Re: Easy process


"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138342187.066738.228670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Steve Latham wrote:
>> "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1138334664.466750.245760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>> Mike, please quote the text to which you're replying, as I've done
>> below -
>> your original message (or reply) would ordinarly begin my response (thus
>> this line is interjected) and my response would follow. John has the same
>> issue and it must be the default for Google Groups. Apparently there's a
>> setting you can make to include quoted text in your responses. It makes
>> for
>> a much clearer read for everyone as not all posters view posts threaded
>> in a
>> "coversational" manner.
>
> Testing. Does this work? What I did before was the same exact action
> but top-posted my text. Maybe something along the way to your place
> removes it.

Hmmm. Maybe so. But this looks "normal" to me. Thanks a bunch!

[snip]

> I once had the distinct pleasure of watching the world's worst piano
> teacher in action. His only goal was to get correct notes and
> approximate rhythms (forget about musicality), and even then he had the
> worst approach to this I've ever seen. He asked the student to start
> playing, and the instant the student played a wrong note or rhythm, he
> said "No" and pointed to the correct note, then told them to start
> over. Needless to say, no student ever got more than a measure out
> before stopping.

I've got a similar story: we had a guest composer come in a visit with a
premiere of her new work by our new music ensemble. They started rehearsal,
played the first note, and she stopped them (granted they were playing it
wrong). After about 20 minutes of not getting through the first bar, one of
the players finally said "why don't we play the whole thing through to get a
feel for the piece, and then come back and work on the details?". She agreed
(but reluctantly, as she made some comments to me about them - I was just
the sound guy, so she loved me - I just pressed play before they began!). So
in the performance, it happens, they ask her to come up and take a bow - she
comes up on stage and starts talking to the percussionist about all of the
stuff he did wrong while the audience is applauding!

So not that she was a horrible composer, but either what she expects from
her notation, or, what she is asking for is out of line with reality.


The worst effect of this method was to deprive the
> student of any chance to observe their own mistakes. No student ever
> had to notice what they were doing since the teacher would always point
> it out; in fact, no student ever had a chance to form a coherent
> experience or think things through.

You know - I remember this from my own lessons - I would play a piece for
weeks, and one week I might miss one note, and the teacher would put a red
mark on the page. First off, I hated people marking up my books (an AR
thing), and it told me that she wasn't paying any attention to what I was
doing, becuase if she had, she'd know that that was a one off mistake - I'd
understand if I always forgot to play some note sharp every time thorough.
But I agree totally with what you're saying. Correct it once - if it keeps
coming back, let them get through the piece and then go back and fine tune -
or else they never get past measure 1.

>
> I think this is an example of "must be right" taken to an extreme.

Yes, and this is a good example, and also more clearly describes your
earlier point - thanks - I now see what you meant.

In
> this case, the teacher thought it was such a big deal to play the right
> note, that a wrong note couldn't be tolerated for even a moment, not
> even long enough to see if the student noticed it herself. Every single
> thing was sacrificed.

And there's more to a sentence than won word - even if that word is
incorrect we can still get the meaning.

I'll be honest, I'm forever playing piano pieces that I'm muddling through,
and I know there's a V-I cadence, and I know what key I'm in, so often I'll
simply play V-I whatever upper parts I want and no one's the wiser - It's
the V-I they hear, not necessarily the 7-8 or 2-1!

>
> I only say this because at least a small measure of this foolishness
> has operated in every music teacher I've observed, and I figure a lot
> of the students have internalized it.

Well, there has to be a small measure. I mean, we do want to play the
correct notes. I understand that if you say "root" in Australia, you can
offend someone, so if you are working within a given context, there can be
very right and wrong (or appropriate and inappropriate) things.



This also directly corresponds to
> common habits which Buddhist psychology identifies. In Buddhism, a
> worthy goal is equanimity: an even-tempered response to any situation,
> a simple noting of what that situation is like. I find this is a major
> boost to creativity. It's a paradox in which dropping the striving for
> good results leads to some wonderful things.

I can see that, because in a sense, the striving for good is actually bad.

Best,
Steve


.

Quantcast