Practise slow, how slow is slow för you

[ajspiano]

Does anyone actually physically play that though?  In my, admittedly limited, experience, it's all synthesised or short loop recorded.

Actually yes, they do.. Or at least when using recorded loops, they do record the loops live, then layer up the sounds all within the performance.

There are also rare cases where whole bands play heavily electronic influenced music totally live and make it really worth listening too..(so long as you can handle LOUD )  the one that comes to mind certainly doesn't keep a rigid metronomic timing though..

Also, some electronic artists that don't necessarily produce what you might like to listen to are deep down really genuinely artistic. I acquired a student a couple of months back who is a DJ/producer that works for universal studios, predominantly on 'house' music.. I was forced to re-examine some of my prejudices. 

[j_menz]

so long as you can handle LOUD

I have earplugs. I can handle anything!

Interesting, though. I've actually dabbled a bit with techno and have only ever done the synth thing or used recordings. Interesting that anything recorded after the mid eighties is generally spot on, but anything beforehand isn't.

I was forced to re-examine some of my prejudices. 

I send mine off for a regular check up.

[ajspiano]

Interesting, though. I've actually dabbled a bit with techno and have only ever done the synth thing or used recordings.

I have a friend with a composition degree who now resides mostly in the electronic realm of composition.

He programmed the synth software/midi to alter the temperament in real time, so that he always get perfectly harmonic intervals. The tune has these kind of small pitch slides in it, that create a slightly errie effect, but they are actually tuning alterations to facilitate the upcoming harmony.

..It can be made much more intellectual that it appears 

[j_menz]

..It can be made much more intellectual that it appears 

Just what a largely chemically enhanced audience will appreciate at 4 in the morning. 

[ajspiano]

Just what a largely chemically enhanced audience will appreciate at 4 in the morning. 

Probably depends on the chemical..  Though I don't think they often use the right one in clubs at that hour..

[skibickay]

Maybe I'm a simpleton but I just slow it down until I'm not making mistakes.  Why so much emphasis on bpm when learning a piece?  Someone in this thread says that if you cannot play piece at half tempo, it is too advanced for you.  Not sure I agree with that assertion.

[bronnestam]

Maybe I'm a simpleton but I just slow it down until I'm not making mistakes.  Why so much emphasis on bpm when learning a piece?  Someone in this thread says that if you cannot play piece at half tempo, it is too advanced for you.  Not sure I agree with that assertion.

Depends on how long you have to practice before you can play "half tempo". When I start learning something new, it takes rather long before I can play it AT ALL. If I counted that as "too advanced" for me, I would never be playing anything more advanced than Three Blind Mice. I don't care if you "should" learn to play a certain piece in two weeks, when I need three months.

[timothy42b]

..tim, playing with a metronome does not imply the ability to play in a band.

Absolutely true.  It can be a step on the way though, as it can require listening to and coordinating with external time.  Like any exercise, it can be done wrong.  The inability to play with a metronome very often does imply inability to play in a band - except for those so oblivious they never realize the rest of the band has given up and is just following them.  (They wonder why they don't get called back.) 

And this is especially evident in student pianists who can play fine with a metronome but who when placed with some other musicians kind of go off in their own world completely oblivious to how out of time they are.

Student pianists who actually can play with a metronome might be a bit rarer than you think.

We may be in agreement on one thing - it is worth acquiring the skills to play with others.  That is not a universal goal. 

[timothy42b]

To which music is chained to die.

Perhaps so, but a click track is the norm in session playing, and there is a lot of money to be made that way. 

[j_menz]

Perhaps so, but a click track is the norm in session playing, and there is a lot of money to be made that way. 

As there is in drug running and contract killing. Doesn't make it right, though.

[nyiregyhazi]

Absolutely true.  It can be a step on the way though, as it can require listening to and coordinating with external time.  Like any exercise, it can be done wrong.  The inability to play with a metronome very often does imply inability to play in a band - except for those so oblivious they never realize the rest of the band has given up and is just following them.  (They wonder why they don't get called back.)  

If you're talking about a pop band or a brass band. You can't apply the same premise to accompanying classical songs or chamber music though. If you want to keep repeating something that is intended for a band situation, you need to specify what it's applicable to- rather than portray it as universal.

At the root of your supposed logic, you've missed a catch 22. You only learn to do any adapting in the situations where you lose time and have to adjust. So only going wrong introduces the faintest aspect of adaptation, when working with a metronome. when you become good at it, you're not doing any adapting to anything unexpected at all. In other words, the more successful you are, the less adaptations of any form you make and the more you become programmed onto an unbreakable path (especially if always practising on the same metronome speed rather than working at a range of subtlety different tempos). That's not to mention the fact that the adaptations you need to make to stay with others have nothing to do with a strictly running metronome- which does nothing to emulate the nature of either steady fluctuations or outright breaths.

all it boils down to is that you have to understand what rhythms actually mean before taking freedoms and that you have to have the musicianship to do so effectively. A metronome can aid the former if people are without basic skills but destroys the latter, if you overdo it. To consider it a test of ensemble (rather than a test of whether the background instructions are understood) is grossly missing the point of real musical ensemble. Metronomes can weed out outright incompetence, but real ensemble takes more than not being outright incompetent at understanding what notation means.

[gvans]

Vis a vis classical music, may I interject an interesting notion pertinent to this thread. Sir Charles Mackerras, interviewed on a CD accompanying his direction of the Brahms' symphonies (with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra--a marvelous collection), stated it is well known from various students of Brahms that the maestro encouraged subtle variations in tempo. A broadening here at a lyric passage, a touch of strigendo there at a climactic moment, was all fine with him, and not just where he noted it in the score. He was quite opposed to metronome-like adherence to a fixed tempo in the playing of his work.

As a chamber music pianist who plays a good deal of Romantic music, I find this, while desirable, at times difficult. For one thing, if I don't have my part down cold, the string players find it easier to play fast at their first rehearsals. For them, paradoxically, slowing makes bowing more difficult. Especially with Brahms and his dramatic music, the codas tempt them to accelerate, especially given the information above, beyond what my fingers can handle. I'm thinking of the finales of the B Major Trio, the D minor sonata for violin/piano, the E minor sonata for cello/piano, etc.

For me, the key idea is "subtle" variation in tempo. I have heard too many musicians race for the barn at these codas in a not-very-subtle way, and I cannot hear the nuances of the music. And it feels rushed.

Another interesting bit is that Beethoven, as a young pianist, was reported to slow his tempos slightly at crescendoes and climaxes, a practice listeners found original and effective. (He also used a ton of pedal, but those were different pianos, and that's another thread).

Metronomes, I suppose, can be a useful learning tool, if used sparingly (we use one in rehearsal very very rarely, mostly to settle arguments about unintended rushing), but tempos are fluid creatures that can and should be altered, if done with finesse.

As to session playing with click tracks in jazz or rock--that's another animal altogether. It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.

 

[birba]

That comment on chamber music is so right on!  You really have to have the piece up to speed (and then some!) at the first rehearsal.  The snooty string players are not going to want to do a little slow practising to get the ensemble together.  I remember i did this very difficult chausson piece once, and it was a nightmare.  I  played along to a jorge bolet recording by myself to just get it up to speed.

[j_menz]

The snooty string players

Haha, again? 

Given the generally hard time viola players are given by their colleagues, are there any snooty ones?

[drazh]

painfully slow

[birba]

Haha, again? 

Given the generally hard time viola players are given by their colleagues, are there any snooty ones?

Actually, i've found the violists to be egocentrical but easy to get along with.  I mean, i know these are archtypes i'm talking about, but they generally hold true in my experiences.

[gvans]

Funny thing with string players is, once you get the ensemble going, as they learn their parts, they are willing to give you a broadening here and there, and will even do a Beethoven-esque slowing at a climax -- but never at the first reading. They (in my experience) always want to play lickety-split in the beginning, just the opposite of the poor guy with the pages of black notes on the klavier.

But, hey, I like chamber music. It's social. Cellists are usually wonderfully easy to get along with. Violists--they tend to be wild cards. Violinists, though, are often neurotic or worse (of course, these are terrible stereotypes. Forgive me?). There's rarely a dull moment in chamber music. I based my last novel (OPUS BROOKLYN, pub. date 2014) on a certain violinist who drove me crazy (short trip!) with his bi-polar episodes. You never knew who you would get at any concert or rehearsal. Made things interesting.

I get my revenge through fiction.

[timothy42b]

Actually, i've found the violists to be egocentrical but easy to get along with. 

Of course.  It's the size of their head. 

[birba]

 

[marik1]

When you pracitise slow. How slow do you do it?

As slow as I can follow music idea and correlate it with technical execution.

Best, M

[birba]

YES!!!

[m1469]

DON'T talk to my teacher! 

[birba]

Why? What does he (she) say  about practising slow?

[marik1]

Why? What does he (she) say  about practising slow?

Give m1469 some slack Birba,

She is a lovely human being--I know it from my personal experience. I can see your guys frictions on the board, but after all, nobody can show who (s)he really is over an Internet and those stupid messages on some board... The way you treat a person is exactly what you get back. Show her some respect and I am sure you will enjoy her genuine warmth instead of some brushing answers...

Best, M 

[birba]

I guess i didn't get the gist of her post.  I was truly asking her what her teacher says about practising slow.  If you would read  ALL the posts i've had with her, you would probably intuit what i think of her.  There's certainly no animosity.  There's joking around, pulling legs, playing with ones weaknesses, etc.  But no animosity, believe me.

[birba]

Now i get it.  She was referrng to you as her teacher.  Sorry.  The dense wombat eventually comes around...
But i agreed with  what you said!

[j_menz]

The dense wombat

Wombats don't like that adjective applied to them, btw.



They like to think they're smart.

They bite and can bulldoze a small crowd, so I'm not going to disillusion them.

[birba]

Where do you get all these pictures?!  Or do you compose them?
And like them, i can bite and bulldoze, too.

[j_menz]

Where do you get all these pictures?!  Or do you compose them?

This new-fangled thing called the internet.

And like them, i can bite and bulldoze, too.

I'll exercise appropriate caution. 

[marik1]

If you would read  ALL the posts i've had with her, you would probably intuit what i think of her.   

Exactly what I was referring to... Do not judge and you will not be judged...

Best, M

[birba]

Look who's judging.    certainly doesn't need anyone to defend her.  She stood up to all that controversy against her regarding that competition a while ago singlehandedly.  And i have to say she wasn't swayed one bit by it all.

[marik1]

Look who's judging.   certainly doesn't need anyone to defend her.  She stood up to all that controversy against her regarding that competition a while ago singlehandedly.  And i have to say she wasn't swayed one bit by it all.

No defending at all.

Not that I even care. The previous experience on this particular board taught me quite a bit--not a pleasant experience, have to say... Just every once in awhile lurk and (rarely) login to say whatever I think... whether you like it or not...

No need to elaborate. Just let's stay on original topic.

Best, M

[birba]

Right on.  And like i said, i thought these were words of wisdom regarding slow practise:

As slow as I can follow music idea and correlate it with technical execution.

Best, M

[timothy42b]

As slow as I can follow music idea and correlate it with technical execution.

Best, M

Why? 

[nyiregyhazi]

Why?  

? Why the why? What could possibly cause bemusement about the idea of going slowly enough to achieve good physical control and good phrasing. No offence, but you've said you're a church pianist? The guy is a professional classical pianist. There's absolute nothing wrong with accompanying church music, but you cannot possibly hope to understand the differing requirements for advanced classical pianism unless you are involved in it. What works for your specific area is very different to what works in the grand scheme of things. You can't possibly expect to understand requirements outside of your field unless you are going outside of it at an advanced level. It's about as relevant as a busker who plays 3 chords telling classical pianists that they don't need to learn scales but just need three chords in c. I'm not a snob about different styles, but you simply cannot take the demands of more technically straightforward forms and apply them to advanced classical pianism.

[timothy42b]

? Why the why? What could possibly cause bemusement about the idea of going slowly enough to achieve good physical control and good phrasing.

Whoosh!

That's the sound of a question and all its implications going right over N's head. 

He's right about one thing.  My interest is church piano, and my skill level is at the lower edge of the range of those.  I have neither the skills nor the interest to play the demanding literature.  I work with amateurs a lot, in handbell choir, two vocal choirs, several wind ensembles, etc., and used to do quite a lot of evening gigs for dinner parties, dances, etc. 

But back to the topic at hand.

marik (I think) asserted that the slower the better, provided the musical idea could be followed.  I want to know his opinion on why.  Why is quarter speed better than half, why is tenth speed even better, why would 100th speed be even more so?  What if we played one note an hour? 

My reasoning is that the way an exercise should be performed should be determined by the intent.  How slow we decide to go should be related to what EXACTLY we are trying to learn from slowing down. 

If it is just to play slowly enough to get the notes right, which is one perfectly valid reason for playing slowly, then "slower the better" is wrong.  If the notes are right at MM=80, MM=60 is wasting time.  But for some other purpose MM=60 might be way too fast. 

Is my "why" more clear now?

N said

going slowly enough to achieve good physical control and good phrasing

which is what I mean by

get the notes right

, and there's nothing wrong with that as a reason for going slow.  But that reason alone would not require as slow a tempo as marik indicated.   
   

[nyiregyhazi]

marik (I think) asserted that the slower the better, provided the musical idea could be followed.  I want to know his opinion on why.  Why is quarter speed better than half, why is tenth speed even better, why would 100th speed be even more so?  What if we played one note an hour?  

My reasoning is that the way an exercise should be performed should be determined by the intent.  How slow we decide to go should be related to what EXACTLY we are trying to learn from slowing down.  

If it is just to play slowly enough to get the notes right, which is one perfectly valid reason for playing slowly, then "slower the better" is wrong.  If the notes are right at MM=80, MM=60 is wasting time.  But for some other purpose MM=60 might be way too fast.  

    

If you can only see it terms of whether the notes are struck correctly, it's inevitable that you won't understand. a concert pianist doesn't judge their practise tempo from how slow they need to go not to hit wrong notes. they judge it from how slowly they need to go to truly perceive what they are actually doing with clarity. no good pianist thinks that you should do practise at the fastest possible speed where wrong notes can be avoided. you really need to open your mind instead of be taking such a closed-minded attitude that there's no other reason to go slower than out of necessity to avoid wrong notes. There are evidently countless issues that just aren't on your radar. given how many were already raised during this topic, it doesn't appear that you have any sincere interest in putting them on there.



PS if you can sustain a musical note on the piano for an hour, nevermind a continuous musical phrase that is comprised of them, by all means upload an example.

[timothy42b]

So N doesn't know why

the slower the better

either.

Well, that makes two of us.

Perhaps marik will enlighten us.  Er, one of us at least, I promise to read it carefully.  I can't speak for N.  Well, I can guess, but it might be rude.   

[nyiregyhazi]

So N doesn't know why  either.

Well, that makes two of us.

Perhaps marik will enlighten us.  Er, one of us at least, I promise to read it carefully.  I can't speak for N.  Well, I can guess, but it might be rude.  

I made it perfectly clear in my post. if you're not interested in what a concert pianist interpreting a five voice fugue might be looking for (but merely in that which helps a church pianist hit a few chords exactly in time with a congregation), of course you won't learn anything.

anyway to reiterate once again, in response to your wilful ignorance to what many posters have set out:


it's staggeringly small minded to think that as long as you go slow enough to play accurately, there could be no reason to go any slower. the slower you go, the more musical details you will pick up on that have room for improvement. and the more technical issues you will pick up- which may go hand in hand with the musical results or may be an issue of fixing wasted physical efforts. if you think correct notes means perfect form and that nothing else can possibly warrant the greater scope for awareness that comes with going slowefr, you should really stop spending so much time trying to dole out advice on this forum and spend a good deal more of your time learning about the basics musicianship and technique, that permit high levels of accomplishment and all round understanding. if something's simply not on your radar at all, of course you won't begin to understand it- especially if you don't even want to open your mind to what higher achievers than yourself have had to go through in order to get those results. These things have already been said in this thread and you have no business turning your nose up at things that you haven't made any serious effort to understand.

[ajspiano]

the slower you go the more mental focus you can give to both the sound you generate and the physical sensation of doing so. There is a more detailed thought process in action at 1/4 speed compared to 1/2.. its not just slower, the brain is going full pelt. The slower the better because it means more detail, on a number of levels.

But marik is also telling us not to go so slow that we lose sense of the musical intention. So for that purpose 1/10th speed may infact not be better, that may be too slow depending on the exact context.

[nyiregyhazi]

the slower you go the more mental focus you can give to both the sound you generate and the physical sensation of doing so. There is a more detailed thought process in action at 1/4 speed compared to 1/2.. its not just slower, the brain is going full pelt. The slower the better because it means more detail, on a number of levels.

But marik is also telling us not to go so slow that we lose sense of the musical intention. So for that purpose 1/10th speed may infact not be better, that may be too slow depending on the exact context.

The fact that he first ignored the point about musical phrasing (with the clearly irrelevant argument about why not a note per hour, coupled with the fact that he snipped the musicality aspect off the quote altogether in his last post) increasingly suggests to me that he's just trolling. I don't think he has any serious interest in hearing these basic fundaments of how sensitive practise works, but only in reciting his own unshakeable belief system.

[ajspiano]

actually I don't see how he ignored it..  he said that is what he meant by "getting the notes right" - as in he was attributing more to that statement than just hitting a given key at a given time.

the doubt is more likely in that if he hasnt studied at the super advanced level he has not been forced to develop an understanding of the extreme level of sensitivity required to have control over that repertoire.. where slower than slow practice has such a positive effect both on the discovery front and the developing a strong physical/musical memory front.

[nyiregyhazi]

actually I don't see how he ignored it..  he said that is what he meant by "getting the notes right" - as in he was attributing more to that statement than just hitting a given key at a given time.

the doubt is more likely in that if he hasnt studied at the super advanced level he has not been forced to develop an understanding of the extreme level of sensitivity required to have control over that repertoire.. where slower than slow practice has such a positive effect both on the discovery front and the developing a strong physical/musical memory front.

these same things have been stated at various times throughout the thread though. I don't think he's made any effort to understand them, although I'm hoping he'll prove me wrong by actually to stopping to consider the relevance of advice, rather than reiterate what he likes to do, in this instance.

also the whole thing about slow practise is that you don't discover what you were missing from the form until you go slow enough not merely to go accurately but to observe yourself in greater detail. the whole thing about these issues is that nobody knows some magic tempo at which everything is definitely as it should be. you can't observe yourself well enough in a faster tempo well enough to say that you will not learn more from a slower one. especially not if you can't see the reason  to go a little slower. I don't think he was tying anything terribly profound into what he meant by getting the notes right- especially if his reference tempo for adequately acute self perception is a whopping 80bpm. Nobody perceives maximum detail at such a tempo.

[ajspiano]

maybe the piece is in 8/4 and largely consists of breves.

EDIT:
seriously though, such physical sensitivity is perhaps more often developed gradually as it becomes necessary, along with the developing musical sensitivity..  and is for most people (those without the most exceptional teachers) forced on to them as they push to figure out how to play more advanced material... then transferred back into easier material.

I don't think its fair to argue with someone who disagrees that such detail has a purpose, for they have perhaps simply not found the purpose in the music.. one might do better to highlight what won't be possible musically unless full attention to detail is given, and highlight the exact detail that needs some focus in that context..  which can of course often be quite difficult to convey in the first place...  "why do I need to practice in such detail? I'm happy with just getting the right notes its sounds fine.."

[nyiregyhazi]

maybe the piece is in 8/4 and largely consists of breves.

EDIT:
seriously though, such physical sensitivity is perhaps more often developed gradually as it becomes necessary, along with the developing musical sensitivity..  and is for most people (those without the most exceptional teachers) forced on to them as they push to figure out how to play more advanced material... then transferred back into easier material.

I don't think its fair to argue with someone who disagrees that such detail has a purpose, for they have perhaps simply not found the purpose in the music.. one might do better to highlight what won't be possible musically unless full attention to detail is given, and highlight the exact detail that needs some focus in that context..  which can of course often be quite difficult to convey in the first place...  "why do I need to practice in such detail? I'm happy with just getting the right notes its sounds fine.."

 on one level, sure. the problem is the nature of the public forum including those who might wish to achieve more and that he doesn't put a disclaimer beside his advice about the circumstances that it's limited to. given how much has been said in this thread and others that he has participated in, he doesn't want to understand that which he can get by without as a church pianist. other members who are aiming for more than that shouldn't have to read stubborn rebuttals of that which is objectively essential to anyone aspiring to bigger things. Should people really be hearing advice from someone whose idea of slow practise is 80bpm and who cannot appreciate what can be gained from going slower (and shows no signs of sincere curiosity)? at this point the side of me which would otherwise favour politeness fades and my interest in objectivity takes over. these things are too important for manners to come first in any debate.

[timothy42b]

I don't think its fair to argue with someone who disagrees that such detail has a purpose, for they have perhaps simply not found the purpose in the music..

I don't disagree at all that such detail has a purpose, even for the simpler music I play.  While I have no great desire to play the really advanced repertoire, my goal is to play the simple stuff very very well.  (It is somewhat surprising to me how often I hear people with astounding technique mangle the simple stuff.  But I digress)   

I have been asking for some response to the theory that if slow is good, even slower is always better.  This has largely been ducked by N, who appears not to know.  For those of us who don't have infinite time, slow enough is the requirement.  And possibly, just possibly, this relates to the OP's question. 

80 BPM is the same as one note per hour - clearly used as an rhetorical example, and clearly interpreted literally only by one whose sole purpose here is contentiousness. 

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't disagree at all that such detail has a purpose, even for the simpler music I play.  While I have no great desire to play the really advanced repertoire, my goal is to play the simple stuff very very well.  (It is somewhat surprising to me how often I hear people with astounding technique mangle the simple stuff.  But I digress)    

I have been asking for some response to the theory that if slow is good, even slower is always better.  This has largely been ducked by N, who appears not to know.  For those of us who don't have infinite time, slow enough is the requirement.  And possibly, just possibly, this relates to the OP's question.  

80 BPM is the same as one note per hour - clearly used as an rhetorical example, and clearly interpreted literally only by one whose sole purpose here is contentiousness.  

If I pick a rhetorical example, I personally like to choose one relevant to the concept expressed. For example, if I refer to a slow tempo I may say 40 bpm or less and if I refer small human foot I don't use a 50cm length as an example- and then say not to to take that literally, should anyone be shocked at how on earth that represents a small human foot.


AJS- note how he ducked what we both expressed in our explanations and pretended none was given. the guy's a troll, pure and simple. Given that his questions are clearly attempts to heckle rather than attempts to learn, I'll finish on the same note- by stating that obviously our church pianist knows better than Rachmaninoff did on how to achieve the most from practise...

[ajspiano]

I don't disagree at all that such detail has a purpose, even for the simpler music I play.  While I have no great desire to play the really advanced repertoire, my goal is to play the simple stuff very very well.  (It is somewhat surprising to me how often I hear people with astounding technique mangle the simple stuff.  But I digress)   

I have been asking for some response to the theory that if slow is good, even slower is always better.  This has largely been ducked by N, who appears not to know.  For those of us who don't have infinite time, slow enough is the requirement.  And possibly, just possibly, this relates to the OP's question. 

80 BPM is the same as one note per hour - clearly used as an rhetorical example, and clearly interpreted literally only by one whose sole purpose here is contentiousness. 

I actually didnt mean to say you thought it didnt matter - Though I can ofcourse see it would come across that way. I tend to generalise pretty fast in response to such things..  it turns into a how would I approach this with "Student A" vs "Student B" type thought process for me, because thats primarily why I come here, to improve as a teacher through thinking about such questions/problems (with feedback).

.....

Perhaps you should consider the possibility of tackling something harder, as a method of refining your understanding of both technique, musicality and practice tools.

In response to the question at hand I don't think its a linear thing where tempo is the key variable. Variation of tempo (getting slower) is the result, but really what you're looking for is the tempo which allows for a fluent musical execution with the right kind of focus on both musical and physical elements. Its both personal, and contextual - never as simple as slower is better.. And as you develop on the given piece, and as a pianist in general the tempos at which you find you are able to practice in the right way will change. It will never be a consistent X% of final tempo.

And, there will typically be a slow work tempo, and a current comfortable tempo for complete run throughs - which are both used along the journey to the desired final tempo..  ofcourse among other practice tools for developing different aspects.

[ajspiano]

AJS- note how he ducked what we both expressed in our explanations and pretended none was given. the guy's a troll, pure and simple. Given that his questions are clearly attempts to heckle rather than attempts to learn, I'll finish on the same note- by stating that obviously our church pianist knows better than Rachmaninoff did on how to achieve the most from practise...

Even if that is the case...   if you are going to assume that you are the more knowledgeable party, as a teacher your role is motivate the other party to learn, and pass through such barriers. Obviously you're not obliged to do that for free on a web-forum..  but your approach to explanation, while in essence accurate is more attacking a closed mind which locks it up further, rather than opening a closed mind.

And in reality, you are going to come up against real life students who are remain skeptical of advice if its not presented in a way that suits them personally.. even if it appears very obvious/logical to you.

And Tim, I'm not suggesting you're being closed minded.. its just a response to N's assertion.

[nyiregyhazi]

Even if that is the case...   if you are going to assume that you are the more knowledgeable party, as a teacher your role is motivate the other party to learn, and pass through such barriers. Obviously you're not obliged to do that for free on a web-forum..  but you're approach to explanation, while in essence accurate is more attacking a closed mind which locks it up further, rather than opening a closed mind.

And in reality, you are going to come up against real life students who are remain skeptical of advice if its not presented in a way that suits them personally.. even if it appears very obvious/logical to you.

I'm not in the habit of claiming status over anyone or demanding respect. I'm informing him of how many other respected people have said the same (in this forum and outside) and also took the time to detail why. he can disrespect me as much as he likes, but it's ignorance to think you know better than Rachmaninoff without first making a sincere effort. if someone's not willing to be open-minded enough to see an alternative side, it doesn't inspire me to coax. I coax humble people, not those who live in a world of oversimplified certainty. my students are a different matter. The thing is, they aren't typically flooding Internet forums with posts about how they cannot see the point in slow practise (which exist simply to try to rubbish it, rather than as humble enquiries to people with more experience as to what they have missed). I once had a student who was more concerned with telling me things at great length than actually being taught something new. I sincerely wondered why they actually came for the lesson.