Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum I know how mistakes happen!

Keyboardklutz,

I can't talk about The Inner Game of Tennis, as I've never read it. But The Inner Game of Music does not talk about the unconscious, IMO. The distinction between self one and self two are not intended to be interpreted as the distinction between conscious and unconscious, and this is stated directly in the book. I've always interpreted the point of this book as being that the conscious dialog analyzing and critiquing of yourself as you are playing interferes with the focus required in playing.

The "Game" is that you are playing an "Inner Game" against yourself - the practice of performing vs. the commentary on the performance.

Rich

I have in my hands here the Inner Game of Tennis, Music and Skiing. As Tennis was the original I'll quote from that. I've forgotten how good it is and he is describing the non-conscious 100%:
Now I would add that Self 2 not just calculates but decides (makes choices). I'll have to reread him and see what he says.

There are many approaches that can work, but there also many that simply don't. I'm really not seeing the value in going faster than you are able to be certain of working accurately at, or how this is ever going to be more suited to some people. Do we teach kids to recite the alphabet by saying the letters in a slightly different order each time, in the assumption that they'll eventually go on to say them in the correct order? Would this simply be an alternate approach of great value or a grossly flawed one? Jazz might be a different issue but promoting 'trial and error' as a method for learning the fixed patterns of classical piano just doesn't cut it for me. You learn by doing things accurately and consisently. Not by screwing up in a variety of different ways in the hope of gradually converging on the ability to do it right (when it was perfectly feasible to do so from the very outset- had you simply permitted yourself time to think).

When students don't get things right, the vast majority of the time it's either because they went too fast too soon to think it through adequately, or because they've gone wrong so many time before, that they have a hard time getting to the correct notes without confusing them with a range of previous tendencies. There are other things that can cause problems, but I'm certain that the overwhelming majority fit into this category. I don't see how encouraging students to simply "have a go" as their normal procedure for learning pieces will result in optimal results from anyone (unless their goal as a pianist is solely to be able to loosely blag their way through pieces at sight, without stopping).

Skimmed through it. I think that would be the difference between Gallwey's inner game and the Embodiment people - Gallwey doesn't mention Self 2 making decisions. From what I'm reading of the Embodiment people it's role is extended to making choices. Of course if Gallwey had chosen to consider that role he would have seen that it definitely does. Take flight or fight for instance - you've decided long before you know you're in peril.

I take it, then, that that is your positive contribution to this thread?

Keyboard klutz, you are absolutely correct.

I find that when I approach a new work, after learning it, and playing it for people, there are usually some "rough passages"...things that DO need to be corrected. So I go back and practice them as thourougly as possible, until I am physically able to play them.

However, come time of performance, sometimes, these passage, no matter how well I have actually learned them, will never EVER come across, simply because there has been permanent mental damage done in that section - such that mind subconcious nearly wills me me to make a mistake in that part. It has NOTHING to do with your actual technique, it is simply the unfortunate nature of the human condition - not leaving well enough alone. This is a universal problem. Andre Watts mentioned once that he had a season of nothing but memory lapses, and the most excruciating aspect of it all was that he could not help himself, at all costs, from EXPECTING these lapses, and he knew exactly where in the music they would be. His secondary self - as you prefer - was WILLING them to happen.

In my experience, the only way to overcome this is to :

a.) Try from the very beginning to learn as carefully as possible, knowing where you tend to fall into traps so you might be able to avoid them, so you will at least minimize the amount of these mental traps.

b.) Simply suffer through it, then wait. Drop the piece for a few months without so much as thinking about it. When you re-approach it, you will find that the tide of time has done good work in washing away the anxiety, and you will begin to "Feel" the piece - both physically and pyschologically - in a newer, more mature way.

I agree entirely with what you describe there, but KBK made it clear that he's not talking about that. He insisted on some perverse waffle about the subconscious wanting to fix a mistake and hence correcting incorrectly and denied that it's about anxiety. Of course, his theory is just a complete load of unsubstantiated hot air however, and the more likely explanation is the anxiety you describe.

I wouldn't say it has 'nothing' to do with technique though. When the movements are truly assured, anxiety is far less likely to cause problems. You can see how nervous Horowitz was on his 1968 film. However, his sheer technical assurance and ability to adjust (eg. leaving out a few notes when playing right on the edge) carry him through with no problems. A lesser pianist in the same condition might have made a total balls up. The more instability is present (whether that be in the physical memory, or the mental understanding of the foundations- something that is vital for picking up at once after finger slips or missing notes), the more damage anxiety can do. It tends to amplify small problems. Perhaps Watts was so nervous about these passages, because he was also less than happy with how they were going in practise? I find it hard to believe he was playing effortlessly and without problems in each and every rehearsal, but then losing it in virtually ever concert.

By a weird coincidence, I was in a drugstore today browsing the magazine rack while I waited.

Discover magazine had a special issue on the brain, and an article caught my eye: why we screw up.

Neurons in the DMA fire 30 seconds before we have a brain fart. (technical term) The way the authors explained it, the brain has decided things are going okay, time to turn the autopilot on and take a little rest. And during that rest, when the more attentive sections of the brain are on coffee break, the autopilot takes us right past our exit.

Mistakes serve a purpose according to Despair Inc..



I wonder how that might apply to piano playing?

Thanks for that Tim. We may be back to the ol' right brain/left brain. This guy is saying processes go on 24/7 without consciousness which can only take in one at a time:
http://discovermagazine.com/brightcove?bcpid=370512060&bclid=533256427&bctid=11141919001

I love the cup of water thing - so true: http://discovermagazine.com/brightcove?bcpid=370512060&bclid=533256427&bctid=16760371001
Perhaps no relevance but it's interesting Piaget stuff. I can always tell when an 11 year old is behind others in development. Ask them to draw a car - the ones who are behind have to put 4 wheels on it even though they draw a side view.

I think this is what I'm talking about - decisions being made before you are aware of it. In fact, as he states, others around you can be aware you've made a decision before you are. The 'confidence center' of the brain seems to be the key. If it gives the OK to the correction then it'll stick. If not then you'll still be searching for the error.
http://discovermagazine.com/brightcove?bcpid=370512060&bclid=533256427&bctid=16759497001

Could we be so busy focusing on the correction we fail to inhibit the mistake? This thread is a good case in point - how many posters are so anxious to avoid mistakes that they assume that's the subject of this thread?
http://discovermagazine.com/brightcove?bcpid=370512060&bclid=533256427&bctid=11043607001

It was my amygdala wot done it:
http://discovermagazine.com/brightcove?bcpid=370512060&bclid=533256427&bctid=1283221335

If we're talking about a half-decent pianist, there's no question of 'inhibiting a mistake'. When good pianists make mistakes, they go back and focus on what they SHOULD be playing. Nothing else should even come into the picture. I'm stunned that anyone would be thinking "Don't play an f natural" instead of thinking about the F sharp and the physical distance that will lead into it from the previous note. Those who flourish don't just "have another go" (and make the same balls up five times in a row). Fixing errors may involve going ultra slow and repeating on many occasions. However, there is no question of trying to 'remove' a mistake. You just go slow and use your brain to follow the instructions as they are presented, without allowing habit to control anything. This is repeated until the passage is under control. The only point of focus is the movement you had not done but which was required. Only those who do not stop to rethink and simply try again (on the off chance that some mysterious instinct will work perfectly well next time) might even have to contemplate 'inhibiting a mistake'. Good pianists simply focus on the positive of what they are attempting to do. To even raise the notion of thinking too much about the means of correction shows a complete misunderstanding. In fact, it probably shouldn't even be thought of as a 'correction'. You simply need to visualize what you're supposed to be doing (with 100% certainty) and focus on nothing other than doing it. If the mistake is coming back, you're not practising with any understanding but merely relying on habit still- which offers virtually no realistic prospect of improvement. Good practise doesn't come through reliance on habits. Reliable habits come through good practise.

I love the picture. I think that's certainly the only respect in which persistently making mistakes in the hope that it will lead to convergence on a right way might have any inherent value (with regard to learning pieces on the piano, at least). The results of the "trial and error" approach certainly serve as a powerful warning, so all credit to the martyrs who are going ahead with airing such a powerful message.

Is that why young children learn so well? Because as we get older we correct mistakes instead of inhibiting them? The child knows nothing of this so operates naturally. As they get older do children not get more emoted by their mistakes?

You read my post then?

Getting annoyed by mistakes may well be an issue. Experiencing anxiety about having gone wrong may well make it more difficult to go back and casually focus on simply playing it correctly next time. Focus on the mistake and the stress levels may reduce the odds of playing the passage right the next time. Frustration often leads to simply launching in without the thought that is required to get it right second time round. This is the single biggest enemy to progress.

Why should correcting mistakes instead of inhibiting them be a reason why adults would learn less well? On what logical grounding? And who says that children who progress well 'inhibit' mistakes rather than go back and correct them? There's nothing 'natural' about that. It's well established that young children are more able to form neural connections than older people. That's why they learn faster. However, this makes it all the more important for them to be focussing on how they need to go about playing the passage, instead of on inhibiting something from happening. It's all the easier for them to screw things up for good by going wrong a few times. To think of inhibiting provides no notion of what means they are supposed to achieve any inhibition.

Even if you think of inhibiting a mistake, the only way to do so is to think about the positive of what movement is required to 'inhibit' that mistake- or rather to play the passage correctly. Can you inhibit a mistake by playing a random note- or do you need to think about both the RIGHT note and the RIGHT movement to be able to play it? If you haven't done that, in other words you're relying on habits (that have clearly not formed adequately, judging from the prior mistake) or basic guesswork. That would certainly explain your tendency to see new mistakes emerging around the point of the corrected one. There is simply no feasible approach that leaves out the positive of focussing on what IS required. Again, it's well established in science that the human brain cannot fully process isolated negatives (just like we can't visualize a negative quantity of apples, say, but we can process 4-3 apples- in which we can see three positive apples being removed, without having to visualize any anti-apples). This really doesn't seem to be going anywhere. What basis do you have for this ill-evidenced theory, that so much established science would suggest to be squarely counterproductive? I sincerely hope you don't teach this way, contrary to such widely accepted science about the brain.

Sorry, I dropped out of this discussion so I'm playing catch-up now!
I don't think something ever gets fixed. When someone quits smoking, even years after they may be tempted to light one up in a particularly stressful situation. The habit never goes away, we just react to it differently.

The same is with mistakes in piano. We never unlearn a learned mistake, we just have to go through extra processes to not act on that wrong information. Set aside a piece where you thought you got it down perfectly and come back to it after a few months. Those mistakes will be right back in there.

Or take the student who learned a rhythm wrong, you point it out to them at the lesson, and they come back the next week with the same incorrect rhythm. They went home and practiced every day, but they couldn't undo that mistake. It takes lots and lots of work to learn how to not act on that first-learned sound, and it always will be there.

Why? Because the mistake always makes more sense to us than the reality of what it should be. When we finally understand what it should be -- completely understand -- then we can begin to change our response to the impulse to play it wrong.

Slow, deliberate practice does not mean hesitation. If I have a student who need sot hesitate, it means their fingers are going too fast for their brain. Often beginners have one speed - the speed at which we speak, which is 116. However, when learning a new piece this is way too fast. They are speaking a foreign language, and they're not yet familiar with the vocabulary. Therefore, they must learn to speak slower, the speed at which they can process the "words" if you will. This is not hesitation; doing the opposite will cause hesitation.

Agreed. Going slowly enough to think everything through adequately yet maintain continuity is always the goal. However, I would say that a moment of hesitation is always better than going on to strike a wrong note (in practice time). Land on a a wrong note and you have a lot of work to do, if you don't want it to come back. However, hesitate a little, and you can figure out what the note is for definite before going back and then getting the rhythm immediately afterwards (perhaps at a slower tempo, if required).

Some people have the idea that any hesitation is ALWAYS a cardinal sin and that it's better to go wrong in any instance. I think this is rather short sighted. It's vital to have the skill to fake in this way, but the procedures for practising sight-reading and the procedures for learning pieces should not be treated identically. A good pianist ought to have both sets of skills, through working both ways. Those who always favour wrong notes over hesitations in all circumstances (rather than merely in run-throughs) will inevitably be less accurate in pieces they are seeking to learn, even if they are more continuous in their sight-reading. The only problem with hesitations is when they are not properly fixed, through slower continuous work.

I agree that the memory of wrong notes is hard to remove, but I don't know if I agree with this:

"Set aside a piece where you thought you got it down perfectly and come back to it after a few months. Those mistakes will be right back in there."

If old errors return, it suggests that it hadn't quite been down perfectly before. I've notice recently that pieces I have learned in more recent years have come back very easily, after time off. Any slips tend to be down to having forgotten what I was intending to play (hence the importance of starting from the score and thinking it through as if from scratch), rather than bad habits from before. In the past it took ages to relearn an old piece (basically because I had learned them with such inefficient movements in the first place). I think whichever habits were strongest are the most likely ones to come back. I think the biggest risk with old pieces is to think that because you could play them before, you don't need to put much thought into bringing them back up. It often causes a whole load of new problems, when you go wrong because you were expecting everything to be as familiar as it used to be. However, if you start slowly and patiently, it can be surprisingly easy to return to the exact state in which the piece had been previously (or ideally better).

Another note on the "hesitation" subject: one cannot compare hesitation in improv with hesitation in practice. These are two distinct activities, like improv acting vs. acting a Shakespearean role. While both involve language, they are very different in their execution. One rarely sees mistakes in improvisation in general since it is all ad hoc, whereas mistakes in performing a written piece can happen for various reasons.



It is a scientific fact that something learned cannot be lost with the exclusion of brain trauma. What is lost, however, is the ability to retrieve, like a bridge that breaks down over time. The place the bridge goes to still exists, but the means of getting there may not. Some bridges are better left broken, and when I've relearned pieces if enough time has happened, the old mistakes do not return. Or, as I put forth in my previous post, if the proper way was sufficiently learned and understood then the bridge to the mistake will not return.

Yeah, I think that's a nice comparison. Following on from that, I don't think any actor would feel that it would be a good idea to maintain the rhythm but make up random words, while learning their lines- rather than simply go back to the text and check it. You have to make a distinction between whether you're practising or performing. When you're practising, it's better to hesitate or to stop, before going back to put everything together into something that is not only whole, but also correct. It's only when you're rehearsing performance itself, that you ought to be willing to make compromises in favour of going ahead rather than stopping. If a student has learned a piece from start to finish, I'd expect them to be in performance mode, when playing it to me. I wouldn't want to hear stops. Conversely, if they haven't yet learned the notes, the last thing I would ever encourage them to do is to make guesses when playing any of it for me, purely for the sake of maintaing the rhythm.

"It is a scientific fact that something learned cannot be lost with the exclusion of brain trauma. What is lost, however, is the ability to retrieve, like a bridge that breaks down over time. The place the bridge goes to still exists, but the means of getting there may not. Some bridges are better left broken, and when I've relearned pieces if enough time has happened, the old mistakes do not return. Or, as I put forth in my previous post, if the proper way was sufficiently learned and understood then the bridge to the mistake will not return."

Again, that's a nice way of putting it. When relearning a piece, if you have the patience to treat every note on the score as though you are reading it and playing it for the first time (paradoxical as it sounds), you soon find it feels as instinctive as when you were working on it before. However, if you start by attempting to play it as you did previously, you create all kinds of new problems and probably never get back to the same old standard. As you say, it's just a matter of rebuilding the bridge to where you were before.

Again Morodiene you are getting side tracked. If you really want a side track how the amygdala 'lights up' perceptions to re-enforce their retention is a good one. How do we get students to emote over what we wish to get into their memories and not emote over errors? I know Tony Buzan uses colours.