September 26, 2009

Alicia de Larrocha, Pianist, Dies at 86
By ALLAN KOZINN

Alicia de Larrocha, the diminutive Spanish pianist esteemed for her elegant Mozart performances and regarded as an incomparable interpreter of Albéniz, Granados, Mompou and other Spanish composers, died on Friday evening in a hospital in Barcelona. She was 86.

Her death was confirmed by Gregor Benko, a piano historian, record producer and family friend. He said she had been in declining health since breaking her hip two years ago.

In a career that began when she was a child — she made her concert debut at 5, and her first recording at 9 — Ms. de Larrocha cultivated a poetic interpretive style in which gracefulness was prized over technical flashiness or grand, temperamental gestures. But her approach, combined with her small stature — she was only 4-foot-9 — was deceptive: early in her career she played all the big Romantic concertos, including those of Liszt and Rachmaninoff, and she could produce a surprisingly large, beautifully sculptured sound.  [...]

Ms. de Larrocha’s most enduring contribution, however, was her championship of Spanish composers. Although Arthur Rubinstein played some of this repertory, few other pianists outside Spain did, and none with Ms. de Larrocha’s flair. She made enduring recordings of Albéniz’s “Iberia” and Granados’s “Goyescas,” and helped ease those works into the standard piano canon. She also made a powerful case for the piano music of Joaquín Turina, a composer otherwise known mostly for the guitar music he wrote for Andrés Segovia, and she almost single-handedly built a following for Federico Mompou, a Catalan composer of quietly shimmering, poetic works.  [...]

Ms. de Larrocha began to demand piano lessons when she was 3, after visiting her aunt as she taught students. At the keyboard on her own, Ms. de Larrocha imitated what she had seen her aunt’s students do, and impressed her aunt sufficiently that she took Ms. de Larrocha to Marshall. He was less encouraging. He said it was too early to start lessons, and suggested that Ms. de Larrocha be kept away from the piano. Ms. de Larrocha said that once her aunt locked the instrument, she banged her head on the floor until Marshall relented and began to teach her.  [...]

“There are two kinds of repertory Alicia plays,” Mr. Breslin said in 1978. “Things she plays extremely well, and things she plays better than anyone else. But what I think makes her a phenomenon is that she doesn’t give the impression of being a great personality. She’s cool as a cucumber. Onstage, she doesn’t even like to look at the audience. So what the public is responding to is something in the music.”  [...]

But over all her technique never failed her, nor did her sense of color, especially in the twin pillars of her repertory, Spanish music and Mozart. She continued to earn glowing reviews.

When she played her final Carnegie Hall performance — the chamber version of Mozart’s Concerto No. 12 in A (K. 414), with the Tokyo String Quartet, in November 2002 — The New York Times reported that, “The small details — the trills and turns that adorn the score — as well as the more expansive pianism in the cadenzas and the glowing Andante, had considerable energy behind them.”

The review continued: “Her performance had the bright, light quality that she brought to her playing in the ’70s, when her appearances at the Mostly Mozart Festival were among the highlights of New York summers. If anything, her approach to Mozart on Monday was more fluid, more carefully nuanced than it was then.”

(source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/arts/music/26larrocha.html)

Not exactly new (I read an article about this subject many years ago and subsequently shared it with piano parents), but definitely worth repeating:

Psychology of Parenting: Why Praising Your Kids Can Hurt Them

Po Bronson Debunks Conventional Parenting Wisdom that All Praise Is Good for Kids
By CYNTHIA MCFADDEN and DEBORAH APTON
ABC News (online) Sept. 3, 2009—

For writer and father Po Bronson, yelling praise from the sidelines of a soccer game to his child has always been part of his parental territory. And what parent hasn’t done the same, showering gushing platitudes like “You played great” or “You’re so smart” at their children at every twist and turn?

But praising your kids, Bronson says now, is what can ruin them. In his latest book, “NurtureShock,” written with Ashley Merryman, the science journalist explores some misconceptions about raising children and how certain modern parenting strategies, such as excessively praising children, can do more harm than good. 

[...]  “Kids become fixated on maintaining the image of being smart, of never getting anything wrong in front of people, of always looking like they’ve gotten everything right, of making it look effortless,” said Bronson. “Because if you show effort, it’s a sign you can’t cut it on your natural gifts. And so they make safe choices. They choose classes that won’t challenge them. They choose teachers and projects where they know they can get an A.”

Bronson said he’s trying to reform and all parents should too — for their the sake of their children.

[...]  “The difference is a child who is truly motivated and interested in learning, versus a child who wants to memorize so they can get a good grade so they can keep hearing how smart they are,” Bronson explained.

A decade of groundbreaking research suggests that constant praise can lead kids to lose self-confidence, not gain it, and make them actually perform worse, not better.

Bronson relies heavily on the research of Carol Dweck, a professor of psychology at Stanford University.  [...] Over the past decade, Dweck has conducted a series of experiments on 400 fifth-graders from different socio-economic groups across the country. The research provided the basis for one chapter of Bronson’s new book and points to a stunning result: Not all praise is created equal. Telling children they’re smart can actually hurt them, and you get a far better result if you praise children for challenging themselves, and for effort.

“Nightline” asked Dweck and one of her graduate students to show us how it works.

Mary, 9, and Jameson, 10, were given a series of IQ puzzles and asked to work on them silently. At the end, the researcher gave each child a score. The research assistant praised Mary for being smart, while Jameson was praised for working hard.

After reviewing Mary’s answers, the research assistant lauded her: “Wow, you did really well at these problems. You got 8 — that’s a great score. You must be really smart at these problems.”  If Dweck’s theory holds, Mary will want to continue to look smart, and when given the choice, will opt for a test that shows it — not something more challenging where they she could learn more.

In the next phase, when Mary was asked by the research assistant what kind of problems she would like to work on next, “problems that are pretty easy so you’ll do well, problems that you’re pretty good at so you can show that you’re smart, or problems that you’ll learn a lot from even if you don’t look so smart,” Mary chose problems to show that she’s smart.

“Problems that I’m pretty good at — so I can show I’m smart,” Mary told the researcher. “I am smart.”

Consider the difference with Jameson, who was praised for how hard he’d worked — not for being smart.  “Well, you did really well on these problems. You got 8 — that’s a really high score! You must have worked really hard on these problems,” the researcher said. Jameson agreed.

Dweck’s research suggests that Jameson — armed with praise for his hard work — will want to challenge himself — even though he got some problems wrong.  Following course, Jameson opted for “problems I’ll learn a lot from even if I don’t look so smart.”

Bingo. But Dweck took the experiment one step further. Both kids were immediately given another test — one that was much more difficult than the first and way beyond their grade.

While Mary actually performed extremely well, the researcher was discouraging, and asked her why she seemed to have more trouble with the second set of problems. A deflated Mary said that she wasn’t smart enough.  “There are other people in my class that are smarter than me. … I’m not really that smart because of that, because I’m not used to them [the problems],” she said. “I worked hard as I can, so I think I’m not smart enough. But I do think I’m really, really smart but not ready for the other problems. But I want to do them when I get home.”

Jameson, who got only three answers right to Mary’s six on the very difficult second test, remained undaunted, moving onto a third test and nailing it — getting nine problems right.

But Mary seemed to crumble, getting only three right on the third test. And remember, she’d actually done twice as well as Jameson on the difficult second test. The point, Dweck said, is that praising children’s intelligence makes them less resilient when they hit a bump in the road and less willing to challenge themselves.

“After they’re praised for their effort, they enjoy being challenged,” Dweck explained. “What we value here is the practice, the effort, the trying of many strategies, and then they can feel satisfied as long as they’ve been engaged in that way. But if you say we value how smart you are, how enjoyable can it be if you’re not shining?”

Bronson said the sense of failure, induced by Dwek’s experiment, made Mary perform worse than she could have. In turn, Jameson, who was praised for effort, learned strategies for concentrating and facing challenges.  “At the end of the day, on the medium test, he ends up doing a better job than Mary, who had actually performed at a higher level up until then,” Dweck said.

[...] While Dweck’s research suggests parents need to stop praising their kids in a generalized way, with catch phrases like “You’re so smart” “You’re great,” praise given correctly — for effort or for specific accomplishments — “I really liked how you passed the ball to Johnny” or “You worked really hard on the field today” can be helpful, as opposed to “You’re the best soccer player ever!”

[...]Psychologist Florrie Ng was interested in studying cross-cultural parenting. She conducted research while she was at the University of Illinois, with children and their mothers in Illinois and Hong Kong. She tested kids with a similar pattern-matching test used by Dweck.

During a five-minute break, American mothers were given their child’s score. They were then told that their child did not perform well, regardless of their child’s actual score, and were then instructed to talk to their child about the test. During the sit-down with their kids, the American mothers did not mention their child’s “poor” score, but instead offered their child praise and presents, regardless.

“We saw them ignoring — completely ignoring — their child’s failure. And not willing to help them, and if anything, praising them for their intelligence, or saying, ‘Don’t worry, ‘You’re going to do great,’” Bronson said.

By contrast, when mothers in Hong Kong were told their child hadn’t performed well on the same test, they addressed the issue with their children, Bronson explained, working through the problems with their children and encouraged them to stay focused.

When the American and Chinese children were tested again, following the one-on-one sit-down with their mothers, the Chinese performed 33 percent better than in earlier tests. Ng plants to continue her research at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

“You might think that these Chinese mothers were cold and inconsiderate and cruel and harsh to their children. But when you watch the videotapes, these mothers are touching their child. They’re loving, they have their arm around their child, they are stroking them, they are just as affectionate as the American mothers were,” Bronson said.

“As American parents, we can be loving and affectionate and supportive at the same time as we are directing our child’s attention to better strategies to improve and to learn,” Bronson said.  “The child wants to do well on the test; help the child do well on the test. Don’t do things that are just going to make the child underperform on the next test.”

[...] “I became a social praiser,” Bronson said. “And I started to feel like — that it wasn’t my child. My child was doing great at the new praise regimen. It was I who was suffering. The praise junkie wasn’t my child; it was me.”

But Bronson confirmed that there’s no limit on one kind of support. Unconditional love is something parents can repeat and repeat.  “Telling your child you love them is something else,” Bronson said. “You can tell your child you love them all you want.”

Please read the complete article at http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/nurtureshock-parenting-tips-praising-kids-hurt/Story?id=8475074&page=1

I like numbers.  I like keeping track.  I did the math, and here’s the result:

During the eight weeks from June 1 through yesterday, July 24, I taught 165 private piano lessons which ranged in length from 30 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes.  In addition, there were two performance classes for K through 3rd grade, four group events for high school students, and six partner lessons for two 2nd graders. 

Individual students and the number of lessons taken so far this summer:

Xavier:  7 piano lessons;

Blaise:  13 piano lessons, 6 partner lessons, two performance classes;

Jessica:  30 piano lessons, two performance classes;

Taylor:  8 piano lessons, 4 group events;

Anna:  15 piano lessons, 6 partner lessons, two performance classes; 

Abby:  11 piano lessons, 3 group events;

Nicole and Coleman:  12 piano lessons each;

Grace and John:  4 piano lessons each, two performance classes;

Liza and Ronette:  7 piano lessons;

Corbin:  8 piano lessons;

Kyle C:  14 piano lessons, two performance classes;

Kyle M:  7 piano lessons, two performance classes;

Zane:  5 piano lessons;

Jamey:  6 piano lessons, one group event. 

Additionally, I observed/interviewed 5 students, and enjoyed the company of three guest students.

This coming week, we will wrap up the summer with a few more piano lessons and one more performance class.

Initial post: Jul 23, 2009 12:16 PM PDT
Jeffrey P. Bezos says:
This is an apology for the way we previously handled illegally sold copies of 1984 and other novels on Kindle. Our “solution” to the problem was stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles. It is wholly self-inflicted, and we deserve the criticism we’ve received. We will use the scar tissue from this painful mistake to help make better decisions going forward, ones that match our mission.

With deep apology to our customers,

Jeff Bezos
Founder & CEO
Amazon.com
(source: www.amazon.com)

Robert James

Hello Teacher,

My name is Robert James,Am interested in learning Piano lesson in your place,i am 18 years of age and i will like to know how much your charge per hour and let me know how many lesson will be taken in a week,I will like like you to get back to me on time because i have already told my dad about it and he traveled a lot,so please get back to me earlier before he go for another trip ok.
Waiting to read from you.
Regards,
Robert James.

John Hill
Jun 27

Hi, How are you doing today?I want a private lessons for my son(Paul) at your location.Paul is 14 year old boy and is ready to learn.Please I want to know your policy with regard to fees, cancellations, and make-up lessons.Also,get back to me with the total fees for six month lessons(one-hour lesson in a week) starting from July 10th.
In addition,I want to know the lessons location and your phone number.Looking forward to hearing from you.
My best regards,

John.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

K-STATE SOPHOMORE FROM OVERLAND PARK RESEARCHES THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE BEHAVIORS AND ATTITUDES ELICITED FROM DIFFERENT MUSIC LYRICS

MANHATTAN — The words to “Itsy Bitsy Spider” tell a simple story about an arachnid and a spout, but simply recalling the lines could initiate an unintentional attitude.

That’s the focus of research by Kansas State University’s Eduardo Alvarado, sophomore in pre-law, Overland Park, who is looking at the behaviors elicited from the musical lyrics of common songs.

Alvarado is working with Donald Saucier, associate professor of psychology at K-State, through K-State’s Developing Scholars Program, which pairs underrepresented students with faculty mentors to work on research projects.

Alvarado is studying the effects priming can have on behavior by looking at the positive and negative responses stimulated from music lyrics from a variety of song categories, including patriotic and Christmas songs. Priming, he said, is when someone is exposed to a certain environment and their subconscious is activated, and then they tend to act in accordance with that environment without deliberate intent. Priming can manipulate behavior; if someone witnesses violent behavior, they would likely behave more violently.

“One of the key implications is that behaviors may be malleable in the sense that many individuals have the capacity for similar reactions in social situations,” Saucier said. “Relatively small-scale primes may activate certain reactions, and these may be pro-social or anti-social depending on the context.”

Alvarado said the researchers wanted to see if certain musical lyrics activated a pro-social response, which is a positive feeling like empathy, or an anti-social response, which is a negative feeling like aggression. Participants from K-State’s spring general psychology courses participated in the initial project for class credit. The participants had to complete a survey and do a lyrics exercise. For the lyrics exercise, participants had to fill in missing lyrics for different songs.

The songs involved in the study were patriotic songs, such as “The Star-Spangled Banner”; secular Christmas songs, such as “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”; religious Christmas songs, such as “O Holy Night”; and neutral songs, such as “Itsy Bitsy Spider.”

Participants filled out a survey that asked questions about their religion and their attitudes toward other cultures and diversity. Half of the participants were asked to complete the survey before the lyric exercise, and the other half completed the survey after the exercise.

Alvarado said the researchers assume people act similarly to primes, and they looked overall at the surveys to see if there was a change in the responses before and after completing the lyrics exercise. They wanted to see if the songs created a pro-social or an anti-social response. He said the preliminary findings showed that the patriotic songs had a negative effect on the participants, as shown through their responses to the survey’s questions about other cultures and diversity. The patriotic songs made the participants close-minded and prejudiced.

“Once they were in a patriotic point of view, they were less empathetic,” Alvarado said. “They didn’t put themselves in other people’s perspective.”

Though songs like “Itsy Bitsy Spider” and “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” were meant to be neutral primes, the researchers found that they stimulated a pro-social response.

“You wouldn’t think that those songs were going to put people in a certain mind frame, but they do activate a certain attitude,” Alvarado said. “We found it made people more accepting and more empathetic. The reason for this we think is because we used to listen to these songs when we were little and they kind of activate childhood happiness.”

Saucier said follow-up research will focus on using stronger and more salient primes to influence pro-social and anti-social behavior. Jessica McManus, graduate student in psychology, has been collaborating on the project.

Alvarado said he has learned that being involved in research is a full-time commitment, but he wants to continue learning more through his projects.

“At first I was nervous, but I knew it was a really good opportunity,” Alvarado said. “A lot of people don’t know they can participate in research as an undergraduate.”

Alvarado said he likes, through K-State’s Developing Scholars Program, learning about research projects other students are involved in. He plans to go to law school and thinks his research experience will help him understand how people think and react to different situations.

Alvarado is from Mexico City and moved to Overland Park when he was 11 years old. He is bilingual, speaking English and Spanish, and is learning Italian. A 2008 graduate of Shawnee Mission North High School, he is the son of Eduardo Alvarado and Lisa Lopez.

source: http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/jun09/ealvarado62309.html

… and I love people who support it:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/05/25/brown.graduates.sidney.frank/

For  I-don’t-remember-how-long  I have been taking the last week of May off, starting the piano summer the first full week of June.  This week “off” is of course no vacation for me as this is the time when I am busiest putting the (somewhat) final touches on the summer schedule and calendar. 

I am looking forward to teaching lots of private, one-on-one lessons - not only the regular once-a-week kind, but as many as the students show up for and my schedule allows.  And my schedule allows for quite a bit, and quite a bit of flexibility, too:   I am actually looking forward to being able to adjust my schedule to my students’ summer schedule which means working around their vacations, summer camps, and other activites.   Where other teachers get exasperated because their schedule changes from week to week – I think it is wonderful that I have that flexibility.

In addition to the private lessons, there will be group events, all kinds of different activities – performance classes where we learn what it takes to perform (performing is so different from playing and therefore requires a different kind of preparation), history lessons, learning about and listening to recordings of pieces by different composers, etc. 

When I’m not teaching or preparing lessons, I will be outside, playing with dirt.  This now is the most beautiful = prolific time of the year.  On our walks, Mark and I find something new in the neighborhood gardens every day!  Our own yard is still very much at the beginning, I only started planting a few weeks ago, and that’s what it looks like.  But it is starting to come together, a bit greener and more colorful every day now, it seems. 

It is going to be a beautiful summer.

Source: diveintomark’s twitter tweats

1.
The boys are having a pillow throwing contest. I can’t imagine how this could possibly get out of hand.

2.
The tweet is coming from inside the pillow fort. I repeat: the tweets are coming from INSIDE THE PILLOW FORT.

3. (about an hour later)
Update: the attack has been rebuffed, the pillow fort has been razed, and a peace treaty has been forged. It involves ice cream.

(In case you wonder what this has to do with piano or music or teaching or learning – absolutely nothing.)

an abstract from an article by Isabelle Peretz, Elvira Brattico, Miika Jarvenpaa, and Mari Tervaniemi in Brain. A Journal of Neurology

Like language, music engagement is universal, complex and present early in life. However, ~4% of the general population experiences a lifelong deficit in music perception that cannot be explained by hearing loss, brain damage, intellectual deficiencies or lack of exposure. This musical disorder, commonly known as tone-deafness and now termed congenital amusia, affects mostly the melodic pitch dimension. Congenital amusia is hereditary and is associated with abnormal grey and white matter in the auditory cortex and the inferior frontal cortex. In order to relate these anatomical anomalies to the behavioural expression of the disorder, we measured the electrical brain activity of amusic subjects and matched controls while they monitored melodies for the presence of pitch anomalies. Contrary to current reports, we show that the amusic brain can track quarter-tone pitch differences, exhibiting an early right-lateralized negative brain response. This suggests near-normal neural processing of musical pitch incongruities in congenital amusia. It is important because it reveals that the amusic brain is equipped with the essential neural circuitry to perceive fine-grained pitch differences. What distinguishes the amusic from the normal brain is the limited awareness of this ability and the lack of responsiveness to the semitone changes that violate musical keys. These findings suggest that, in the amusic brain, the neural pitch representation cannot make contact with musical pitch knowledge along the auditory-frontal neural pathway.

So, in essence, and pushing this issue a bit further:  this is like autism with regard to music?  Just like an individual with autism who can perfectly well see and hear – but then doesn’t know what to do with this sensory input (what does it mean when someone “smiles”??), an individual with an amusic brain can hear and distinguish musical details just as well as everyone else – but what is being heard has no meaning because there is no “contact with music pitch knowledge” due to a “lack of responsiveness”.

The question, as always, is:  what do we do – now that we know?

From the book “Art & Fear” :

The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bathroom scales and weigh the work of the “quantity” group: fifty pound of pots rated an “A”, forty pounds a “B”, and so on. Those being graded on “quality”, however, needed to produce only one pot — albeit a perfect one — to get an “A”. Well, came grading time and a curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group being graded for quantity. It seems that while the “quantity” group was busily churning out piles of work – and learning from their mistakes — the “quality” group had sat theorizing about perfection, and in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and a pile of dead clay.

Analysis Paralysis.  I sometimes tell a student that while mindless “practicing” (which isn’t really practicing, it’s just putting in time)  is counterproductive, dangerous and generally bad, mindful repetitions, playing something over and over, observing along the way, making minute corrective changes as you play, over and over, can lead to better results than highly sophisticated, well-thought-out ideas that never make it out of your head.  

There is a difference between making clay pots and practicing the piano:  if your first clay pot doesn’t turn out to be a masterwork, you can just set it aside and go for another one.  When you practice, which is an athletic activity, every repetition has the potential – for good or for bad – to form a habit, to cement one certain way of playing.  There’s nothing – well, not much – more frustrating than finding out, after having played something numerous times, that you practiced a mistake – wrong note, wrong fingering, wrong rhythm, wrong motion.  It tends to become ingrained, and thus a pain to undo. 

Still, there is something to be said for just jumping in and doing it, mindfully, listening, paying attention to what you just did, over and over, correcting as you go.

My name is Sibylle Kuder, I am auditing Teri Holmberg’s Intro to Music Therapy class.  Before our weekly observation today, I arrived early and sat in an observation booth, watching and listening through the one-way mirror to the group in the room.   This had nothing to do with the Music Therapy session, this was just the “regular” pre-school group, doing their various pre-school things:  some children painted, others drew on paper, or read, built castles, etc.  There were three adults in the room, young women, students of the Early Childhood program? 

They moved among the children, watching and interacting.

At one point, a small girl drew a picture of a giraffe on a dry-erase board.  One of the adults started to write the name of the animal by the picture on the dry-erase board, stopped in the middle, turned to one of the other adults and asked, “How do you spell ‘giraffe’?”  – “Giraffe?”  -   ”One ‘f’ or two?”  -  She wrote it with one ‘f’ and looked at it, unsure whether it looked correct or not.  The other adult who didn’t know how to spell it either said, “That’s a hard one to spell.”  To which the first one, looking at the little girl, replied, “Yeah, that’s a hard one to spell!”

Please understand that I have no problem with someone who doesn’t know whether giraffe is spelled with one ‘f’ or two.  (In French, Portuguese, Polish it is spelled with one ‘f’; in German, English, Italian it is spelled with two.)   In English, you cannot tell by sounding it out; or someone may have trouble spelling in general; or the correct answer may escape you for the moment – all of which I find perfectly acceptable reasons.  What I find unacceptable and inexcusable, in an educational setting (which I assume the Stone House is), is that the two young women left it at that:  they seemed perfectly content with not knowing how to spell the word, reassuring themselves and the little girl that it was a hard word to spell.  I find it inexcusable that the realization that ‘giraffe’ is hard to spell was not immediately followed by a “Let’s look it up!”  – I bet that it would have taken me less than two minutes to find a book in that room that had the word ‘giraffe’ in it.  – Or at least a “We’ll have to look that up later!”  -  or sending the little girl “… go see if you can find the book with the animals so we can see how ‘giraffe’ is spelled.”  Or something.

:

While we were waiting  in a different observation booth for the Music Therapy session to start, I watched a different group.  This group was sitting on the floor, singing along with the teacher.  Or trying to sing.  While I realize that not every Early Childhood Teacher has had formal Early Childhood Music and Movement training, I do expect anyone who works with children to have at least a rudimentary understanding of the musical development of young children:  children’s voices have a very narrow singing range, they sing comfortably between about D above Middle C, and up to A or B.  This is not the normal singing range for adults who tend to sing much lower.  However, children cannot sing that low.  What you get if you expect them to sing along with you in the lower range is children who use their speaking voices, they sound like they “sing” out of tune.   One or two of the children were attempting to sing an octave higher than the teacher which, again, is out of their range.  If you keep that up, you end up with children who learn that they cannot sing in tune because they were not allowed/encouraged to develop their singing voices in the range which is natural for children (but not as comfortable for most adults).  “Children are not little adults” – that goes for singing, too!

I don’t expect only spelling or music specialists to work with the children in the Stone House, but I do expect an environment which fosters a love of learning and inquisitive minds (looking something up if you don’t know it), and in which children’s specific needs are taken into account.

The parents of my young piano students know that I have a serious problem with the name of one of the piano methods for young beginners, “Music for Little Mozarts”.  Not only do I find it presumptuous and misleading, I find it unfair to the children:  they are being taught that if they only try hard enough, they can be “little Mozarts” which leads some of them to think that they are expected to become little Mozarts.  

There’s a misconception here in the United States, arising from the statement, “All men are born equal.”   People equate “equal” with “the same”.   The fact is, we are not all the same.  We are born male, female, (or, in moderately rare cases, intersexual - persons incompatible with the biological gender binary); we are born tall, short, in-between, easy-going or not; we are born first, second, the last of ten.  We are not all the same.  Nor should we be.  In a truly great society, everyone finds his/her place, with room and encouragement to develop his/her individual talents. 

Dylan Evans, in an article that was published in The Guardian, speaks of talent:

We can’t bear the idea that some people might be better than us, so much better that we could never be like them, no matter how hard we tried. That upsets our democratic ethos, our belief that all people are born equal.

But raw talent is not distributed equally. By definition, most of us are not exceptional. We are neither particularly stupid, nor especially intelligent. Only a very few are extremely gifted. [...] The Mona Lisa, the Goldberg Variations and King Lear were not the work of ordinary people like you and me. They were the work of geniuses, people so much more talented than us that we could never paint or write anything comparable to their achievements, no matter how hard we tried or how long we lived.

And here’s a thought that’s particularly dear to my heart because of its relevance to piano competitions:

The just allocation of admiration is a virtue that requires judgment and integrity: judgment to distinguish genuine talent from mere showiness, and integrity in refusing to bestow praise on those who do not fully deserve it. Prizes are only valuable if they are restricted to the very few. Not winning a prize is not something to be seen as shameful – it should be the norm, something that happens to the overwhelming majority of people.

This kind of thinking usually doesn’t go over too well with American students and parents who by now are used to receiving some kind of prize or recognition for just about everything.   While I wholeheartedly believe in and teach supporting young people’s efforts and accomplishments, I think this society has gone overboard in its attempt to reward expected behavior.  Making people, especially young people, think that they are exceptional just because they follow the rules or because their work is acceptable is dangerous.

~:~.~:~.~:~.~:~.~:~.~:~.~:~

So, what’s wrong with naming a piano method “Music for Little Mozarts”?  It is the arrogant assumption that all children are geniuses in the league of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.  It is degrading to the genius of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to put him on the same level as the majority of people who just happen not to be geniuses.  It reminds me of the story of the 4-year old whose parents manage to grab him just as he’s about to step onto a busy four-lane highway.  The parents, distraught, demand to know, “What on earth and in heaven’s name did you think you were doing?!”  The 4-year-old answers, “I am going to cross the highway because I can do anything if I just believe in myself.”

~:~.~:~.~:~.~:~.~:~.~:~.~:~

Hard to believe that the following is apparently not common knowledge among teachers (and parents):

Developmental psychology tells us many things that, as music instructors, we need to know. Primarily, it tells us the thinking style of the child; that is, whether the child is dominated by his or her perceptions, or by logic. It tells us why children at certain ages do certain things, such as why a child may gaze away from the piano while playing. As an example, a preschooler would gaze away due to the inability to ‘not look’ at something else in the room (known as centration). A child age 7 or older may look away because he or she is not aware that looking at the score is necessary, while an adolescent may be looking away to try out a newfound skill of memorizing quickly. This is only one of many situations that require a solid knowledge of cognition as a function of age.

Developmental Psychology also tells us why children may become stressed in certain situations. Preschoolers become stressed when aspects of their environment change; the more change, the more stress. Older children tend to become stressed when they believe they have broken the rules, and therefore seek to know what the rules are. Adolescents often talk themselves into being stressed due to their interpretation of the events around them.

Find the rest of the article at merchantcircle.