Can you tell us more about yourself Bernhard?

[ajspiano]

In what way does personal history help us to understand anyone's ideas about music or playing?  The answer was appropriate (and given 8 years ago) 

I don't think his personal history is at all relevent.. I do think his educational one is - not because it was required to be good at piano or piano teaching but because it suggests immediately to me the kind of thinking that would have gone into the development of his methods.. 

Bernhard, BSc., MSc., DPhil.

..I'm not going to verify how I know this publicly so don't ask. (thats not directed at you keypeg, rather, everyone)

[p2u_]

I don't think his personal history is at all relevent.. I do think his educational one is - not because it was required to be good at piano or piano teaching but because it suggests immediately to me the kind of thinking that would have gone into the development of his methods..

I hope you don't mean the number of diplomas he has or doesn't have? He could actually have been just as self-taught as your humble servant here.

Paul

[ajspiano]

I hope you don't mean the number of diplomas he has or doesn't have?

I meant that his background is science - and that those particular credentials suggest that bernhard is well versed in forming conclusions based on observation, and experimenting to find a solution. I couldnt care less how many there are or where they come from.

His methods reflect that kind of thought process.

My point was not that the diplomas are needed, but they are indicative of the kind of thinking that is.

[p2u_]

My point was not that the diplomas are needed, but they are indicative of the kind of thinking that is.

I have certain reservations about the second part of your statement, but this may be my personal problem.

P.S.: Bernhard's "finger-pointing-to-the-moon" expression, for example, was actually a Hollywood phrase; more specifically a quote by Bruce Lee in "Enter the Dragon":

Don't think, Feel, it is like a finger pointing out to the moon, don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.

It is clear, though, from the rest of what he wrote on this forum, that Bernhard did not just quote this, but that he really knew what he was talking about. Real practical experience that is, with the right freedom of thinking to recognize things for what they really are, not merely following standard scientific models of thinking.

Paul

[ajspiano]

Im not sure what exactly bothers you about what i said...?

Maybe I'm off base with this elaboration - but i did not mean that science is required in a mechanical sense. Only that one must observe oneself both in sound and feel. And in turn form ones own conclusions based on the observation of our own experience.

Think for yourself rather than follow someone elses ideas entirely. Which is what i consider scientific thinking to be. Many of bernhards posts teach this - how to learn for yourself, using others as guides not all knowing unquestionable masters.

[p2u_]

Im not sure what exactly bothers you about what i said...?

Nothing personal, ajspiano. I agree basically with what you say. It's probably the words "diploma", "science", and "scientific thinking" themselves that trigger certain negative feelings in this particular combination. They are so often in conflict with what art is really about. Besides, they also tend to create certain generalisations for something as individual as the craft and art of piano playing, which is an ongoing and always changing process; nothing static that can readily be analyzed and applied at all stages of development.

Paul

[keypeg]

Some people say that they have their insights despite their training, whether music or something outside music.  I think it's best for people to tell us what parts of their background had an influence on their musical views.  It can also be unexpected things.  I know two musicians / teachers whom I respect highly who actually started informally in music through a relative and/or had bumpy spots along the way such as misteaching or poor teaching.  This forced them to explore more deeply and do more thinking than they would have otherwise.  That can bring depth into understanding of music, technique and teaching.

[p2u_]

I know two musicians / teachers whom I respect highly who actually started informally in music through a relative and/or had bumpy spots along the way such as misteaching or poor teaching.  This forced them to explore more deeply and do more thinking than they would have otherwise.  That can bring depth into understanding of music, technique and teaching.

This is certainly true for themselves. I wonder, though, what other people (who did not go through exactly the same hell) can do with that story other than shrug their shoulders and move on. I "know" Bernhard only from his many high-quality posts on this forum and I doubt this topic (interview) has added anything positive to my impression about him. Had he given out more about himself other than generalisations, this would probably not have changed anything.

First of all, people tend not to listen at all when a person's "background" is not what was expected. In order to prove that they have a right to be taken seriously at all, the "odd one out" has to be not just as good, but a lot better than the average academically trained person.

Second, people often need some confirmation for themselves, something that "clicks" with their own experience, with their own beliefs. If they don't know by their own experience what it is to have been mistaught, then I have doubts they can do anything with the info. If they don't know what it is to be a prodigy, most of whom cannot really find their identity in standard educational environments, then the info will not have much value for ordinary mortals.

Last but not least, people also tend to generalise a lot, and if they can't really get the deeper meaning of the wisdom those ex-victims of the System preach because it all sounds too good to be true, then they often draw the following conclusions:
1) the person is a genius (his/her conclusions do certainly not apply to me);
2) the person is probably still lacking something since he/she wasn't able to go through standard education like everybody else. We want proof;
3) the person is a thief of other people's ideas (exactly what I read here in this topic by the way).
etc., etc.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Some people say that they have their insights despite their training, whether music or something outside music.

I agree with this very strongly. I see it in many arts and other disciplines. I have a student who can draw pencil portraits that look completely lifelike and she has never had training ever, just her own senses and natural skill. The classes that she did take the teachers didn't know what to teach her because she had it down pat.

I am also an avid chess player and was thrashed by "chess bums", unemployed, homeless chess players who play so incredibly some even took games off my friend who holds a Grand Master title. New Yorkers will know exactly how strong and viciously competitive these chess bums can be! Some of them play so well not because of the books they read or the masters they studied under but because they invested so much time playing the game and know the ins and outs of it through practice combined with natural talent.  

[keypeg]

This is certainly true for themselves. I wonder, though, what other people (who did not go through exactly the same hell) can do with that story other than shrug their shoulders and move on.  

I can answer that.  First I should clarify something.  People with the kind of background I described (the starting independently part, btw, is not necessarily "hell"), will not be presenting themselves as "Hey, I had some rough spots during my journey, so listen to me."  They will be performing their music, and/or they will be teaching.  Most people will never hear that part of their story.  To answer: what can you do with such a person?  LEARN what they have to teach.  In other words, if they had to examine the stuff of music, they may have a much fuller picture.  Their awareness may be more accessible, which may also help them teach a variety of students.  The individual I am thinking of each have degrees in music, and are musicians as well as teachers.  They know what others know, but because of that element in their journey, there are additional insights.

What I am saying is that there are elements in people's backgrounds that we never think of or know of, which may in fact be important factors in their musical abilities.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.  You are seeing some person who has not studied music formally at all ever, or dropped out early.  I am talking about musicians with formal training, often with degrees, successful performers or teachers or both, but who had significant bumps in part of their journey.

What persuades us ultimately is how the person plays, what is in his or her music, and when they teach, that their teaching has substance.  Some of that substance, insight, and clarity may come from the very fact that they had to work through nonsense at some point.  When the sailing is smooth, you don't have to think about things, and you can take a lot for granted.  Even if you yourself perform well, can you transmit that knowledge to as many students? 

[Bob]

Actually I was wondering the other day if Bernhard was still teaching, if his method worked out in the long run.

[outin]

My experience is that "scientific thinking" is not something one necessarily achieves even with a high level education. Some do, but some seen to have it naturally and some just never get there. I don't see how it has anything to do with being able to feel, think or develope artistically. To achieve something in science requires creativity, so does art. Scientific thinking helps one analyze things in a constructive way which should be useful in creating a teaching method.

[teenagepiano]

Nothing personal, ajspiano. I agree basically with what you say. It's probably the words "diploma", "science", and "scientific thinking" themselves that trigger certain negative feelings in this particular combination. They are so often in conflict with what art is really about. Besides, they also tend to create certain generalisations for something as individual as the craft and art of piano playing, which is an ongoing and always changing process; nothing static that can readily be analyzed and applied at all stages of development.

Paul

I disagree. Creativity is very important in science, and so is open-minded thinking; without it it is impossible to progress, especially at the forefront of discovery. Einstein wouldn't have been able to work out Relativity if he had no imagination.

[p2u_]

I disagree. Creativity is very important in science, and so is open-minded thinking; without it it is impossible to progress, especially at the forefront of discovery. Einstein wouldn't have been able to work out Relativity if he had no imagination.

My post was meant in the context of the ART of piano playing only; not a generalisation against science. The two just don't go very well together. Scientists cannot explain, for example, why one pianist has a beautiful touch and another one doesn't on one and the same instrument.

Paul

[brogers70]

My post was meant in the context of the ART of piano playing only; not a generalisation against science. The two just don't go very well together. Scientists cannot explain, for example, why one pianist has a beautiful touch and another one doesn't on one and the same instrument.

Paul

Claims of the form, "Science cannot explain X" don't have a very good track record of standing up over time. I don't see any reason why science couldn't explain what movements generate a beautiful tone. Nor would the tone be any less beautiful because science could explain how it was generated.

The nice thing about science is that it is anti-authoritarian. The youngest grad student with a good idea and experiments to back it up beats the most distinguished Nobel prize winner every time.

[Bob]

*Bob randomly wanders back in.*

Did Bernhard do much questioning/wondering?  Or was he more... distributing what you knew/thought?   And then ran out of info to give out?