TromboneChat

I feel a bit silly, but I've honestly never heard or considered this aspect of teaching. My entire career I have been focusing very, very hard on the things I suck at... which of course is a much longer list than the things I could be considered good at. In some ways this has helped, I have "hugged the cactus" as Jeremy Wilson puts it with many aspects of my playing that were/are subpar. But perhaps I do need to give myself and students more credit for the things we can do.

I thought it bared repeating outside of the "change in teaching" thread.

GabrielRice wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:32 am One of the most effective and inspiring brass teachers of the last 50 years was Sam Pilafian, the great tuba player and founding member of the Empire Brass. I did not know Sam as well as many of my friends, but I had the privilege of spending some time with him and attending multiple classes he gave.

Sam summed up his own teaching philosophy as (I'm paraphrasing) "finding each student's strengths and building from there." That was such a concise statement of the way my best teachers operated, and the instinct that I have tended to follow, that I've adopted it as the philosophy I try to follow myself.

My own teacher in graduate school, Norman Bolter, said to me in my very first lesson: "Start with what you CAN do."

None of this means that you don't identify areas of weakness and address them. But it's a fundamentally different way of thinking than a stance of correcting faults, sometimes with brutal honesty that leaves students in tears or doubting their abilities. Build from strengths. Relate progress on weakness to abilities the student has already achieved.

My toughest teacher was probably Per Brevig, who never let me slide with imprecise rhythm or pitch. And the only time I ever cried coming out of a lesson was when he said to me "Gabe, you are much too talented to sound this way." But take a moment and analyze that sentence...implicit in the criticism of the work I had (not) been doing was the possibility of my achievement. I'm guessing that tbdana took away the same sentiment from Roy Main.

And when things are going sideways, go back to the things you were doing when things were going well, and start again from there.

I've learned this from one of my private teachers and since then I mostly did my practice with that idea in mind and implemented the same concept in my teaching. Starting with what goes easier, what works better or where someone is good at, helps mentally and the progress is much faster than the other way round. At least that's been my experience with myself and with students as well.

From an interview with a guitar player whose name I have forgotten:
If you sound really good when you’re practicing, that means you’re practicing things you can already do, which isn’t really benefiting you fully. Some of what you practice should sound shit, because then you know you are working on something that needs to be worked on. There’s a balance there.”

Bach5G wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:03 am And when things are going sideways, go back to the things you were doing when things were going well, and start again from there.

An important (vital?) extension to the concept. Couldn’t agree more.

norbie2018 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:35 am From an interview with a guitar player whose name I have forgotten:
If you sound really good when you’re practicing, that means you’re practicing things you can already do, which isn’t really benefiting you fully. Some of what you practice should sound shit, because then you know you are working on something that needs to be worked on. There’s a balance there.”

That's perfect, IMHO.

When I was a teen and young adult, I was an idiot. I was immature as both a person and a player. I had a (natural?) tendency to want to practice only the things I was already good at. The psychology of "finding my strengths" and building from there would have been wonderfully positive. But I didn't have the maturity for that. I had to be metaphorically wrestled to the ground and forced to face the unpleasant work of turning weaknesses into strengths. It wasn't "FUN" to do that, and it didn't give me the instant gratification I craved. I was just out of marching band. Playing was FUN. I didn't like doing things that weren't FUN. And struggling and sounding like crap wasn't FUN. I shied away from the hard work I needed, until someone sat me down and gave me the musical equivalent of an intervention. After grudgingly submitting to the necessary, I finally developed some maturity, discipline, and vision. But it wasn't easy to get me there. It took someone who really cared, who saw something in me, and who was willing to lay down some tough love.

Would I have done the hard work with the positive approach? I dunno. Maybe. Eventually. I guess I'll never know. Now I would, for sure, because I'm now, finally, a mature person who understands the need for hard work and am finally self-motivated. Now I LOVE the process of struggling with something, making incremental improvement, and finally mastering it. It's FUN. But back then? I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into becoming a serious student who does the right things.

That said, it would have been awesome to have a positive reinforcement teacher who had the talent to somehow inspire me to do the things I absolutely needed to do, but that I resisted with all my will back at that time. Like I said, I was an idiot. LOL.

It's not an "either/or" situation. As with most things in life, there needs to be a balance. A student will never grow unless they focus on the things they aren't good at- and practice them until they become things they ARE good at. That's when you start to have more competencies than deficiencies. At the same time, it's important to spend time on what you are good at so as to keep up the motivation. How much of each and what % of practice time should be devoted to existing skills vs. new competencies is subject to discussion based on the individual student's motivation and aptitude.

I think it is important to mention that no one suggests to practice ONLY (how do you do bold writing in here?) what you're good at. If a teacher ever suggests that, search for another. It says 'Starting' for a reason.

But I've definitely seen evidence this approach works. Is it the only approach? Probably not. But for me the most effective one.

I teach special education and we sometimes call that strength based learning.

A lot of my students are really down on themselves because they are not at the same level as their peers. As a result, they don't try as hard as they should. Starting with what they can do and extending into something they stuggle with works to motivate them to learn.

For example, I had a second grader who could not write his letters. However, the kid could draw quite well. I had him work on drawing his letters. Over time he could draw all of them and he enjoyed coloring his drawings of the letters. Then after he had been built up, we moved to writing. He remembered what the letters looked like when he drew them. I extended what he could do, drawing, into something he felt he could not do, writing.

I think this extension process could be carried over into trombone. I would enjoy seeing some examples if y'all could provide them.

Ozzlefinch wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:42 pm It's not an "either/or" situation. As with most things in life, there needs to be a balance. A student will never grow unless they focus on the things they aren't good at- and practice them until they become things they ARE good at. That's when you start to have more competencies than deficiencies. At the same time, it's important to spend time on what you are good at so as to keep up the motivation. How much of each and what % of practice time should be devoted to existing skills vs. new competencies is subject to discussion based on the individual student's motivation and aptitude.

The balance is the tricky part, why I think students benefit from a good teacher until they can become more self-directed.

chouston3 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 2:25 pm I teach special education and we sometimes call that strength based learning.

A lot of my students are really down on themselves because they are not at the same level as their peers. As a result, they don't try as hard as they should. Starting with what they can do and extending into something they stuggle with works to motivate them to learn.

For example, I had a second grader who could not write his letters. However, the kid could draw quite well. I had him work on drawing his letters. Over time he could draw all of them and he enjoyed coloring his drawings of the letters. Then after he had been built up, we moved to writing. He remembered what the letters looked like when he drew them. I extended what he could do, drawing, into something he felt he could not do, writing.

I think this extension process could be carried over into trombone. I would enjoy seeing some examples if y'all could provide them.

Bravo! We need more of this.
--Andy in OKC

Polishing what you do well is how you find your voice. I don't practice the cello, even though I'm very bad at it. You need to also improve the skills that are absolute requirements to what you want to accomplish, even if you are bad at them.

I like the idea of establishing a foundation then moving from there. That makes things easier.

Do you ever find students with more advanced skills that they have practiced a ton but they are terrible at foundational skills? For example, a student who can double tongue really well but they are not solid with their single tonguing?

In that case, I guess you would have to work backwards.

Yes, strength-based learning. Even when starting a new skill, start where you are. Find something in your playing that you do well that relates to the new skill you’re trying to learn.

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 8:56 pm Polishing what you do well is how you find your voice. I don't practice the cello, even though I'm very bad at it. You need to also improve the skills that are absolute requirements to what you want to accomplish, even if you are bad at them.

Yes this!

I take major issue with the whole "don't practice the things you're good at, practice the things you're not good at". Of course you should work on your weaknesses and not be complacent about them. And yes the job of a teacher is to point them out and insist on solving them. However, being good at something doesn't mean you couldn't become yet even better at it. And the job of a teacher is also to inspire. And we don't train robots, we form artists, who need to find their voice (and I agree with Harrison, being especially good at and/or particularly enjoying something is often a big part of defining one's artistic voice).

Are you supposed to wait until you've improved everything you suck at before you continue improving the things you were already good at? Why can't you do both at the same time? I do not believe that we ever reach the end of the road with any skill. Challenging yourself to reach the next level of something you're already good at is not "the easy way" or "just fun" or "lack of discipline" (and encouraging it in students is certainly not "coddling"), it requires just as much hard work as improving anything else.

And it can lead to breakthroughs in other aspects of the playing. No skill or subskill is entirely isolated from the others. I cannot count the number of times I've solved problems or greatly improved aspects of my playing collaterally through working on improving something completely different (sometimes trying to work on something else I'm struggling with, but also sometimes by trying to reach the next level at something I'm already very good at).

chouston3 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 9:01 pm Do you ever find students with more advanced skills that they have practiced a ton but they are terrible at foundational skills? For example, a student who can double tongue really well but they are not solid with their single tonguing?

In that case, I guess you would have to work backwards.

It's still forwards for them...

(slightly fridge magnet, I admit, but the point is worth making)

To use that example, I multiple tongue slow figures all the time. Gave up on single tonguing years ago.

While I agree with the general principle of "starting with what you're go at," it really depends on lots of things. So many people get "good" at playing wrong, and just get better at it without fixing anything. Working on anything the wrong way doesn't get you very far, whether you're "good" or "bad" at it already.

Norman's quote is not "start with what you're good at," but "start with what you can do." The difference is subtle but significant.

Doug Elliott wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 6:54 am To use that example, I multiple tongue slow figures all the time. Gave up on single tonguing years ago.

While I agree with the general principle of "starting with what you're go at," it really depends on lots of things. So many people get "good" at playing wrong, and just get better at it without fixing anything. Working on anything the wrong way doesn't get you very far, whether you're "good" or "bad" at it already.

I see this in my reading students. Some students never learn to sound out words and instead they rote memorize words. As a result they can give the impression that they can read just fine. Then they get to a word they have never seen before and they are up a creek.

They learn to do something wrong and then get into trouble later on.

GabrielRice wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 7:14 am Norman's quote is not "start with what you're good at," but "start with what you can do." The difference is subtle but significant.

Oops. I'll change that

GabrielRice wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 7:14 am Norman's quote is not "start with what you're good at," but "start with what you can do." The difference is subtle but significant.

It's one of those "obvious" things that nevertheless needs to be said from time to time. Everyone starts with what they can do. You already did. But how did you try to do it? Fair question.

Many good things have been written here, especially Maximiliem’s post. This is a bit tangential to the op, but I think it bears mentioning. One of the worst mistakes we can make is to assume that how we’re taught is the way we should teach. I think Arnold Jacobs talked about the idea that you have to develop a different way of teaching for each student.

A good teacher will find ways to help the student become her/his own teacher over time so that the student can develop both strengths and weaknesses in the practice room.

Interesting topic with implications for both teaching and practicing.

While acknowledging that this is actually a continuum, I like to break down things into three different categories:

1. Stuff you can already play well.
2. Stuff that is too hard for you to currently play.
3. Stuff that you can't quite play yet, but you're close.

All three are good to practice, but we learn best when we have short-term attainable goals. I try to spend my own practice time, and a fair amount of lesson time, working on things that can almost, but not quite, be played.

When teaching, I think it's context dependent. As we discussed in the related topic on how teaching has changed over the years, it's good to be honest and fair. But sometimes the student needs tough love or sometimes they need a little hand holding. Working in a lesson with what the student can already do can go a long way to helping someone develop the confidence to work on more challenging materials.