Discussion:
For What it is Worth
(too old to reply)
Learnwell
2012-02-28 17:13:41 UTC
Permalink
I wanted to share something interesting I came across recently.

I’ve been doing a lot of research into cognitive psychology and
neurology (makes sense as a teacher to look into that stuff) and
recently read a paper (peer reviewed and published) on the development
of expertise in music (citation at the end), and of course, talent is
not part of it.

Three things I thought you might find interesting:

“The debate is still open (and might remain indefinitely) about which
“natural” limits of performance exist, and whether and how such limits
can be pushed.”

I wonder if we are even close to the technical limits possible. 20
years ago HVL Etude two at 120 bpm was considered a feat of
excellence. Currently that boundary has been smashed by many. What
will the smashed boundary look like in 20 years?

“A bitter taste regarding limits of expertise arises from the fact
that most professional musicians suffer from medical
problems. . .Interestingly, the ranking of instruments in order of
prevalence of symptoms corresponds roughly to the intensity of
practice required to reach high levels of performance, with pianists,
violinists, and guitarists at the top of the list.”

And for this last one I thought it was cool that they referenced HVL.
“A number of pieces exist that were deemed unplayable at the time of
their composition, including examples even from the 20th century (e.g.
“Etudes” for guitar by Villa-Lobos; “Hammerklavier: sonata for piano
by Beethoven; “Etudes” for piano by Ligeti; “Caprices” for violin by
Paganini). Nowadays many of the pieces are standard fare for
adolescent performers.”

From the paper, “Music” chapter 37 by Andreas C. Lehmann and Hans
Gruber in the, “The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert
Performance” edited by K. Anders Ericsson Cambridge Universtiy Press
2006.

If you are not familiar with Anders Ericsson’s work I highly recommend
it, he has been studying this stuff for 30 years and has done amazing
work.
David Raleigh Arnold
2012-02-28 18:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Learnwell
I wanted to share something interesting I came across recently.
I’ve been doing a lot of research into cognitive psychology and
neurology (makes sense as a teacher to look into that stuff) and
recently read a paper (peer reviewed and published) on the development
of expertise in music (citation at the end), and of course, talent is
not part of it.
“The debate is still open (and might remain indefinitely) about which
“natural” limits of performance exist, and whether and how such limits
can be pushed.”
I wonder if we are even close to the technical limits possible. 20 years
ago HVL Etude two at 120 bpm was considered a feat of excellence.
Currently that boundary has been smashed by many. What will the smashed
boundary look like in 20 years?
“A bitter taste regarding limits of expertise arises from the fact that
most professional musicians suffer from medical problems. .
.Interestingly, the ranking of instruments in order of prevalence of
symptoms corresponds roughly to the intensity of practice required to
reach high levels of performance, with pianists, violinists, and
guitarists at the top of the list.”
And for this last one I thought it was cool that they referenced HVL. “A
number of pieces exist that were deemed unplayable at the time of their
composition, including examples even from the 20th century (e.g.
“Etudes” for guitar by Villa-Lobos; “Hammerklavier: sonata for piano by
Beethoven; “Etudes” for piano by Ligeti; “Caprices” for violin by
Paganini). Nowadays many of the pieces are standard fare for adolescent
performers.”
From the paper, “Music” chapter 37 by Andreas C. Lehmann and Hans Gruber
in the, “The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance”
edited by K. Anders Ericsson Cambridge Universtiy Press 2006.
If you are not familiar with Anders Ericsson’s work I highly recommend
it, he has been studying this stuff for 30 years and has done amazing
work.
DGT makes possible a great improvement in guitarist's abilities
over what was possible before. No worthy technical exercises
for guitar existed before, ever. It doesn't take long at all to verify
these assertions. Regards, daveA
--
Guitar teaching materials and original music for all styles and levels.
Site: http://www.openguitar.com (()) eMail: ***@gmail.com
Contact: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html"
Lutemann
2012-03-05 15:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Post by Learnwell
I wanted to share something interesting I came across recently.
I’ve been doing a lot of research into cognitive psychology and
neurology (makes sense as a teacher to look into that stuff) and
recently read a paper (peer reviewed and published) on the development
of expertise in music (citation at the end), and of course, talent is
not part of it.
“The debate is still open (and might remain indefinitely) about which
“natural” limits of performance exist, and whether and how such limits
can be pushed.”
I wonder if we are even close to the technical limits possible. 20 years
ago HVL Etude two at 120 bpm was considered a feat of excellence.
Currently that boundary has been smashed by many. What will the smashed
boundary look like in 20 years?
“A bitter taste regarding limits of expertise arises from the fact that
most professional musicians suffer from medical problems. .
.Interestingly, the ranking of instruments in order of prevalence of
symptoms corresponds roughly to the intensity of practice required to
reach high levels of performance, with pianists, violinists, and
guitarists at the top of the list.”
And for this last one I thought it was cool that they referenced HVL. “A
number of pieces exist that were deemed unplayable at the time of their
composition, including examples even from the 20th century (e.g.
“Etudes” for guitar by Villa-Lobos; “Hammerklavier: sonata for piano by
Beethoven; “Etudes” for piano by Ligeti; “Caprices” for violin by
Paganini). Nowadays many of the pieces are standard fare for adolescent
performers.”
From the paper, “Music” chapter 37 by Andreas C. Lehmann and Hans Gruber
in the, “The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance”
edited by K. Anders Ericsson Cambridge Universtiy Press 2006.
If you are not familiar with Anders Ericsson’s work I highly recommend
it, he has been studying this stuff for 30 years and has done amazing
work.
DGT makes possible a great improvement in guitarist's abilities
over what was possible before. No worthy technical exercises
for guitar existed before, ever. It doesn't take long at all to verify
these assertions. Regards, daveA
--
Guitar teaching materials and original music for all styles and levels.
Contact:http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html"
As usual, DA is wrong, technical exercises don't really enter into the
equation.

I think we are close to the limit. The very best players can play
just about anything. The main thing that will happen in the next 20
years is that the highest levels of technique of today will become
common. The two reasons for this is that a great many students are
starting at an early age, and the pedagogy has gotten a lot better.
ktaylor
2012-03-05 16:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lutemann
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Post by Learnwell
I wanted to share something interesting I came across recently.
I’ve been doing a lot of research into cognitive psychology and
neurology (makes sense as a teacher to look into that stuff) and
recently read a paper (peer reviewed and published) on the development
of expertise in music (citation at the end), and of course, talent is
not part of it.
“The debate is still open (and might remain indefinitely) about which
“natural” limits of performance exist, and whether and how such limits
can be pushed.”
I wonder if we are even close to the technical limits possible. 20 years
ago HVL Etude two at 120 bpm was considered a feat of excellence.
Currently that boundary has been smashed by many. What will the smashed
boundary look like in 20 years?
“A bitter taste regarding limits of expertise arises from the fact that
most professional musicians suffer from medical problems. .
.Interestingly, the ranking of instruments in order of prevalence of
symptoms corresponds roughly to the intensity of practice required to
reach high levels of performance, with pianists, violinists, and
guitarists at the top of the list.”
And for this last one I thought it was cool that they referenced HVL. “A
number of pieces exist that were deemed unplayable at the time of their
composition, including examples even from the 20th century (e.g.
“Etudes” for guitar by Villa-Lobos; “Hammerklavier: sonata for piano by
Beethoven; “Etudes” for piano by Ligeti; “Caprices” for violin by
Paganini). Nowadays many of the pieces are standard fare for adolescent
performers.”
From the paper, “Music” chapter 37 by Andreas C. Lehmann and Hans Gruber
in the, “The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance”
edited by K. Anders Ericsson Cambridge Universtiy Press 2006.
If you are not familiar with Anders Ericsson’s work I highly recommend
it, he has been studying this stuff for 30 years and has done amazing
work.
DGT makes possible a great improvement in guitarist's abilities
over what was possible before. No worthy technical exercises
for guitar existed before, ever. It doesn't take long at all to verify
these assertions. Regards, daveA
--
Guitar teaching materials and original music for all styles and levels.
Contact:http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html"
As usual, DA is wrong, technical exercises don't really enter into the
equation.
I think we are close to the limit.  The very best players can play
just about anything.  The main thing that will happen in the next 20
years is that the  highest  levels  of technique of today will become
common. The two reasons for this is that a great many students are
starting at an early age, and the pedagogy has gotten a lot better.
Yamashita said (in 1988) he never did exercises - just passages.

If technical limits and the ability to play the highest level rep
ceases to become an issue, then the real issue is one of artistry.

Kevin
Lutemann
2012-03-05 19:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by ktaylor
Post by Lutemann
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Post by Learnwell
I wanted to share something interesting I came across recently.
I’ve been doing a lot of research into cognitive psychology and
neurology (makes sense as a teacher to look into that stuff) and
recently read a paper (peer reviewed and published) on the development
of expertise in music (citation at the end), and of course, talent is
not part of it.
“The debate is still open (and might remain indefinitely) about which
“natural” limits of performance exist, and whether and how such limits
can be pushed.”
I wonder if we are even close to the technical limits possible. 20 years
ago HVL Etude two at 120 bpm was considered a feat of excellence.
Currently that boundary has been smashed by many. What will the smashed
boundary look like in 20 years?
“A bitter taste regarding limits of expertise arises from the fact that
most professional musicians suffer from medical problems. .
.Interestingly, the ranking of instruments in order of prevalence of
symptoms corresponds roughly to the intensity of practice required to
reach high levels of performance, with pianists, violinists, and
guitarists at the top of the list.”
And for this last one I thought it was cool that they referenced HVL. “A
number of pieces exist that were deemed unplayable at the time of their
composition, including examples even from the 20th century (e.g.
“Etudes” for guitar by Villa-Lobos; “Hammerklavier: sonata for piano by
Beethoven; “Etudes” for piano by Ligeti; “Caprices” for violin by
Paganini). Nowadays many of the pieces are standard fare for adolescent
performers.”
From the paper, “Music” chapter 37 by Andreas C. Lehmann and Hans Gruber
in the, “The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance”
edited by K. Anders Ericsson Cambridge Universtiy Press 2006.
If you are not familiar with Anders Ericsson’s work I highly recommend
it, he has been studying this stuff for 30 years and has done amazing
work.
DGT makes possible a great improvement in guitarist's abilities
over what was possible before. No worthy technical exercises
for guitar existed before, ever. It doesn't take long at all to verify
these assertions. Regards, daveA
--
Guitar teaching materials and original music for all styles and levels.
Contact:http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html"
As usual, DA is wrong, technical exercises don't really enter into the
equation.
I think we are close to the limit.  The very best players can play
just about anything.  The main thing that will happen in the next 20
years is that the  highest  levels  of technique of today will become
common. The two reasons for this is that a great many students are
starting at an early age, and the pedagogy has gotten a lot better.
Yamashita said (in 1988) he never did exercises - just passages.
If technical  limits and the ability to play the highest level rep
ceases to become an issue, then the real issue is one of artistry.
Kevin
Kevin, I agree. We have to get this technique thing behind us, and it
will happen.
Learnwell
2012-03-05 21:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Kevin, I agree.  We have to get this technique thing behind us, and it
will happen.
Interpretation IS a technique, and it has improved alongside the
technical issues you are speaking of.

And there are as many poor interpreters as there are poor technicians.
The poor interpreters are more noticeable because many times they have
great technique.
ktaylor
2012-03-06 15:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Learnwell
Kevin, I agree.  We have to get this technique thing behind us, and it
will happen.
Interpretation IS a technique, and it has improved alongside the
technical issues you are speaking of.
And there are as many poor interpreters as there are poor technicians.
The poor interpreters are more noticeable because many times they have
great technique.
Teaching interpretation is problematic - and very challenging. There
are definite "items of knowledge" that must be communicated to
students to understand proper phrasing, note grouping, etc. But some
of the elements of interpretation such as proper gradations of tempo,
volume, articulation, timbre which make up extraordinarily poignant
aspects of artistic communication are very difficult to teach. I am
thrilled the first time a young student comes in and adds an
interpretive element that we have not discussed. This suggests that
the student is interacting with the musical material on its own terms
and is the beginning of artistry. My role as a teacher in those
circumstances is to validate by showing my enjoyment. Occasionally the
teenagers come in and do something meaningful I have never thought of
with music I have heard and taught for decades. Is that exciting!

I think self-initiating interpretation is a function of cognitive
development. Interpretative elements imposed upon the music can be
taught, but its replication is a matter of rote and does little except
reveals the teacher through the student. Bringing the student to a
point of technical maturity where he or she initiates interpretation
(we can discuss taste later) is one of the goals in my teaching.

Kevin
Slogoin
2012-03-06 23:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by ktaylor
I think self-initiating interpretation
is a function of cognitive development.
Well, yes and no. Culture may work to enhance or suppress different
aspects of musical development. Some got rhythm and some can sing
pretty and some can't do either as people are too afraid to even try
anything like dancing, singing, acting, or any other performing art
where they must break their carefully crafted public image. Why risk
the ridicule we saw recently with Romney's vrs Obama's singing and in
the past with others who dared to sing in public while not being a
professional?
Cactus Wren
2012-03-07 16:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by ktaylor
I think self-initiating interpretation
is a function of cognitive development.
  Well, yes and no. Culture may work to enhance or suppress different
aspects of musical development. Some got rhythm and some can sing
pretty and some can't do either as people are too afraid to even try
anything like dancing, singing, acting, or any other performing art
where they must break their carefully crafted public image. Why risk
the ridicule we saw recently with Romney's vrs Obama's singing and in
the past with others who dared to sing in public while not being a
professional?
What a strange idea, that daring to interpret music is something that
happens late. In a comfortable setting, without stultifying rules and
trying to satisfy an authority figure, it's a natural activity of a 3
year old.
Slogoin
2012-03-07 21:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cactus Wren
What a strange idea, that daring
to interpret music is something that
happens late.
Some parts come later than others and each has their own pattern of
acquiring skills.
Post by Cactus Wren
In a comfortable setting, without
stultifying rules and trying to satisfy
an authority figure, it's a natural
activity of a 3 year old.
There are ALWAYS rules in any group. Some rules may be useful in one
culture but absurd in another.

"Satisfying authority" is not as much a problem as R-E-S-P-E-C-T ,
just a little bit...
Douglas Seth
2012-03-06 03:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ktaylor
Post by Lutemann
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Post by Learnwell
I wanted to share something interesting I came across recently.
I’ve been doing a lot of research into cognitive psychology and
neurology (makes sense as a teacher to look into that stuff) and
recently read a paper (peer reviewed and published) on the development
of expertise in music (citation at the end), and of course, talent is
not part of it.
“The debate is still open (and might remain indefinitely) about which
“natural” limits of performance exist, and whether and how such limits
can be pushed.”
I wonder if we are even close to the technical limits possible. 20 years
ago HVL Etude two at 120 bpm was considered a feat of excellence.
Currently that boundary has been smashed by many. What will the smashed
boundary look like in 20 years?
“A bitter taste regarding limits of expertise arises from the fact that
most professional musicians suffer from medical problems. .
.Interestingly, the ranking of instruments in order of prevalence of
symptoms corresponds roughly to the intensity of practice required to
reach high levels of performance, with pianists, violinists, and
guitarists at the top of the list.”
And for this last one I thought it was cool that they referenced HVL. “A
number of pieces exist that were deemed unplayable at the time of their
composition, including examples even from the 20th century (e.g.
“Etudes” for guitar by Villa-Lobos; “Hammerklavier: sonata for piano by
Beethoven; “Etudes” for piano by Ligeti; “Caprices” for violin by
Paganini). Nowadays many of the pieces are standard fare for adolescent
performers.”
From the paper, “Music” chapter 37 by Andreas C. Lehmann and Hans Gruber
in the, “The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance”
edited by K. Anders Ericsson Cambridge Universtiy Press 2006.
If you are not familiar with Anders Ericsson’s work I highly recommend
it, he has been studying this stuff for 30 years and has done amazing
work.
DGT makes possible a great improvement in guitarist's abilities
over what was possible before. No worthy technical exercises
for guitar existed before, ever. It doesn't take long at all to verify
these assertions. Regards, daveA
--<