Only to a point. People who use other methods are better equipped to deal with non-cartesian and 4+ dimensional geometries.
Why? An image is one of the least efficient means of encoding information.
Is it really if it all happens fast and partly unconsciouss? It is quite fast and if those images are detailed enough to study, they can contain a lot of information in one "package".
And I'm sure you are aware of the exercise to memorize a list of random words by using mental images?
I still feel it would be very useful to have a visual mental keyboard available at all times to study as opposed to needing a picture or a graph to look at.
Yes, but it is inefficiently stored, and includes a lot of wasted information - stored but not needed.Consider the relative file sizes of a picture of a page and a txt file.
I am, but I've never seen the point.
Why? A keyboard is a keyboard - they don't change much. What's a constant picture of it going to achieve? And since I rarely look at it anyway, what role would it have in imagining playing it?
I'm not quite sure that analogy works until we have developed proper biological computers
You could actually make money by doing something like that
Not imagining playing but for studying theory. To study things like chords for example I think it would be helpful to be able to mentally place them on the keyboard as well. I often need either a picture of a keyboard or a piano to put things into the context.
But the relationship of the notes in a chord is mathematical and aural rather than a physical accidence on the keyboard (until you go to play them, of course).
My other abilities are not developed enough to compensate.
Perhaps. But like the geometry student who initially struggles to "visualise" a circle, you may find yourself much better equipped when you get to a hypersphere.
You need to work with what you've got, but also recognise that it is capable of becoming more than you might think.
What makes you think so? This is a general thing that we should be able to discuss RATIONALLY. I couldn't care less who wins an argument, but I do feel you would greatly benefit from educating yourself a little before creating your elaborate theories about learning. Unless it's enough for you that they only apply to you and others just like you.It seems like you created your own personal definition of mental visualization just to avoid letting any new information enter your mind and admitting to yourself that you've missed something. Let me be perfectly clear: With mental visualization *I* refer to the ability to form and stabilize VISUAL images (=pictures) in the mind only, either with eyes closed or eyes open. A simple test is to close your eyes and try to form an image of a circle. Most people can do it fine, but many people cannot. They can recognize a circle when they see one and even draw one, but cannot purely VISUALLY remember what a circle looks like when not seeing one, because they have never been able to recreate the image of the circle mentally. The flexibility of the mind enables these people to perform just fine without the ability to the extend that they often don't even realize they are missing something. And just to state the obvious, this is a VERY simplified explanation of the phenomena, you should do further reading to fully understand it.But you don't have to feel threatened by this new information, you are victim of a VERY common fallacy: Many people have never even realized that while they can form mental images, other people cannot. Similarly those who cannot form mental images are often not even aware that others can. From an evolutionary view this must be a trait that has been useful but not essential for survival, since such a difference exists. It's a fascinating field of research as well. Even many teachers figure this difference out only when they finally encounter a person who can actually explain their inability. Children mostly cannot so can just be very confused when told to do it and may even claim they can to imitate others when they really cannot.There are only estimates, but those who can clearly outnumber those who cannot, which probably explains why so many are ignorant of the difference. From the literature I have found an estimate that only 3% of people are totally unable to form any mental images, while about 20% may have some ability, but not to the extend which would be considered "normal" or average ability.
When it comes to understanding complex mathematical equations yes, that was my experience when studying such things. But since I have poor ability to make calculations mentally, in addition to understanding things theoretically I usually need some external device to help to apply them in concrete tasks. So it's the combination of abilities that counts really...I sometimes practice on going through the task of drawing the circle of 5ths purely mentally and it takes ages because of the difficulty to reliably calculate the intervals only in my head to get to the next key and then figuring out where the black and whites keys are in relation to that key. If I have pen and paper or a picture of the keyboard available or sit at the piano it is quite an easy task. So it seems probable to me that the task would be easier if that image of the keyboard was available in my head to check things
^ So you were not referring to visualization in the literal sense at all, but imagining before or instead of actually doing something? Unfortunately I tend to assume that people use terms in the way they have been established in human sciences, my apologies for not understanding what you were talking about. But it might help to avoid such misunderstandings in the future if you voiced your disagreement in a more neutral and precise way and without getting into personal assaults. And here I refer to your way of reasoning that if people do not fully and immediately agree with the things you write, that must mean that they don't know what to do or work the wrong way. When indeed you might not always manage to make your message clear enough. And in some cases you just have a premiss that does not apply universally. It's quite limiting to automatically assume that what is beyond your experience is wrong.
You can repeat the "I'm unique" routine ad infinitum. But you're not on this issue.
I have never claimed that I am unique. If I thought so why would I bother to discuss these things with other people at all (except maybe my own teacher)? It would be of no relevance. If you start your posts with such nonsense, how can you expect me to seriously read the rest?I don't see any loss to myself here since the way I work is proven efficient by the results I get. I seem to progress well and faster than average, even with limited time available. And since you stick to your own definition of visualization, no, I do not think I am bad at it. I never said I was. I made it quite clear above what I mean with the concept.
Nonsense? You've gone on over and over about how you are only willing to work in limited ways
Do you want to be one of the pianists who learns three pieces per year after months of troubles smoothing out unnecessary mistakes,
Since you ask, quantity really does not matter to me at all anymore, it's all about quality and the music. I want to study the pieces as long as they have something to offer and sometimes return to them later. I don't see it as trouble to spend time on a piece that I feel is worthy of it, I quite enjoy the process. I study many more than 3 pieces a year (some are "learned" better than others) but these days they all mean something to me. I don't just pick up pieces to get them behind me anymore. My playing has improved much faster with this approach than before when I felt it was my duty to pass through a set of pieces completely uninteresting to me. I also started learning the scales with little effort after I realized that I need to wait for my natural curiosity to take over, which happens when there's a right context for them. Learning really does not have to be forced, it can be both easy and effective. And this type of learning (at least in my case) seems to be more permanent, there's little need for repeating to make it solid. This approach works for me and I am sure it works for others, but I would not claim that it works for everyone.I cannot speak for other people, but my conscious mind is constantly filling with thoughts and ideas competing for my attention. I need to weigh which one is the most useful at the moment (some are of course completely unproductive) and push the rest back to where ever they come from. There’s no way I could handle or remember them all.I often wake up in the morning with a fresh new idea about a piece I have been working on or a problem I need to solve. Or I may come home from work anxious to explore something that popped into my mind on the way. Should I stop the urge and make myself practice scales instead and lose what could have been gained exploring those ideas further? I cannot see how that would not be anything else but stupid. I would much rather wait until I feel that way about something with scales and get all the benefits.I actually think this discussion has been rather useful in reminding me again why some conventional approaches to studying were not very effective in my case. So thanks
Normally fugues take phenomenal effort
Really? Subject to other technical aspects, they should be playable at sight.
The whole point of scales it to take real world difficulties and put them into their simplest form. If you make excuses now, what will happen when you get to an advanced Mozart sonata- in which you must visualise both standard scale patterns with standard fingerings and non standard patterns with different fingerings? And all that is while needing to respect musical shapes and having to contend with another hand at the same time. Is that any place to be having to drum up the focus to learn how to play a basic scale that you put aside because it was too hard to concentrate on the very same thing well enough to sort it out?
I have a family of four. When dad has another engagement, which is frequently, he asks the other family members to take a longer lesson. This is getting on my last nerve. Am I crazy to give up the money. The two little girls are fine. The adults, not so much. It's pretty much entertainment for them. I get that this guy is a control freak, but it's disrespectful and annoying. So do I need to take it on the chin for income, or let it go in some way?
Once he learns this, i know he'll be asking for a regular slot again.
So yah, it's been real swell being called a control freak, and told my methods are stupid, and reading all the snarky responses to someone else on a different subject. Gee whiz... Thanks guys.