For Bernhard, no skipped steps

[mound]

Bernhard, You've stated numerous times "doing all the steps and not skipping any part of it" - you've said it so many times I think it's safe to assume that this is because it's such a natural inclination to do so. I wonder if you could take a moment to outline what steps people are skipping over and what shortcuts people often take? How exact should the second iteration of a session match the first, considering you'll arrive at the first sessions end point in a shorter time? I'm curious for what I should be on the lookout for in my own work.

thanks!
-Paul

[mosis]

I recall Bernhard once stating that people have a tendency to sight read, HT, the section they practised the day before. This will ingrain improper habits and prevent you from actually mastering the pieces. By not skipping any steps, I think Bernhard means that the second day, regardless of your familiarity with the section, you should master hands seperate again, applying the dropping technique to join hands, et cetera, practice runs in parallel sets with the clustering method (1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 23, 34, 123, 234, 1234), and other nifty practice methods that one would use on the FIRST day to get the passage under their fingers that they then neglect the next day, thereby causing the piece not to be mastered.

I have fallen into this trap many times. One of my biggest problems is that after the first day, I would play the piece hands together again right away, or struggle to join them, instead of applying the exact same routine I used the day before.

If no corners are cut and no shortcuts are taken, the passage is learned faster and better than if those initial steps were skipped.

I'm sure Bernhard will type up a three post response detailing all the whys and hows of the process, but I hope this helps somewhat.

Good luck,

Adam

[Egghead]

How exact should the second iteration of a session match the first, considering you'll arrive at the first sessions end point in a shorter time?

sorry to barge in as well: if you match the first session exactly, step by step, but conclude each step faster, you do arrive at the end point in shorter time. Same as climbing stairs. By concluding a step I mean reaching the same (sub)unit of results.  
What exactly is your question?

I'm curious for what I should be on the lookout for in my own work.

Try it yourself! Unless you are a born saint, the temptation to skip will be overwhelming, and you will know it when you are doing it.
If you ARE a born saint, why burden yourself with all the things that might go wrong?

[bernhard]

Thanks Mosis and Egghead, you saved me a lot of writing.

That's it. Got through the same steps you went through the first day. I canno teally specifiy the steps because they will depend on the piece you are tackling and on your own level. However I have by now given enough detailed examples of different pieces so that one shoud be able to work it out.

(you may also notice that it is the more specific questions that get the most useful answers ).


Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[mosis]

No problem Bernhard.

I asked a really specific question in this thread:

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=stud;action=display;num=1097261089

Check it out, will ya?

Thanks,

Adam

[mound]

you may also notice that it is the more specific questions that get the most useful answers

Yes, thank you all. The question lacked specificity on purpose. I had read so many places Bernhard say "no short cuts, no skipped steps", as I said in my post, I assumed you reiterated this so many times over because it was something you were so used to seeing students do in general. If it was something you were so used to seeing, I thought perhaps you could outline what you were seeing students skip, generally speaking, not related specifically to any piece of music, but more to the process in general.  

Are folks simply sight reading the second time through?  Are they skipping the practice of the associated scale? Are they adding measures that were not a part of the session the day before? General perceptions like that is all I was looking for.  "How would I subconsciously expedite the process to my demise?"

the temptation to skip will be overwhelming, and you will know it when you are doing it.

That is exactly my fear, that I won't know or realize it when I'm doing it, which is why I asked, so I would be aware, before the fact, of common pitfalls I might try to avoid, that's all  

I do think the others answered it adaquately.  

thanks!
-Paul

[Egghead]

I do think the others answered it adaquately.

And I thought we aim for perfection.

Yes, thank you all. The question lacked specificity on purpose. I had read so many places Bernhard say "no short cuts, no skipped steps", as I said in my post, ...
"How would I subconsciously expedite the process to my demise?"
...
That is exactly my fear, that I won't know or realize it when I'm doing it, which is why I asked, so I would be aware, before the fact, of common pitfalls I might try to avoid, that's all   

thanks!
-Paul

Hi Paul,

if you think you may not notice what you skipped you could do what pilots (and lots of other people doing REALLY important but repetetive things) do: have a check-list.
Write down the steps on the first day. Do them. Tick them off as you go. Go through the list the same way on the second day. Not for the faint-hearted, though...

Consider yourself a demi-saint if you tick off half the list before starting to engage in displacement activities (some of which you listed already). I guess this is why people PAY Bernhard to practice with them. Oh, the horror.

Enjoy the results on the third day!  

From a demi-semi-saint.

[mound]

And I thought we aim for perfection

err.. I mean, you all answered it perfectly!  

I think I'm on track. I have made sure to keep a checklist, and to write "tomorrows checklist" at the end of my day, at least for now until I get very comfortable with this process.

Enjoy the results on the third day!  

Oh my god, I tell ya, it was like a lightning bolt.  I sat down this morning and played a 4 measure section. Nailed it perfectly the first try! (it's a fast right hand melody thing) . My log from 3 days ago shows it took 20 minutes. The next morning I didn't remember it, but was back up to speed after 6 minutes and I practiced it an additional 5 minutes. Today it was there immediately w/o looking at the score.  I had in fact intentionally contrasted that, by picking another similar section from later in the piece and "did it the old way" -  I spent too much time on it on day 1 ("mastered it" in 13 minutes, played it over and over for another 45 minutes, and then for another 21 minutes in the evening) day 2 I didn't remember it off the bat, got it back in 9 minutes, played through it again but didn't follow the same procedure as day 1, and I added a couple measures before and after it and tried to do a little preliminary HT work with it, 27 minutes worth of work after the 9 to get it back..  Again, repeated it over and over for a half an hour and then again in the evening (didn't log that minute count).  I couldn't pull it off this morning w/o looking at the score even though I had, what, almost 2 hours into it? Whereas the other 4 bar section was just crystal clear with a total of 31 minutes into it. I didn't even have to think about it and it came out even better than at the end of yesterdays practice session. I was really skeptical that 3 days would be all it took to impress this upon me,  but today it became clear to me benefits of this method. I love that it's "scientifically" based (psychology of learning and what not..) I can only imagine the long term impact this is going to have.  

THANK YOU BERNHARD!

-Paul

[mosis]

Oh my god, I tell ya, it was like a lightning bolt.  I sat down this morning and played a 4 measure section. Nailed it perfectly the first try! (it's a fast right hand melody thing) . My log from 3 days ago shows it took 20 minutes. The next morning I didn't remember it, but was back up to speed after 6 minutes and I practiced it an additional 5 minutes. Today it was there immediately w/o looking at the score.  I had in fact intentionally contrasted that, by picking another similar section from later in the piece and "did it the old way" -  I spent too much time on it on day 1 ("mastered it" in 13 minutes, played it over and over for another 45 minutes, and then for another 21 minutes in the evening) day 2 I didn't remember it off the bat, got it back in 9 minutes, played through it again but didn't follow the same procedure as day 1, and I added a couple measures before and after it and tried to do a little preliminary HT work with it, 27 minutes worth of work after the 9 to get it back..  Again, repeated it over and over for a half an hour and then again in the evening (didn't log that minute count).  I couldn't pull it off this morning w/o looking at the score even though I had, what, almost 2 hours into it? Whereas the other 4 bar section was just crystal clear with a total of 31 minutes into it. I didn't even have to think about it and it came out even better than at the end of yesterdays practice session.

When you claim you "nailed" the four measure right hand melody right off the bat, do you mean that you were only able to play the right hand of this four bar section absolutely perfectly? Did you even make the slightest mistake from a slip of the finger, a second guess, nerves, or uncontrollable error, regardless of how audible it may have been? Or could you run it through an infinite amount of times and manage to nail it every single time?

Another to Bernhard,

If you cannot master the passage HANDS TOGETHER practiced at the end of the practice session, does that mean that the passage is too big, or is it acceptable to play the passage completely HS one day, and the next day, after quickly remasering HS, put it hands together? HT playing seems to be the most difficult of all things related to practice, and it seems to be where all of my errors occur.

[mound]

When you claim you "nailed" the four measure right hand melody right off the bat, do you mean that you were only able to play the right hand of this four bar section absolutely perfectly? Did you even make the slightest mistake from a slip of the finger, a second guess, nerves, or uncontrollable error, regardless of how audible it may have been? Or could you run it through an infinite amount of times and manage to nail it every single time?

Yeah, My fingers executed it flawlessly the first time..  yes only the right hand, as that was what the practice session was devoted to. I have not yet worked on HT for this section.  I'm sure if I tried to run through it an infinite amount of times, I'd probably make some flubs. If you read in the thread I started the other day about For Bernard, Chang, approach and the point Bernard discusses further what "master"  means in this context, and it does not mean infinite ability to "flawlessly" execute the passage.  I see though that the last reply in that thread is from you regarding just this, so I'm sure he'll chime in at some point.

The point being, the passage was memorized, I didn't need the score, and I played it w/o flubs.  In 31 minutes of work vs. a very similar passage, not having reached that level of competance in almost 2 hours of work.

If you cannot master the passage HANDS TOGETHER practiced at the end of the practice session, does that mean that the passage is too big, or is it acceptable to play the passage completely HS one day, and the next day, after quickly remasering HS, put it hands together? HT playing seems to be the most difficult of all things related to practice, and it seems to be where all of my errors occur.

Bernhard has touched on this as well in other threads.. Do a search on "37 times longer" I think, is one in which he talked of it. The way I see it, HT is just another practice session. The chunk size should be determined by the "rule of 7" - it will likely be considerably smaller than a HS chunk.  I think this is the theory, I'm just getting started with this process, and have not yet reached the HT stage, so I'll be re-reading some posts of his as well.

-Paul

[mosis]

Bernhard has touched on this as well in other threads.. Do a search on "37 times longer" I think, is one in which he talked of it. The way I see it, HT is just another practice session. The chunk size should be determined by the "rule of 7" - it will likely be considerably smaller than a HS chunk.  I think this is the theory, I'm just getting started with this process, and have not yet reached the HT stage, so I'll be re-reading some posts of his as well.

I would not think the chunk would be considerably smaller. Bernhard has stated the best way to join hands is using the "dropping notes" method, and as a prerequisite, both hands must be mastered to the point where you can play them without thinking of them. Never was it stated that the hand has to be mastered to the point where you can play it perfect right off the bat.

That being said, if both hands of a chosen section have been mastered, why not try to put them together on that day? Next day, one would have to begin the practice by mastering HS again, in order not to skip any steps, but one would ultimately arrive at the same point, would they not?

That is my interpretation of what Bernhard has said, and it may not be entirely correct. This is why I wish Bernhard to reply.

[mound]

Never was it stated that the hand has to be mastered to the point where you can play it perfect right off the bat.

Well, the way I read it, when you go to do a practice session again, the way you determine if you need to "keep it in the rotation" so to speak, is based on if you can play it correctly first thing the next day. If you can't, you repeat the session (no skipped steps or shortcuts). Once you can do it correctly right away, is when you don't have to repeat the practice session the next day.

That being said, if both hands of a chosen section have been mastered, why not try to put them together on that day?

If indeed both HS is mastered, then the first HT session would be a practice session unto itself. Being a different "session" than a given HS session, I don't see why you couldn't do it later that day (or after your 5 minute break). But this relies on HS actually being mastered -

Next day, one would have to begin the practice by mastering HS again, in order not to skip any steps, but one would ultimately arrive at the same point, would they not?

I think what you just said is exactly one of the "gotchas" that Bernhard is saying "not to do" when he says  "don't skip steps or take shortcuts". (correct me if I'm wrong Bernhard) - If the next day, you have to again practice HS to get it back to "yesterday's mastered state", then it is not yet mastered, you are still learning/re-learning it. As such, you should not yet attempt at mastering HT.. "preliminary HT" together work may be in order, but until you're at the point where you play it in its "mastered state" first thing the next day, it needs to stay in the rotation as a practice session which is to be completed in its entirety, no skipped steps or shortcuts - adding HT too soon being a shortcut.

At least this is my impression of the process thus far.  Is this correct Bernhard?

Play on!

-Paul

[Egghead]

I would not think the chunk would be considerably smaller. Bernhard has stated the best way to join hands is using the "dropping notes" method, and as a prerequisite, both hands

That is my interpretation of what Bernhard has said, and it may not be entirely correct. This is why I wish Bernhard to reply.

Very sensible. I shall restrain myself and NOT say anything on-topic.  Do we really want a sticky topic called "what did Bernhard mean when he said..."?
Bernhard: please never loose your right sandal! 

After exegesis come heretics and with them come Bernardo Guis. Only enlightenment and science will ever rescue us. 
Paul and Adam: would you TEST different methods yourself while we are waiting, and report your findings? You both seem pretty thorough and able to experiment.

p.s. the recent HT thread (37times difficulty) is in teaching: https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,3085.msg26964.html#msg26964

[mosis]

After exegesis come heretics and with them come Bernardo Guis. Only enlightenment and science will ever rescue us. 
Paul and Adam: would you TEST different methods yourself while we are waiting, and report your findings? You both seem pretty thorough and able to experiment.

I test whichever method comes to me. However, before starting on practice this week, I would like to know what Bernhard means when he says "mastered." If it is more lenient than I think, I wasted two or three days practising something that has already been mastered. I have about 10 pieces that I have to get through by June, although my teacher says that I can do 7 of them by December if I work correctly.

I would have you all know that my teacher uses most of the methods employed by Chang and Bernhard. He has some inconsistencies, isn't as organized, and believes in slow practice, though. :/ He's still a remarkeable teacher, but I have to adapt my style to his teacher and he has to do the same that we arrive at a happy medium and progress goes accordingly.

Anyway, I will continue practising this week as I have learned. I have time for about 6 practice sections.

Unfortunately, I have yet another question for Bernhard. Let's hope he replies before he is overtaken by our inquiries. :p

Is it necessary to use the same number of practice sessions at all times? For example, some days of the week, I have time for 4 or 5 practice sessions. Other days, I can manage 6 or 7, and weekends I can do 10, 15, you name it. Should I take full advantage of all the time given to me, or should I "adapt for the weakest" and only do as many practice sessions throughout the week as the lowest number I can manage?

[bernhard]

No problem Bernhard.

I asked a really specific question in this thread:

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=stud;action=display;num=1097261089

Check it out, will ya?

Thanks,

Adam

I am working on it.
 

[bernhard]

you may also notice that it is the more specific questions that get the most useful answers

Yes, thank you all. The question lacked specificity on purpose. I had read so many places Bernhard say "no short cuts, no skipped steps", as I said in my post, I assumed you reiterated this so many times over because it was something you were so used to seeing students do in general. If it was something you were so used to seeing, I thought perhaps you could outline what you were seeing students skip, generally speaking, not related specifically to any piece of music, but more to the process in general.  

Are folks simply sight reading the second time through?  Are they skipping the practice of the associated scale? Are they adding measures that were not a part of the session the day before? General perceptions like that is all I was looking for.  "How would I subconsciously expedite the process to my demise?"

Yes, I see it all the time in students in general. I will work with them on a piece/passage using a very structured approach. This means that we follow a number of steps in a specific order, so one leads to the next, and you acquire skills in a gradual manner. In short the practice is not random. However, when left to their own devices, or many times with me watching, students will not follow the master plan, but rather practise in a quasi-random fashion. I truly cannot understand this, since these methods should appeal to the lazy: they take less time, less effort and you do not even need to think (that is, my students do not need to think because they get it all in writing – all they have to do is to follow the steps). Yet they persist in doing it their way.

Chang actually mentions this phenomenon in his book, he calls it the “appeal of the intuitive method” or something like that. And right he is!

A good example is the repeated note-groups routine. I will do it with them, and they will completely master the passage in 20 minutes. However, they seem unable to – on their own volition – to transfer the method to another piece they may be learning by themselves (I try to get them independent as soon as possible). Sometimes I will let them struggle with a simple passage for a couple of months, and then in a single ten minute session with them achieve the results they could not achieve in two months. I point it out to them that for lazy people they like to work a lot, but to no avail.

Basically everyone wants to play the piece form beginning to end on automatic pilot and from memory. Common patterns:

1.   Instead of reading the music when getting a passage wrong, the student prefers to “guess” what the note is by pressing randomly several notes until s/he gets the one that “sounds right” (but is still usually wrong). Everyone tries to avoid reading/sight-reading.

2.   No one likes repeated note-groups even though it is the most powerful method in the bag.

3.   Everyone wants to go hands together straight away.

4.   No one likes to overlap sections – in fact no one likes to do small sections.

5.   Everyone hates repeating sections and are usually dismayed when I suggest that they must repeat something seven times. To them seven times is the most absurd request they ever faced. The usual pattern is to repeat a section the minimum number of times to get a passable rendition of it, and then resent any suggestion that now is the moment to start repeating. “But I got it right!” (after 10000 wrong ones).

6.   Once they get something learned, revolution is in the horizon the moment I suggest that we should go through all the steps we did the day before.

That is the general pattern (there are exceptions of course, I do have a few dream students).

Best wishes
Bernhard

[bernhard]

if you think you may not notice what you skipped you could do what pilots (and lots of other people doing REALLY important but repetetive things) do: have a check-list.
Write down the steps on the first day. Do them. Tick them off as you go. Go through the list the same way on the second day. Not for the faint-hearted, though...

Yes, this is an excellent idea. I call it a practice journal. You should detail in it the way you are learning the piece in great detail. I make several copies of the score and cut the sections I am working on and the way I join them and the tricks I am using. I also write my feelings about it: how hard/impossible it is, or how easy it is, or where I think the difficulty lies. Our memory is notoriously unreliable. If you spend a month learning a piece it is quite enlightening to go back and read your comments. You may be very surprised that you actually felt that way.

Another thing I do is I always put the time I start and the time a finish a session, and I write what I should do the next day. Again, the next day we tend to forget what we noticed needed more working on. So a “what to do next” section is very important. At the same time you should be economical with words (Like me he he ) or you may end up using all your practice time doing the journal. As with everything, the more experience you get the better you get at it.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

Oh my god, I tell ya, it was like a lightning bolt.  I sat down this morning and played a 4 measure section. Nailed it perfectly the first try! (it's a fast right hand melody thing) . My log from 3 days ago shows it took 20 minutes. The next morning I didn't remember it, but was back up to speed after 6 minutes and I practiced it an additional 5 minutes. Today it was there immediately w/o looking at the score.  I had in fact intentionally contrasted that, by picking another similar section from later in the piece and "did it the old way" -  I spent too much time on it on day 1 ("mastered it" in 13 minutes, played it over and over for another 45 minutes, and then for another 21 minutes in the evening) day 2 I didn't remember it off the bat, got it back in 9 minutes, played through it again but didn't follow the same procedure as day 1, and I added a couple measures before and after it and tried to do a little preliminary HT work with it, 27 minutes worth of work after the 9 to get it back..  Again, repeated it over and over for a half an hour and then again in the evening (didn't log that minute count).  I couldn't pull it off this morning w/o looking at the score even though I had, what, almost 2 hours into it? Whereas the other 4 bar section was just crystal clear with a total of 31 minutes into it. I didn't even have to think about it and it came out even better than at the end of yesterdays practice session. I was really skeptical that 3 days would be all it took to impress this upon me,  but today it became clear to me benefits of this method. I love that it's "scientifically" based (psychology of learning and what not..) I can only imagine the long term impact this is going to have.  

THANK YOU BERNHARD!

-Paul

Well, Thank you to you, Paul!

First for trying the method (it is always amazing to me how much people discuss these things intellectually without ever bother to try it out. I guess it is the curse of the intellectual. Intellectuals are those guys who think that “oral” sex means to spend the night talking about sex... )

And second for telling the results.

Now go and spread the good news amongst the heathen!

(Bernhard Witnesses going from door to door converting pianists! What a great idea! )

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[bernhard]

Another to Bernhard,

If you cannot master the passage HANDS TOGETHER practiced at the end of the practice session, does that mean that the passage is too big, or is it acceptable to play the passage completely HS one day, and the next day, after quickly remasering HS, put it hands together? HT playing seems to be the most difficult of all things related to practice, and it seems to be where all of my errors occur.

Yes, it is perfectly acceptable. However you must always have accomplished something at the end of a practice session. If you cannot accomplish anything (for instance by trying to tackle a piece you don’t know form beginning to end) then that practice time was completely wasted. Even if all you can master is a single bar HS, this is all right, because you are getting there step by step. But it is perfectly possible to practice 5 or 6 hours and not get anything done.

So it is important that you are not overambitious. With experience you will soon be able to figure out what is feasible and what is not. But always strive to have mastered something at the end of a session.

HT is a big problem. The three most powerful ways to deal with it are small section work, repeated note-groups and dropping notes. Another way to do it (particularly useful in counterpoint) is to have your teacher playing the RH while you play the LH (and vice versa) because this gets your ear used to it without you having to worry about HT If you have a digital piano with a recording facility, you can record one hand and play it back while you play the other hand.

[bernhard]

I would not think the chunk would be considerably smaller. Bernhard has stated the best way to join hands is using the "dropping notes" method, and as a prerequisite, both hands must be mastered to the point where you can play them without thinking of them. Never was it stated that the hand has to be mastered to the point where you can play it perfect right off the bat.

That being said, if both hands of a chosen section have been mastered, why not try to put them together on that day? Next day, one would have to begin the practice by mastering HS again, in order not to skip any steps, but one would ultimately arrive at the same point, would they not?

That is my interpretation of what Bernhard has said, and it may not be entirely correct. This is why I wish Bernhard to reply.

Yes, it all depends. As I said work towards achieving something. If you achieve something, fine. If you do not than you need to make it easier by either tackling a smaller section, doing HS, outlining, etc.

The size of the passage HT again depends on what you can get away with. For myself, I usually make a difference between baroque music (counterpoint) and everything else.

With everything else, I join hands straight away. Let us say I am working on a Chopin waltz and I have just done half a bar HS. I will immediately join hands. I will not acquire a sizeable section hands separate. Rather I will join hands straightaway after mastering HT on the small section, and join section HT straightaway. That is, I will not do bars 1- 2 HS then HT, bars 2 – 3 HS then HT, then bars 1 – 3HS then HT. I will do bars 1-3 HT without further ado. Of course if it all falls apart, then I may have do go back to HS. But this is rarely the case. In fact usually if there is this sort of problem working some more on Bars 1 – 2 and Bars 2 – 3 HS and HT has better results than working Bars 1 – 3 HS. I believe this is because – for me personally – the LH does not make much sense by itself, it is just a chord progression.

Counterpoint on the other hand is a completely different matter. With counterpoint I will learn and memorise each voice separately, and I will be constantly paling the voices separately even after the piece has been mastered to keep each voice fresh in my mind.

Then there are also pieces that may not be advisable to play HS. For instance, Grieg’s Arietta, Schumann’s Strange lands and people and Mendelssohn’s Song without words op. 19 no. 1 all have a similar structure and form: they have a melody on the top voice, a bass voice and an arpeggiated middle voice that is shared between the hands. I will practise the top voice and the bass voice by themselves, but the arpeggiated middle voice has to be played HT straightaway, since HS will be not only very difficult as it will destroy the flow of the music. In such a case you may simplify it by doing separate voices, but HS may not be feasible. Another piece that comes to mind is the first part of Rach prelude op. 23 no. 5. The best approach there is to outline (that is to get rid of all unnecessary notes) but still keep HT. The second part on the other hand should be done HS. So it depends. The general rule is always: If what you are doing is not working, do something else.


Best wishes,
Bernhard

[bernhard]

Never was it stated that the hand has to be mastered to the point where you can play it perfect right off the bat.

Well, the way I read it, when you go to do a practice session again, the way you determine if you need to "keep it in the rotation" so to speak, is based on if you can play it correctly first thing the next day. If you can't, you repeat the session (no skipped steps or shortcuts). Once you can do it correctly right away, is when you don't have to repeat the practice session the next day.

Yes, that is correct. If you cannot do it the next day – perhaps not straight away but after 4 – 5 repeats – then you must repeat the procedure that lead you to mastery the days before. The procedure got you there once, it will get you there again. So don’t waste time trying to save time by skipping steps. It does not work. The fastest way is simply to repeat the procedure (whatever it was – as I said it will depend on the piece and on the person). Especially because you will get there in a fraction of the time it took you first time round. Again do not believe me. Try it out with two pieces of similar difficulty. This is truly the only way to decide if some great idea will work or if it is just some great idea.

If indeed both HS is mastered, then the first HT session would be a practice session unto itself. Being a different "session" than a given HS session, I don't see why you couldn't do it later that day (or after your 5 minute break). But this relies on HS actually being mastered –

As I said above, it will depend. With counterpoint, I take whatever time is necessary to truly master the whole piece before I even think of joining hands, so yes, HT will be a session in itself and should really come only after the whole piece is mastered hands/voices separate.

But with most repertory, I aim to have the section HT at the end of a session. If that is not possible, then yes, just do another session in the day for HT (provided HS has been mastered – you should never move to HT if you are still struggling with HS).

Also there are pieces that you will be able to do HT straightaway. I tend to do Mozart sonatas HT straightaway for most of the sonata – and only do HS if truly necessary. Also beginner pieces I usually do HT straightaway. And there are pieces I am able to just memorise after sight reading through them. Some styles/patterns come very easily to me, others are a real nightmare. Haydn sonatas somehow never presented a problem. But Bach and Scarlatti require a lot of work – mostly figuring out fingering. Then there are many modern pieces that are very easy to play – but deciphering the score takes a huge amount of time.

Again it is all very personal, and you must apply the general principles to your particular case.

I think what you just said is exactly one of the "gotchas" that Bernhard is saying "not to do" when he says  "don't skip steps or take shortcuts". (correct me if I'm wrong Bernhard) - If the next day, you have to again practice HS to get it back to "yesterday's mastered state", then it is not yet mastered, you are still learning/re-learning it. As such, you should not yet attempt at mastering HT.. "preliminary HT" together work may be in order, but until you're at the point where you play it in its "mastered state" first thing the next day, it needs to stay in the rotation as a practice session which is to be completed in its entirety, no skipped steps or shortcuts - adding HT too soon being a shortcut.

At least this is my impression of the process thus far.  Is this correct Bernhard?

Yes, this is correct. Patience always pays off. A lot of people move too fast to larger sections, while the smaller sections are still full of problems. You cannot fix the small section if it is inserted in the large section. All you will be doing is practising mistakes. This is really like fixing an engine. You must switch off the engine remove the part that is giving you problems, and fix it, and then put it back into the engine and spend some time adjusting it. Trying to fix a piece with the engine running is a very bad idea.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[bernhard]

Is it necessary to use the same number of practice sessions at all times? For example, some days of the week, I have time for 4 or 5 practice sessions. Other days, I can manage 6 or 7, and weekends I can do 10, 15, you name it. Should I take full advantage of all the time given to me, or should I "adapt for the weakest" and only do as many practice sessions throughout the week as the lowest number I can manage?

The bare minimum is three sessions per week. Any less than that and there will be no progress, so you may as well not waste your time.

The more sessions you can manage, the faster you will learn and the more repertory you will accumulate. Now the problem I see with the schedule you described, is that you may end up neglecting pieces. If so the time you invested on the pieces you neglected will have been wasted.

Consider this: On Saturday you have time for 10 sessions. So in each you tackle a different piece. However on Monday you can only manage 6. So 4 pieces will be neglected and the time you wasted on them could have been better used mastering other sections of the other 6 pieces. Does that make sense? So plan your work by referring to the minimum of practice sessions you can do. Let us say it is four. So aim to work on four pieces. On the particular day you can only do four sessions you dedicate one session per piece. You will progress slowly because the section you will be able to tackle will be relatively small. But the day you can do 12 sessions, devote three sessions per piece. On these days you will be able to advance rapidly and cover far more ground. You can also use the 4 session day to play larger sections already mastered and work on musicality, and the other days for the nitty gritty time consuming work.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[mosis]

You must be a Prophet sent from Bach. Thank you Bernhard, for your excellent responses.

You have mentioned "repeated note groups" many times. I don't recall a thread where you have described this. Could you link me to one? Unless repeated note groups are Chang's parallel sets, then I know what they are.

[mosis]

With everything else, I join hands straight away. Let us say I am working on a Chopin waltz and I have just done half a bar HS. I will immediately join hands. I will not acquire a sizeable section hands separate. Rather I will join hands straightaway after mastering HT on the small section, and join section HT straightaway. That is, I will not do bars 1- 2 HS then HT, bars 2 – 3 HS then HT, then bars 1 – 3HS then HT. I will do bars 1-3 HT without further ado. Of course if it all falls apart, then I may have do go back to HS. But this is rarely the case. In fact usually if there is this sort of problem working some more on Bars 1 – 2 and Bars 2 – 3 HS and HT has better results than working Bars 1 – 3 HS. I believe this is because – for me personally – the LH does not make much sense by itself, it is just a chord progression.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

Let me try to understand what you are saying by applying it to one of my pieces:

Let's say I mastered bars 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12 HS. Would I then (or you) play 1-12 HT? Would it not be more economical to learn 1-4 HT, 5-8 HT, 9-12 HT, and then join them all? What if the "dropping" technique is still required? You mentioned that should only be applied to small sections, and 12 bars compared to 4 isn't a small section. 

[bernhard]

You have mentioned "repeated note groups" many times. I don't recall a thread where you have described this. Could you link me to one? Unless repeated note groups are Chang's parallel sets, then I know what they are.

I don’t think they are exactly the same thing as Chang’s parallel sets, although they have several similarities. Anyway, have a look here:

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2449.msg21217/topicseen.html#msg21217
(reply no. 2)

There are several other threads where I described it in different ways and applied to different pieces/passages. However I only have the old links that do not work anymore.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

Let me try to understand what you are saying by applying it to one of my pieces:

Let's say I mastered bars 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12 HS. Would I then (or you) play 1-12 HT? Would it not be more economical to learn 1-4 HT, 5-8 HT, 9-12 HT, and then join them all? What if the "dropping" technique is still required? You mentioned that should only be applied to small sections, and 12 bars compared to 4 isn't a small section. 

Ok.

1.   When working in small sections the most important consideration that overrides everything else is overlapping (this is another thing that for some weird reason people seem not to want to do). So rather than bars 1- 4 bars 5 – 8 and bars 9-12, one should do bars 1 – 4, bars 4 –8 and bars 8 – 12 (say).

2.   Unless this was counterpoint, I would try to complete bars 1-4 HS and HT in the same session. 2nd session bars 4 – 8 HS and HT, 3rd session bars 1 – 8 HT (no HS – it should not be necessary) 4th session bars 8 – 12 HS and 5th session bars 1 – 12 HT. My aim is actually to play the piece as written as soon as possible and do all the minutiae only on the very basic, shortest sections. As soon as I get to larger sections (like the 3rd and 5th session above) the “technical” aspects (things like fingering, speed, movement) should have been mastered and I will then concentrate on the more musical aspects (which really consist of only dynamics and agogics – in the piano there is nothing else you can do).

3.   However you seem to have grasped the general ideas, and now you are worried about the minutiae of the process. These I cannot specify much more. Even If I knew the piece, you may be able to learn it in a slightly different way from me. I might be able to get away with certain shortcuts you may not and vice versa. So the best way – as I said many times – to settle the matter once and for all is to work on two pieces of similar difficulty using both alternative ways of practising. Keep a journal (pretty much like a scientist would) and compare results after a couple of weeks. The results may show that it makes a huge difference or that it does not make that much difference. It may also be that at the level you are comparing now that one person may have excellent results while another has poor results with the same approach. But who really cares how the approach works for other people? It is you who has to play the piano, so only your results matter.

4.   12 bars may be a small section – it depends on the piece. For instance even a complete beginner should be able to learn the first 12 bars of Satie’s gymnopedie in one session (15 – 20 minutes). Then again, 4 bars may be impossibly large – for instance the prelude of Bach’s partita no. 1 I would start with half a bar per session. Then it also depends on the level of the person. Someone who has mastered the basic advanced repertory (Chopin Etudes, Beethoven sonatas, Bach WTC) should be able to learn the whole of Satie’s Gymnopedie in 10 minutes probably without any practice tricks whatsoever, just by reading the piece from beginning to end. In fact I would expect such a person to sit down away from the piano, read the score, and memorise the whole piece from the score, and then go to the piano and play the whole thing from memory, and the whole process should not take more then 15 – 20 minutes. S/he may or may not be able to pull the same trick with a Bach fugue though…

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[mound]

(This post will quote from several of Bernhards above responses)

Instead of reading the music when getting a passage wrong, the student prefers to "guess" what the note is by pressing randomly several notes until s/he gets the one that "sounds right" (but is still usually wrong). Everyone tries to avoid reading/sight-reading.

See, right there, I am guilty! If I've read the score, know the notes, but am "re-learning" the next day, I have done that.. I had no idea that was one of the "gotchas"..

4.   No one likes to overlap sections - in fact no one likes to do small sections.

I didn't either, but now that I've gotten used to it, it makes so much more sense.. No more "stuttering"

Yes, this is an excellent idea. I call it a practice journal. You should detail in it the way you are learning the piece in great detail.

I just started this at the start of this week. Detailed down to the minute, which bars, which hands.. Then I make tomorrow's plan based on today's (though I hope with enough practice at this method I'll be able to plan out a whole piece/month at once)

I make several copies of the score and cut the sections I am working on and the way I join them and the tricks I am using.

That's an AWESOME idea..

Another thing I do is I always put the time I start and the time a finish a session, and I write what I should do the next day.

Oh, so, you don't plan out many days at once? I guess it's OK for me to wait until I'm done with today to plan tomorrow. ?

time you should be economical with words

yup.. my log looks something like:

6:50-7:10 - RH b28-32 +1 (4min)
               - LH b68-70 +1 (16min)


(b = bars, +1 = plus the first beat of the next measure, the minutes is how many I spent working on it.) Though I expect the format to change as I get used to this and figure out what's important. I love the idea of chopping up copies of the actual score and building a log like that.  I almost feel like I should have some computerized chess clock that kept logs where I slam the timer as soon as I'm done! haha.

First for trying the method (it is always amazing to me how much people discuss these things intellectually without ever bother to try it out. I guess it is the curse of the intellectual. Intellectuals are those guys who think that "oral" sex means to spend the night talking about sex... )

Hah! You made that joke elsewhere on these forums didn't you? I have often fallen victim to reading and learning about something for way too long when I should just put them into practice. Kinda like the guy who gradutes from college "knowing everything", storms into a corporate environment for the first time and is quickly put in his place when he realizes he knows nothing.

Now go and spread the good news amongst the heathen!

Yes! I actually have a friend who recently started learning classical guitar. I was telling him about this method and he seemed pretty interested in applying it in that context. (I know enough about guitar to help him apply this paradigm to that, but the actually guitar lessons are up to his teacher, who isn't teaching him about how to practice) I'll let ya know how/if that works. I imagine it should still apply, this is theory of learning, not theory of learning piano.

I tell ya, it still amazes me that with 31 minutes of work I mastered a 4 bar phrase and with 2 some odd hours of work on a phrase that was very similar in difficulty, I hadn't gotten it.. Chang's book talks about "learning 1000 times faster" (or was it 10,000?) - you two should collaborate on something that will be earth shattering!

Again do not believe me. Try it out with two pieces of similar difficulty.

Go ahead and believe him!

But with most repertory, I aim to have the section HT at the end of a session. If that is not possible, then yes, just do another session in the day for HT (provided HS has been mastered - you should never move to HT if you are still struggling with HS).

But how is this possible? Not the end of the "first" session right? If my session size was based upon what I could learn HS, after 7 repeats, how can I possibly master each hand and the joining of them within the same session? Wouldn't that require a considerably smaller section size and what about the nights sleep for the HS work? I'd think you'd have to repeat the HS session each day until each hand was mastered, and then join them as a seperate session. I guess this isn't so?  (for no counterpoint I'm talking..)

Again it is all very personal, and you must apply the general principles to your particular case.

This is actually the most important thing I think.. As you said above, "it is always amazing to me how much people discuss these things intellectually without ever bother to try it out" - I spent a few months reading these forums, then a few weeks commenting and asking questions.. After 4 days of actually trying it, it's clear that it works, and it's more clear that there is no specific answer, I just have to put in the leg work to figure out how it will best work for me.

thanks!
-Paul