Detached articulation comes from hearing the space in between the notes. It is better to teach this concept rather than anything about 'wrist staccato'.
There are ways to teach this via such analogies as a basketball, but nothing works better than the the Russian approach - of simply grabbing their finger and hand and doing the movement for them, so they can experience it.
I really can't agree here. There are more ways to get this wrong than I'd care to list-
Are you suggesting that staccato is a physical quality rather than a musical quality?
As soon as you start talking about anatomy as it relates to playing, you're into some dangerous territory, especially with younger students. I'm not saying it cannot be done! I just think it's less confusing overall if we teach that the only body part that is ultimately responsible for ensuring that detached articulation occurs is the ear! If we teach that the wrist is responsible, or the fingers, or the arm, kids focus too much on the movement itself!
As soon as you start talking about anatomy as it relates to playing, you're into some dangerous territory, especially with younger students. I'm not saying it cannot be done! I just think it's less confusing overall if we teach that the only body part that is ultimately responsible for ensuring that detached articulation occurs is the ear! If we teach that the wrist is responsible, or the fingers, or the arm, kids focus too much on the movement itself! They need to focus on the music!
Not only kids actually...My teacher always manages to confuse me when she starts talking about movements of body parts. We understand our anatomy quite differently. The best results I get when I know what I am trying to achieve (tonally and musically) and then just find a way to do that with her checking for anything unwanted. Even her showing me doesn't always work, our hands are so different.
That's a spectacular example of how learning styles differ.Your style is to be results oriented, and anything else confuses you; her style is to be process oriented, and anything else confuses her.
That's a spectacular example of how learning styles differ.Your style is to be results oriented, and anything else confuses you; her style is to be process oriented, and anything else confuses her.I believe learning styles to be essentially hardwired, or at least fixed at an early age. A good teacher is adept at matching style to student.
.......
Please pass this onto your students from me.
You're sympathetic about the fact I teach them how to do things, rather than simply keep repeating what they are supposed to be doing yet not achieving/give up on expecting them to fulfill basic musical requirements that they have clearly not figured out how to do for themself?
Is that a difference in learning style or a difference in how pragmatically long term goals are approached? I won't make any simplistic assumptions about any specific parties here, but my own experience of students who are only interested in the sound (minus interest in the practicalities of getting it) is that they are typically very hard to teach in a way that leads to significant long term progress, unless they are willing to step outside of how they typically like to think, by considering the pragmatic issues that determine control over sound.
You are probably right, people like me are really hard to teach. We tend to be independent learners who benefit more from the work we do ourselves than the teaching. The role of the teacher is more of being an outsider judging the progress and results and thus guiding away from unwanted actions towards more beneficial ones. And give me new ideas how to execute something when I ran out of them. I really can't remember ever learning much by someone teaching me. I've always had to do the work myself preferably alone without someone "bothering" me while I think.It's definitely not about being ONLY interested in the sound. At least for me. I do quite a lot of thinking about tension and effort of movements when I try to learn something, even though it is generally really difficult for me to follow my own actions. I was talking about not being able to benefit from someone elses conceptions.
No, I'm sympathetic that you make no concession to their learning style, but carry on teaching what you believe they should know (and I'm not actually disagreeing with what you are trying to aim for here) as if their way of learning was irrelevant and that they all really are (deep down and only if they would realise it) previous incarnations of yourself. I have had teachers like that - fortunately never for piano - and it has never ended well.
I'm curious, have you worked with many teacher? I wouldn't wish to speculate directly about your present one, but are sure you can't benefit from other people's conceptions, or have you just not found the right ones to help you?
I didn't say I make no concession to learning styles. However, I do believe in being objective about the fact that successful pianists unfailingly have learning STYLES and not a solitary learning STYLE.
but are sure you can't benefit from other people's conceptions, or have you just not found the right ones to help you?
I think you are using the concept in a different way than it's usually used in learning theories. Learning methods would be closer to what you are talking about. Learning style reflects the way people's mind works in general and also their personality. Everyone should use various learning methods to get the best results, but certain aspects of learning styles are difficult or impossible to change. So you should adjust the methods to the learning style instead of just applying them in similar matter to everyone. Sometimes a method does not work at all for a specific individual, while another method gives instant results.But in this as everything it's good to stay critical, there's little actual proof about the benefits of the teacher reflecting the learning style of the pupil. Partly because the teacher may be best at his own teaching style and partly because assessing and classifying the individual's learning style is not unproblematic. The most useful application of the concept has probably been with special education and adult education. And of course when someone has the ability to understand and analyse one's own learning style and create one's own learning methods to get better results.
When it comes to piano, I have had 4 teachers and two of them only briefly, but I have had teachers in many other fields obviously and also another instrument.My ideal teacher would be one that would appear and disappear at will. I need space to think and figure out things and only need the teacher at certain points of my learning process. A lesson once a week doesn't work that well for me, but that's how it has to be now.
I'm curious, why don't you think a teacher would be able to help? An open-minded teacher should be able to help you with the thinking you're doing and prevent you from falling into traps that could become very damaging, if not picked up quickly. What things are you thinking about, that a teacher could not aid you with?
Did I say I don't think a teacher would be able to help? Of course they can, that's why I am taking lessons. But learning for me is often not something an outsider cannot help me with, since it's about organizing things in my head. I cannot concentrate with someone "helping" since they cannot follow what is going on in my head to know what exactly I need help with at any given moment. There are still many exceptions in individual challenges that the music poses.Things don't actually take me long to learn when I can do it without interference, so whenever we hit a wall I go home and sit an hour or two and solve it with the tools and advice given by my teacher and some concentrated work.
I agree very much with the concept of learning styles. My personal feeling is that it's too easy to make the mistake of thinking of it as a "learning style however, if a student simply has a narrow skill set. I wouldn't state it quite so bluntly to a student, but that really is the case in many situations where people try to call it a "learning style". A student shouldn't be forced to come to terms with their shortcomings too abruptly and certainly not in an unpleasant manner. However, to stick with what student to simply doesn't help them to do anything other than continue building on strengths, while accumulating an even greater discrepancy against their weaknesses.
If you respect your teacher, you should be willing to consider the possibility that when something confuses you, it's because you need to embrace a wider range of viewpoints rather than stick to what you already know anyway. Learning only occurs in relation to what we didn't already know.
My teacher is there to help me learn, not to be respected by me. Which doesn't mean that I don't but it's irrelevant. Besides for me respecting someone doesn't mean I will uncritically follow them.It seems to be really difficult for you to accept that someone has already considered a lot of possibilities and yet reached a different conclusion than you. I have had teachers like that too...You also do not seem to realize there are different levels of confusion people can have. Most people cannot understand how a person can be able to easily crasp complex intellectual matters while constantly struggling with simple routine stuff. Even teachers. They tend to think it's either from lack of proper work or lack of interest. Conventional teaching can be useless for such individuals, yet they can get exceptional results when able to make their own decisions about how to approach things. A teacher who understands this will back off when necessary, but not shy away from offering advice in general. A good teacher accepts the fact that sometimes the advice that makes perfect sense for him is not useful for the given situation. He should also accept that the student may have invented a better working strategy, even if it doesn't make sense for the teacher. I don't expect teachers to be able to do this at once. A teacher can also learn form the teaching situation, if open minded and aware of his own limitations. But an understanding can only be reached when one is willing to consider the possibility that one doesn't yet. Obviously not the case with you in this matter.
You still seem to be missing the point. A learning style has nothing to do with what a person knows, or what they should know. It's about how they get from A to B. The way their brain takes in and orders information and the most effective ways to make that progression.
I'd be interested if you could flesh it out and give examples of what you consider to be interference from your teacher. A good teacher doesn't typically say stuff on a whim. They usually say it because they know damn sure that you're causing yourself problems by not being aware of something that you simply need. If a small extra factor confuses you, that suggests that your current methods demand too much mental effort and are too easily spoiled. I'd question your own choices before accusing your teacher of interference.
I try to be more clear:To be able to handle certain thought processes and be aware of my movements and posture at the same time I need to have full 100% concentration. Trying to listen to anyone at such time is interference. This is due to my mental make up and my narrow working memory, it has nothing to do with my methods, my choices or the things the teacher has to say. Since we only meet for 45 minutes once a week, I cannot take some concentrated time for myself during the lessons to try out her suggestions and then continue with her, that would be the ideal learning environment for me. Instead the things my teacher says have to be deposited to be further processed later at home. Only then will I see if they work or not. If not, I have to either look for other solutions myself or if cannot have to wait until the next week (fortunately I mostly do find one that is also acceptable for my teacher). Mostly the issues are about solving physical problems (like playing things with streches) or how to make something sound better (which is essentially a physical problem also).What I was referring earlier about not being able to share someone's conceptions is another added challenge, that we have discussed and tried to find ways to find a better mutual understanding. When we do, problems are solved really fast. The probability of finding a piano teacher who's mind would work more like mine is close to nothing. You don't seem to be able to get away from your idea that people always want to ignore given advice just because they are stubborn and think they know best. That may be your experience with yourself and your students, but I'm far too mature for such nonsense, so didn't think it is a relevant assumption for this conversation.
No, you missed my point.
No, I really didn't.I'm not making excuses for not knowing things. That is not a learning style. People, however, acquire knowledge in different ways. Some people need a broad brush framework into which to place details, some start with the details and build up a picture from there. Some people learn by process. Some by rote. Some by structure. Some people are visually oriented, some aurally, some tactile and some more abstract. Theses are examples and neither exclusive nor exhaustive.One learns best when one learns in a way that best reflects one's learning style. The way one learns best. This has nothing to do with excusing gaps in knowledge. And good teachers adapt their teaching style to suit the pupil.
Really, the only way to learn effectively is to have breadth of knowledge and awareness of the same thing from many vantage points.
Quite honestly, I understand where you're coming from, but you're robbing yourself of active live feedback- which is the single most important thing. Get something a little wrong once and be guided to what you should have done and there's no harm done. Spend a whole week misunderstanding advice without feedback about what you have missed, and real harm is already done. Only geniuses tend to get things right first time, even if it's fresh in their mind. Mortals take assistance. I can't imagine how low the odds of things being properly interpreted are If you have a list of things that are no longer fresh in your mind and which cannot be shown from different angles, if they prove to be misunderstood. Without two way interaction, you're not going to have much chance of fixing any problems. When I teach students like yourself, the only pressure I put on them is to learn to stop putting pressure in themself. That's the only thing that makes things go wrong. Too much haste and too much pressure. If you learn to go slow enough and make clear and simple movements, a new factor will never make things worse. The excess pressure you put on yourself (probably going faster than you can comfortably process what u are doing with awareness) will be the real evil and the new suggestion will merely be the straw that breaks the camel's back. When I teach students such as yourself, the only advice I give is initially based on how to stop forcing themself into things that they are not really for and instead show them to how perceive their movements with clarity, certainty and awareness. I wouldn't say a single thing other than how to simplify your movements and make them assured and comfortable for you to execute. From what you say, clearly this is not yet the case. Students such as yourself simply need to learn how to stop running themselves into difficulty and then blaming it on small factors that never challenge truly deep learning that is done without pressure. If you misunderstand the first thing about what your teacher has told you, after a week, it will be too far ingrained for him to make significant fixes. Adjustments are part and parcel of teaching. Nobody gets them right at first. Only by accepting that can you learn the most. Only trying things alone makes each lesson equivalent to a single chess move (that may not necessarily have even been accurately conveyed), where you could be learning from a whiole game.
You are trapped in your own mind and are unable to think outside of it.
How could anyone think outside of their mind, when literally ALL of their thinking is done inside of it?
But whether your consciousness is expanded or not, your thinking takes place in your actual brain. So even if you really are thinking outside of your own brain, it's still ultimately inside of your brain that your thoughts are taking place.
You obviously did not understand much of what I wrote. And you certainly do not understand where I am coming from at all, if you did, you wouldn't write such nonsense. It's not about what I want but what is possible and what gives results. But I do admit that I am exceptionally good in solving problems and figuring out things myself, which is one of the things that compensates for my weaknesses. I seriously doubt you have any students like me, considering the things you have written in this thread an others. If you had they probably dropped out. My teacher is a better judge of my progress and I really don't remember getting something "wrong" after working it out myself, my teacher is usually very happy about what I have achieved. But sometimes I don't progress much and need more interaction (which does exist, just not in the way you are used to). Getting things wrong is unlikely because I can judge the results myself if I have an idea what I am trying to achieve tonally (which was the point that started this discussion).BTW, It's usually my teacher, not me, who decides to leave it, she has learned to see when it's useless to go on and it's better to let me figure it out myself.You are trapped in your own mind (edit: thought process) and are unable to think outside of it. But don't worry, most people do, it's ok.
You appear to confuse ends and means. Here most explicitly, but throughout your post. No deficiency is evidence of a learning style, only that a thing has not been learnt. The question is how people learn, and how they do that most effectively. Not what they don't know and what that may say about them.Taking your example of a rote learner, a rote learning style doesn't mean you learn pieces by heart and can't sight read. It means you learn to sight read in a particular way - you acquire the skills needed to sight read in a way that is different from someone with a different learning style. Note that it is the acquisition that is different, not the skills acquired.
I understand exactly what you wrote as I used to be that way myself.
No, you THINK you understand, but you clearly don't. You definitely have never been anything like me. If you had, you would know better.
Yes that's exactly how I would have responded when I insisted that the best way to learn was "my way". I too was a lone maverick who had to be in charge of my own destiny and didn't like external "interference". I've since discovered that "my way" became a lot more effective when I expanded its breadth and became interested in seeing the same thing from as many different angles as possible, before calling even my teacher's input "interference".
Maybe you had problems then and should be glad if you feel you are doing better now. But it is foolish for you to assume other people aren't able to handle things better than you can.
I'm just happy for outin that s/he found her way of learning... Then I'm just unhappy with people who think they know what's best for people they have never met, or watched play. Just saying. Not anything personal to anyone.