to say that you'd be hard pushed to find any respected teachers in the whole of Russia who do not develop technique using a hands-on approach. If you want to see the results of manipulation then look at just about any pianist who was brought up in Russia. The students of one person who uses these broad principle are not the issue. I am debunking a truly ludicrous attempt to write off the value of these approaches altogether.

[keyboardclass]

However, if you want to branch out in the idea that changing direction adds tension,

That's where I stop reading.

As you've asked keypeg - Jingle Bell kid - great!  No tension really. Natasha (Polka) good too.  Amanda (ding dong) seems fine (though fingers to curled for me).  Radetsky March by J.Strauss, Nicholas, 7 is not bad - I like the into-the-keyboard movement for the LH staccato chords but the wrist doesn't quite relax enough afterwards.  Kinda like Clementi, Sonatina, Third movement, Brigita G, 12 - the RH is nice and unforceful, the LH bobbing about is irritating.  Nothing quite screams music though but heigh ho, can't have everything - certainly no children were harmed in the making of them!  Do I have to listen to all 364?

[keypeg]

Thank you, Kbk.  Your assessment tells us that something good is going on in that studio.  This teacher will have been doing a lot of other things, because no good teacher does only one single thing in isolation.  Whatever she does as a whole seems to be working.  But nobody on this board can speculate, by watching a single excerpt of one beginner lesson, whether that teacher's methodology will be effective.

[keyboardclass]

Agree 100% and I added - certainly no children were harmed in the making of them!

[pianowolfi]

Reason?

I'm sorry I can't give you a sophisticated, intellectual, all scholarly, very educated answer, just that I wouldn't for anything in the world change place with that student. It's my instinct, my guts. You have, as a teacher, to give your students room, space to live and breathe, and I try to do that in my lessons, as good as I can. And I feel that this teacher doesn't. Sorry I have no advert videos and I don't need them, my students feel better in private I think, and me too, as a teacher, so you can't compare me to that lady, of course. So perhaps I should better not have said anything. But I did, because that video made me feel extremely uncomfortable from a student's point of view.

[keypeg]

Niereghazi, hypothesis in the sense of "The student who is being taught this way will probably end up with these results." as opposed to observing how the students actually do turn out.

[keypeg]

I'm sorry I can't give you a sophisticated, intellectual, all scholarly, very educated answer, just that I wouldn't for anything in the world change place with that student. It's my instinct, my guts. You have, as a teacher, to give your students room, space to live and breathe, and I try to do that in my lessons, as good as I can. And I feel that this teacher doesn't. Sorry I have no advert videos and I don't need them, my students feel better in private I think, and me too, as a teacher, so you can't compare me to that lady, of course. So perhaps I should better not have said anything. But I did, because that video made me feel extremely uncomfortable from a student's point of view.

That's as good reasoning as any.  Gut feeling, some stated values, and putting yourself in a student's place are not invalid.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm sorry I can't give you a sophisticated, intellectual, all scholarly, very educated answer, just that I wouldn't for anything in the world change place with that student. It's my instinct, my guts. You have, as a teacher, to give your students room, space to live and breathe, and I try to do that in my lessons, as good as I can. And I feel that this teacher doesn't. Sorry I have no advert videos and I don't need them, my students feel better in private I think, and me too, as a teacher, so you can't compare me to that lady, of course. So perhaps I should better not have said anything. But I did, because that video made me feel extremely uncomfortable from a student's point of view.

It depends very much on where the student is coming from. Personally, I never use that style of manipulation to the extent in that film. However, with a young student who is receptive, I see no reason not to. Younger students often need a lot more physical prodding, if you are to to get them moving smoothly and effectively. Every case needs to be judged on its own merits, but I think it would extremely ineffective not to involve at least some degree of this teaching style. The more receptive the student, the more you can afford to involve it. As a general rule, I'd say that the youngest students will the be most receptive of all. Taking a teenager who is not used to this style of teaching would likely require a rather gradual introduction of such methods.

A great deal of this has to do with the student's mindset. If the student is open-minded and serious about learning, most of the ought to discover quickly enough that there are benefits to the sensations they will experience. With a serious desire to succeed, any discomfort will be put aside. When I've been taught this way, if it feels a little odd I don't care in the least, because I know that it is useful. If someone is serious about improving, they will not give a damn about their teacher invading their space (unless the teacher is going about it in a inappropriate fashion that goes beyond teaching). Being taken out of the normal comfort zone is exactly why it is so effective. However, if students just want to get on with playing and will be greatly put off by constant manipulations, it's important to recognise that and pace the teaching accordingly.

Ultimately, though, I sincerely believe that for any student who has serious desire to further their technique, there is nothing more useful. You have to be willing to face up to things that initially take you out of your comfort zone, if you are to make serious progress beyond. Without pushing yourself into new experiences, you inevitably just continue to do whatever you are used to. Physical manipulation is the quickest way to expand horizons. While the teacher must respect individual students, there's no more effective way to teach someone who is serious about developing technically.

[nyiregyhazi]

Niereghazi, hypothesis in the sense of "The student who is being taught this way will probably end up with these results." as opposed to observing how the students actually do turn out.

Important as this element is, this is still just one element of teaching and learning- meaning that taking a pool of one single teacher to represent physical manipulation in general is effectively worthless. And I say this despite the fact that the students in the films clearly receive benefit from it and move pretty well. I'm not going to portray a single instance as being meaningful (despite the fact that it could so easily be twisted into supposedly representing meaningful evidence for what I believe). A single instance is only a single instance and provides no scope for observing a meaningful correlation. Argumentative convenience is not going to lead me to make unsupportable conclusions where they are not due.

If you want a wide pool of meaningful evidence for such a hypothesis, look at products of Russian teaching in general- not the students of a single teacher. That is where the compelling evidence exists. This, coupled with personal experience of both using and receiving such teaching, is what persuades me- not the students of just one teacher who works this way.

[mcdiddy1]

I'm sorry I can't give you a sophisticated, intellectual, all scholarly, very educated answer, just that I wouldn't for anything in the world change place with that student. It's my instinct, my guts. You have, as a teacher, to give your students room, space to live and breathe, and I try to do that in my lessons, as good as I can. And I feel that this teacher doesn't. Sorry I have no advert videos and I don't need them, my students feel better in private I think, and me too, as a teacher, so you can't compare me to that lady, of course. So perhaps I should better not have said anything. But I did, because that video made me feel extremely uncomfortable from a student's point of view.

I think another this we have to keep in mind is the video is just mearly a snap shop of a teaching episode of this teacher. What is unclear is how often she teaches this way, the relationship she has with the students, the comfort the students have with the technique and the enjoyment they receive from playing. The barometer can swing from students who feel at ease when they play, enjoy music and enjoy learning in such a hands on manner and a teacher who is warm and friendly to something that is completely the opposite.

I would lean towards the opinion  she may have been over teaching for the camera but clearly controlling every movement is not only how she teaches. The students can play independently, read music, play in rhythm etc. Clearly this teacher has a specific tone in mind and is very specific in how she delivers information. Just because the method is different does not mean it is ineffective or uncomfortable for the student. In fact her teaching is loaded with information which the student may feel comfortable being lead in a very specific way.

That being said what is unknown is the number of students this way did not work for and if the videos are only the carefully selected best of the best who would have learned just as well in another way of teaching. I think it is difficult to judge a teaching method because every student is going to come away with some kind of technical deficiency. If a student is efficient in their movements, musical playing, knows how to read, and enjoys playing music why squabble over a different pedagogical style of technique of playing?

[keypeg]

Mcdiddy, well put and very comprehensive.  Thank you. 

[pianowolfi]

Yes Macdiddy you are absolutely right. Perhaps I'll have time to watch more of those videos soon and try to express my thoughts about it better and more in detail.

[lostinidlewonder]

.....What do you think of this though???

I like observing other teachers work but this one is very strange and wasting time. Even though it is a small snippet it is a good example of what we should avoid imo.
 
The teacher is lightly supporting the student hand, so it is not like the student cannot move at all, but even asking the student to play while you hold their hand is too restrictive no matter how lightly you hold it should not be done. This is not to say you cannot touch your students playing mechanism at all but if you must do it make it an extremely brief moment, the longer you hold their body the less they understand. This method looks like the teacher is acting as training wheels and does not want to see the student do it completely on their own.

The lesson here much too slow and also extremely boring because there is no teacher student interaction, just a horse being forcefully lead to water. When she is trying to get the little girl to play two notes chromatically she misses key word directions like PUSH DOWN for the first note, PUSH OFF for the next one. Takes a few second to say it and the student will remember it and it will make them play with correct sound thus the technique can be more easily found. Why spend minutes teaching such simple things with ineffective word guidance is beyond me.

I can clearly remember when I was a child (3-5) learning piano and my father would take my hand try to move it, I hated it and it didn't make much sense to me. If I used some muscular movements of my own it would be restricted by the hand that was holding mine and it did not resemble playing the piano even if it looked correct, looking correct doesnt mean that it is feeling correct and the feeling is what the student learns from and remembers. If I totally relaxed I didn't know what I was doing, all I felt was someones hand moving my fingers.

This teacher is teaching out of "A Dozen a Day" which had many pieces of extremely basic level. These are meant to introduce to the student how to articulate (eg: Accents, Legato, staccato) and how to play some of the more simple bulding blocks of music (scales, chords, arpeggios etc). This teacher wants to transfer such exact movements with such easy exercises, it seems strange to me (like trying to squeeze out every last drop of information from a simple piece or trying to get blood from a stone!). It also makes the student think that "Oh is this how I have to do it all the time?" which is of course not the case.

So it is a waste of time and an extremely slow boring lesson to try to make something look correct and masterful when the content is below grade level. A dozen a day can also be played quite musically without perfect technique. I can remember when I was a young child one of my teachers tried to make me play Dozen a Day with flowing movements and I hated her for it and went against her wishes. I thought that making the hand move flowingly looked stupid (and still to this day hate it when I see unnecessary flowing movements). To expect these movements from A dozen a day just takes the cake.

[nyiregyhazi]

The teacher is lightly supporting the student hand, so it is not like the student cannot move at all, but even asking the student to play while you hold their hand is too restrictive no matter how lightly you hold it should not be done.

I think you're missing the intent. The student is being shown the experience of a supportive finger contacting a key. Who said it's supposed to directly train them to move? I believe that you're criticising on grounds that are missing the point. Few five year olds are able to move for themselves into a comfortable and supportive position. It seems pretty clear that the teacher is providing this experience, as a preparation for independent movement, later down the line. It's like how a child starts by learning with stabilisers on a bicycle. Far more useful that they learn with this artificial aid, than be left to attempt to balance on their own from day one.  If we were talking about ten year old, I might share your concerns, but this is a five year old. What better time to set sensory foundations, before later going on to inspire independent thought?

This is not to say you cannot touch your students playing mechanism at all but if you must do it make it an extremely brief moment, the longer you hold their body the less they understand.

I disagree. Some of the most useful lessons I have had have involved near constant physical touch- not as a child but in my late 20s! It provided totally new sensations. Having my finger moved into a key for me made me realise just how efficiently sound can be produced- and gave me the EXPERIENCE of doing so, not just a description of how I'm supposed to do it. This can be remarkably helpful. The effect on the nervous system that comes from manipulation is huge. Just try a one on one functional integration lesson with a Feldenkrais practitioner. Your whole body will feel different after. I don't think this style of teaching should be casually dismissed.

[keyboardclass]

I can clearly remember when I was a child (3-5) learning piano and my father would take my hand try to move it, I hated it and it didn't make much sense to me. If I used some muscular movements of my own it would be restricted by the hand that was holding mine and it did not resemble playing the piano even if it looked correct, looking correct doesnt mean that it is feeling correct and the feeling is what the student learns from and remembers. If I totally relaxed I didn't know what I was doing, all I felt was someones hand moving my fingers.

In a nut shell!

[lostinidlewonder]

I think you're missing the intent.

I don't think so and you have not highlighted one iota how I have missed anything RELEVANT.

I disagree.

Good for you.

Now go away

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't think so and you have not highlighted one iota how I have missed anything RELEVANT.
Good for you.

Now go away

I made my post entirely in the spirit of the topic. I am sorry if you are unable to reciprocate in the same spirit.

Regarding the subject, what I pointed out that you had missed is that it prepares a position and a balance. Your dismissive appraisal speaks only of the restrictions to movement- completely ignoring this particularly significant issue (which is more than an iota). In short, your dismissal is founded upon criticising the method with reference to things it does not necessarily claim to even provide and failing to acknowledge so much as the very existence of the things it can clearly contribute towards (in a truly substantial fashion).

If you want to respond in the spirit of the subject, then by all means do, but I have no interest in anything outside of it.

[lostinidlewonder]

you have not posted in the spirit of this thread at all. You are debating again, and uselessly. You are attemping to show how i am mistaken, but you fail to present a stance of your own which proves that  i am mistaken. So you lose.  If you want to contribute without attemping to tear down others, do so, but you cannot, and merely post useless rambling once more.     Go away. People of pianostreet do not want you to constantly hijack threads with you trying to show how people are mistaken. weak.

[nyiregyhazi]

you have not posted in the spirit of this thread at all. You are debating again, and uselessly. You are attemping to show how i am mistaken, but you fail to present a stance of your own which proves that  i am mistaken. So you lose.  If you want to contribute without attemping to tear down others, do so, but you cannot, and merely post useless rambling once more.     Go away. People of pianostreet do not want you to constantly hijack threads with you trying to show how people are mistaken. weak.

I am not interested in a debate about debate. I'll simply state that if you write a damning critique of something, your critique is open to response. If you are not open to having your views scrutinised, I'd advise you not to indulge in such harsh and closed-minded criticisms of teaching methods. Public criticisms are not protected from public criticism. You tear apart this teacher and then have a go at me for having the audacity to write a perfectly civil and topical defence of her method (and accuse me of doing the tearing)?

I'm interested in two-way debate, but if you are not going to follow up on the points I made (rather than try to generically shout down my right to defend a fine example of teaching against a post that totally missed the point of what it was doing) there is no scope for two-way discussion.

This will be my final post on the subject of debate. I'm happy to debate the methods in the film, but otherwise I'm done here.

[lostinidlewonder]

... if you write a damning critique of something, your critique is open to response.

Yes it is open for critique, but saying someone is mistaken then offering no evidence which proves they are wrong (just rattling an example of a different stance does not prove that what I say is wrong) is unhelpful criticism.

You have no responsibility to prove people are wrong in your mind (and many many of your posts usually start with the stance that the person you are quoting is mistaken). I think many people are wrong in many threads but I don't quote them and try to show how wrong they are. You tend to do that a lot and it will eventually leave you with no one to talk with here. Sugar catches more flies than vinegar.

[nyiregyhazi]

Yes it is open for critique, but saying someone is mistaken then offering no evidence which proves they are wrong (just rattling an example of a different stance does not prove that what I say is wrong) is unhelpful criticism.

Perhaps you might reference that with your appraisal of the video?

I made my points quite clear, but I'll reiterate them once again if I must. Would you like to address them this time, or will you just deny their existence? I'll state them one last time, but if you're not going to make a specific response this time, this is a total waste of both your time and mine. Productive debate requires following up on points- not generic personal insults and pretence that no points have been made.

You wrote your criticism from the specific assumption that it was supposed to involve the student moving actively. However, it seems quite clear from watching that the teacher is DELIBERATELY doing the movements on the students behalf. If so, your criticism is simply missing the point, due to misinterpretation of the intent. Your criticism is based on very specific and very narrow assumptions about what the lesson is meant to train. It did not take into account other issues. What is your evidence that the assumptions you made are accurate?

In particular, your point about having been moved by someone else when young, and your belief that you learned nothing greatly misses the mark. Your logic is fundamentally flawed. When I recently received a Feldenkrais lesson, I was aware of nothing other than someone else moving me. I only discovered what I had learned when I started moving afterwards- realising that the range of movement in my shoulder was drastically different. I did not at any point think "I get it now, my shoulder can go over there" or anything remotely on those lines. Being moved passively awakens countless UNCONSCIOUS processes. To assume you're supposed to suddenly think- I know, I'll do x now, is to miss the point. You simply cannot know how much or little you learned from these procedures. They do no train analytical thinking- and they are not necessarily supposed to raise ANY conscious awareness! They awaken all kinds of unconscious processes- many of which are ingrained slowly over a long time, unlike the benefits of the Feldenkrais lesson I refer to. It's just not possible to know whether you learned a great deal from this or not. Your account provides no reasonable basis upon which to found casual dismissal of possibility.

[lostinidlewonder]

No where did I argue that her teaching style would teach zero. I argued that it is too slow and what she is trying to teach could be done a lot faster with proper description. I also argued that teaching such exacting movements with pre-grade exercises (A Dozen a Day) is an inefficient approach to teach technique with.

[nyiregyhazi]

No where did I argue that her teaching style would teach zero. I argued that it is too slow and what she is trying to teach could be done a lot faster with proper description.

Yes. I followed up on that by reminding you that the student is 5. Is that one of the points I supposedly never made? Do you have a follow up to that point, or are you just going to repeat the point it was long ago made in response to? If you had dealt with that specific point in the first place (rather than complained that anyone dare to provide a conflicting opinion to your own) we might have arrived somewhere interesting- rather than back at square one.

[lostinidlewonder]

Yes. I followed up on that by reminding you that the student is 5.

How come you know what I forgot?

[nyiregyhazi]

How come you know what I forgot?

So, you are of the opinion that an average student of 5 is better trained with abstract descriptions? If I had a five-year old, I'd send them to a teacher who works like the woman on the video, without a shade of doubt. It's too young for any hope of rational explanations helping anyone. You'd basically be depending on pure talent- unless you teach them how to feel a hand that supports and balances well with minimal physical effort. Which is exactly what that woman is training the kid to sense. I'm not sure if you realise, but this approach is basically standard to the Russian piano school.

[lostinidlewonder]

So, you are of the opinion that an average student of 5 is better trained with abstract descriptions?

A mixture of description and demonstration. You may support the students hand by touching it but not as much as this teacher was doing. For instance if a beginner student needs to be reminded to keep their wrist higher you may support their wrist, I usually do it with a pencil. You can hold these positions while they play without too much obstruction. But to try and control the entire hand mechanism while they play is too obstructive. This is not to say they won't learn something but the rate at which they learn is inefficient.

I am still constantly suprised how colorful the imagintion of a young child can be, they can describe movements at the piano extremely well if you give them the opportunity and confidence to do so. I taught music at kindergardens and primary schools along side also youngsters from my own school. As musical educators we are encouraged to inspire young students to think creatively, describing actions at the piano is full of wonderful ways in which you can train this.

For instance a young student of mine commented on combination of fingers, he said 13 is flicking and 12 is pinching. Which I thought was a great way in seeing it.

[nyiregyhazi]

A mixture of description and demonstration. You may support the students hand by touching it but not as much as this teacher was doing. For instance if a beginner student needs to be reminded to keep their wrist higher you may support their wrist, I usually do it with a pencil. You can hold these positions while they play without too much obstruction. But to try and control the entire hand mechanism while they play is too obstructive. This is not to say they won't learn something but the rate at which they learn is inefficient.

When I read this, the paragraph you wrote before springs immediately to mind:

"Yes it is open for critique, but saying someone is mistaken then offering no evidence which proves they are wrong (just rattling an example of a different stance does not prove that what I say is wrong) is unhelpful criticism."

What is your basis? What evidence do you have for being quite so dismissive in quite such a concrete fashion? To speak of obstruction is simply to reiterate the assumption you made earlier. Nobody said the child is supposed to be moving. Simply being aligned and moved passively is something that there is plenty of science to support the benefits of. The senses learn a huge amount from BEING moved- so to speak of obstruction to the movement continues to miss the point. These methods regularly involve the teacher doing the movement on the student's behalf. There's no obstruction, because the student is supposed to FEEL- not do! You are just making the blanket statement that it's not helpful, with zero evidence. I really think you should practise what you preached in that paragraph- and provide some argumentative substance. Skepticism is one thing, but your entire dismissal is based on unevidenced assertions stated as if they were fact.

What puts you in a position to be so certain in your dismisiveness- rather than to say "I'm highly skeptical"?

[lostinidlewonder]

When I read this, the paragraph you wrote before springs immediately to mind:

"Yes it is open for critique, but saying someone is mistaken then offering no evidence which proves they are wrong (just rattling an example of a different stance does not prove that what I say is wrong) is unhelpful criticism."

What is your basis? What evidence do you have for being quite so dismissive in quite such a concrete fashion? To speak of obstruction is simply to reiterate the assumption you made earlier. Nobody said the child is supposed to be moving. Simply being aligned and moved passively is something that there is plenty of science to support the benefits of. However, you are just making the blanket statement that it's not helpful, with zero evidence. I really think you should practise what you preached in that paragraph- and provide some argumentative substance. Your entire dismissal is based on unevidenced assertions stated as if they were fact.

Unfortunately (for you) your use of my own words against me doesn't work.

You asked me what is my opinion so I gave it. My quote does not need to be proven. I have the right to post my opinion and leave it as that. I have no need to post a case study of all my hundreds of young students in the past 20 odd years to prove the point.

The person who posted that video also asked for an opinion, not asking for evidence to prove a stance.

You however quoted me and said I was mistaken. So the onus is on you to prove how I am mistaken otherwise your critique lacks anything constructive. The reason why I suggested you to stop quoting me and debating (in several threads now), just speak on your own terms.