Why all the finger numbers?

One of the most frustrating things about early piano method books is the dependence on finger numbers to locate notes. (For the non-piano-geeks, this is where, instead of a student looking at sheet music, seeing which line or space a note is on, and correlating that to a piano key, is simply seeing a number written above the note which correlates to one of the 10 fingers, 1-5 for each hand, and playing that finger.) Almost all of the students who have come to me from other teachers have had issues reading music- I think that this is why. I use Faber and Faber, which is a great deal better than some, and which tries to take students on little mini-trips out of the static hand positions, but I'm still not satisfied. Even in Faber, the letter names for the complete lines and spaces are not introduced until the second book. (Level 1) Thus, students get through the first 2-6 months only knowing the notes in C position, if that, and being completely dependent on finger numbers to locate notes. Presumably the reasoning is that the reading will come with time, (that's just supposition) but I think it's better to avoid those bad habits in the first place. Students get so, so locked into the hand positions if they are fingering-dependent, and that's a hard habit to break, irrespective of the actual reading issues. Then, of course, you have the physical/technique issues that come from rigid hand placement...... Until I find a method series I'm completely satisfied with, (hint hint, publishers!!) my m.o. is:

• Students start learning the names of the lines and spaces, all of them, via backronyms, (except for FACE, which is more just letters) midway through the Primer, or as soon as they start playing on both staves.
• I consciously supplement with "extra" theory worksheets, whether by myself or others, specifically emphasizing note naming/writing.
• We sightread. This is a lesson staple, especially for those struggling with the note reading. Sometimes the sightreading in the Theory book is enough; sometimes it isn't. I'm loving my full Finale suite right now for both the worksheets and sightreading exercises. 
• As soon as students are able, I supplement with extra pieces (some original to me, some not) which specifically move the student out of the five finger position. We do this with sightreading, too- sometimes I'll hand them a sheet with random notes all over the staff and instruct them to forget about the fingering and just play the notes. 
• Sometimes, I instruct students to just forget the fingering until they have the note names, then add it back in. This is generally only necessary with older students who can play far better than they can read.

It is so, so important for us as piano teachers to refuse to let our students get by with shoddy reading skills. If they miss this skill early, it's much harder to gain, with the relearning they'll have to do. I think that learning to "speak" (read, sing, play, etc) the language of music is much more important than finishing songs quickly, or doing new songs every week. Students have a tendency to evaluate their progress based on number of songs passed- this can be rather unfortunate, because sometimes we have to go back and learn skills that they missed as a beginner or put advancing in general competency above advancing with a specific piece. I try to show them the value in basic skills (of course we are also always working on some sort of music that they can reasonably pass in a week- going for weeks without any shift in repertoire would be hard for the young ones) and point out all the ways that actually knowing your stuff really does make it much easier down the road. To me, continuing to pass pieces a student can't read is like taking lessons in a foreign language and, instead of learning vocabulary, grammar, etc , just memorizing poems in that language. I say- why memorize a specific equation when you could memorize the formula?

Modesty, Part 3- Other Perspectives

Starting with Jonalyn of Soulation's response to Jessica Rey's talk, here are some other really good posts/series on the issue of modesty, specifically female modesty from a christian perspective.

http://soulation.org/jonalynblog/2013/06/is-itsy-bitsy-wrong-bikinis-and-modesty.html


http://soulation.org/jonalynblog/2012/08/modesty-is-a-chameleon.html#comment-905366910


http://www.fromtwotoone.com/2012/05/recap-modesty-myth.html


http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/164005-emily-maynard-modesty-rules-is-a-woman-responsible-lust.html?p=1



http://www.qideas.org/blog/modesty-i-dont-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means.aspx

Modesty, Part 2- effacement of the female form

Another issue I have with modesty doctrines (besides the impossibility of defining modesty and the rapey ickiness of holding women responsible for someone else's behavior) is the seeming preoccupation with hiding the female form. Modesty rules look a little different for the fuller figured among us than for the more willowy types! It seems to me that some modesty teaching is all about hiding anything overtly feminine- a curve, a bit of skin, or anything else that screams "woman" as opposed to "man" or "child." If I had a nickel for every time I heard "oh, she can wear that- she's so skinny, her curves will never show" I'd be.... well, a little richer. (I'm not decrying my more athletically built sisters here- as long as you do it healthily, and love the body you have, there's nothing wrong with being skinny, or flat-chested, etc. Genuineness and good health should be the goal, and beyond that enjoyment of our diversity) It is extremely difficult, though, to hide a curvy figure and to find stylish clothes which fit well and mask curves- well, impossible really, because "fitting well" and "masking curves" should probably be seen as mutually exclusive. :) It's as though anything overtly feminine, or suggestive of feminine power or feminine sexuality, is inherently negative. When young women are told that they need to "find shirts that don't accentuate the bust" or "make sure everything is loose" or "only wear pants (if you must wear pants) which billow loosely down from your waist so as to not outline your derriere", they hear "don't accentuate your body- hide it!" and it sends the message that our bodies are something to be ashamed of, something to hide, something to be afraid of. This, of course, is untrue. I think it would be difficult to raise a daughter to wear loose clothing and "dress modestly" for fear of inciting lust or whatever without also raising her to have a very unhealthy body image.



The female form, or the male form for that matter, :) is nothing to be ashamed of. It is a gift from God for us to enjoy. Yes, there are ways in which we reserve enjoyment for ourselves and our spouse, but there are also ways in which it is completely appropriate to share our physical form with others. To see beauty and appreciate it is not, in my mind, synonymous with lust. If I'm dressed in nice jeans and a cute shirt and I'm happy and my eyes are sparkling and my face is animated and my hair is soft and shiny and yes, maybe I'm showing a socially acceptable amount of decolletage, it is perfectly appropriate for someone to see me and see in me a happy and beautiful woman and enjoy the sight of my beauty as the artwork of my Creator. I am a female, both biologically and culturally, and there is no innate holiness in obscuring that fact. My female personhood should not bar me from worship, from leadership, from respect, from admiration, or from anything that I am gifted and skilled to do. When women are arbitrarily banned from certain roles in the church or from authority or power because of our female personhood, it sends the same message- "to get ahead, be holy, whatever, obscure your femaleness."



When women are told that their bodies are something which must be hidden to avoid inciting lust in men, a part of them can begin to believe that there is something bad, dangerous, or wicked about not only their bodies, but about themselves. They can try to purposely obscure their beauty by unhealthy behaviors to either end of the weight spectrum, or they can become overly focused on trying to please others with the way they present themselves or their bodies. I truly believe that modesty, taught from a perspective of "do this so men won't see you and lust for you or objectify you" destroys healthy confidence and body image. That's a sad, sad thing.

Modesty, Part 1.- revealing our dignity?

"Modesty is about revealing our dignity."

~ Jessica Rey

The above video is of a talk given by Jessica Rey, a swimsuit designer (who does a fabulous job of promoting her business, by the way- I just wish she didn't use such poor logic to do it!) and modern proponent of "modest" swimwear for women. She basically argues that men objectify women who wear bikinis, as opposed to more "modest" (that term is never defined) swimwear, and that women showing skin is an invention of the modern fashion world. She says that "modesty" is about revealing dignity and being seen as people, rather than attractive bodies.



Normally, I think it is a mistake to judge an argument by its source. This time, I think the correlations between and origins of this argument and a very, very similar one are significant, simply because of the implications for the status of women in a society which adopts them.



"In the ’80′s, most of the religious rhetoric about hijab that I was exposed to stressed religious obligation, as well as women’s dignity. Supposedly, hijab would protect our dignity, by focusing (male) attention on us as believing women, rather than on us as female bodies."
(http://sobersecondlook.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/hijab-empowerment-and-choice-the-darker-side/)


Substitute modesty for the word hijab, and you have Ms. Rey's argument. The only difference is the definition of modesty. The only difference between requiring women to wear full-coverage, one piece swimsuits to "avoid objectification by males"  and requiring them to wear full hijab or even a burqa is one of degrees. The same logic that holds women accountable for rape, even in some cases punishing them as adulteresses if they file rape charges, the same logic that excuses honor crimes and forced marriages and domestic violence, is the same logic that the evangelical Christian world is using to regulate the dress and behavior of women. This should be a sobering thought to those Christians who in all other respects decry the mistreatment of and sidelining of women by Muslims.



Now, to unpack the other ideas here- Ms Rey cites a study, done at Princeton, as evidence for males' inherent tendency to objectify women who are wearing bikinis. For a more in-depth look at the study, try this post. Suffice it to say that this study was of a limited number of male college students. Also, the pictures they were shown were not only women in bikinis, but headless women in bikinis. The only thing the participants could see, unlike real life, was the woman's body. Even if the data from these students led to Ms. Rey's conclusions, (and I do not believe it does) this proves nothing about other demographics, other times, other cultures, or any person who has not been socialized into thinking that an attractive woman in a bikini is an object and fair game. She assumes that the reaction to the bikini is an inherent one in all males, rather than a socially conditioned one, and one which reflects ideas about women and their bodies which may not, in fact be universal. Not all men see a woman in a bikini and immediately turn her into an object. Some men see a woman who is beautiful and exposed in her beauty as the sacred living art of the Creator and as an actual person, with needs, goals, talents, and a mind.


Another thing- women can be, and are, ogled by pervs no matter what we wear. Even if all reasoning for modesty rules was legitimate- folks, it doesn't work. Whether or not I get leered at depends, not on what I wear, but on who I'm around. That's a fact. Those guys in the grocery store who were making catcalls? They would have done so no matter what I was wearing. (A loose tshirt and jeans at the time) The guys who treated me with respect and conversed with my face, not my boobs, or else ignored me altogether, when I was in a two piece swimsuit at my college gym, treated me as they did because they were decent humans, not because I was covered up. When I am objectified, it;s not my form that's at fault- it's the pervs who are viewing me as an object created for their pleasure.

What exactly is modesty, and who gets to define it? Modesty, being completely a function of cultural expectations and norms, is relative. What would be "modest" in Papua New Guinea and what would be "modest" in Norway and what would be "modest" in Lancaster county, PA are all totally different. Modesty varies from occasion to occasion, place to place, and time to time. Women showing skin is nothing new. Belly dancing costumes are little more than bikinis, and they have been around for longer than this country. In Japan, it's weird to wear anything when you go to the hot tub, no matter the company. I could name quite a few societies in which clothes were/are limited or optional for some or all normal occasions. Making the history of modern, western culture perennially normative when it comes to this or any other issue is a mistake- at best, we end up with a very limited perspective, and at worst, incorrect conclusions. I would contend that "appropriate modesty" is synonymous with practicality, a total lack of misplaced shame, and general social acceptability. The most stereotypically "modest" (covered) swimsuit won't be appropriate for a funeral, and long pants and a shirt will be horribly impractical at the beach. In a historical context, I think it's a mistake to glorify the fashion of days gone by- yes, in modern history, women were (a couple of hundred years ago) more covered in general. But- why is that automatically a good thing? Were women more respected, did we have more rights and freedoms, and was our equality more a given then? Did men objectify less, respect more, and treat us as holy sisters, or as valuable persons equal to themselves? Not exactly! I cannot think of another age since perhaps the Minoan or Natchez societies in which women have been as close (we're still not 100% there yet) to equality as in our own.

Good Post on Rational Belief

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/06/believing-for-no-reason/

"Christians need to go against the grain and explore fully all of the reasons for beliefs – our own and those of others, the good reasons and the bad reasons (and the important differences between the two). To float with the postmodern current and make “belief” an intransitive verb – something without an object – is a mistake. Reason is a basic kind of revealed knowledge, maybe the most basic of all. No beliefs can be sensible or of any value without it. John Wesley said that it is “a fundamental principle … that to renounce reason is to renounce religion,” and asserted further that “all irrational religion is false religion.”...........

.........Belief is not just a posture or disposition. Despite the popular media usage of the word, “faith” is not just a generic description (e.g., “I’m a person of faith,” which is just a colloquial way of saying, “I’m religious in some way.”). The noun “faith” and the verb “believe” are the same word in the language of the New Testament, and it is a word with a connotation we’ve lost in our common usage today.  The public, and especially that part that claims to be Christian, has to wise up to the political emasculation of language (as well as of thought itself).  “Believe” is primarily a transitive verb. Without an object, what meaning does the word really convey? Belief has content. Faith does not hang in the open air, but is directed toward and rests upon something or someone. It is the same with the word “trust.” In fact faith is a kind of trust.

So whatever you believe, you should consider the reason(s) for it. There are only a few exceptions, in the rare category of those most basic beliefs (i.e., basic axioms or principles that can’t be derived from any previous ones but must be presupposed at the outset). Any and every other belief you hold, about anything whatsoever, if it is to be taken seriously, if it is to be of any value or worth anyone’s consideration, it must have in its favor more than your emotions, personal history or external circumstantial factors. It must have reasons."


Good stuff...... I don't agree with every stance of this blog, (Reclaiming the Mind; they are hard-core complementarians, for one thing) but some of their stuff I really enjoy. 

Conversations with my Best Friend

Some of my posts, quite a few of them actually, come from conversations I have with my husband. I love long, deep discussions with him- he challenges me, confronts my prejudices, and makes me think, and there's really nothing sexier than that. Besides being just good fun, our interactions help us grow, show us our blind spots, and enable us to put our heads together and practice problem solving together. My marriage is the safest and most honest place I have, and I am so very thankful for it. Just this morning a few minutes of listening to a sermon on the radio on the way to church yielded an excellent conversation about personal prejudices. (I tend to have an instinctive reaction to older gentlemen preachers with a certain accent, as in my experience nearly all  who've fit into that demographic have been sexist, blindly dogmatic, and patronizing) I strongly recommend marrying someone you love to just sit and talk with- it is a fabulous foundation for a lifelong friendship. Also, Nathan should, by virtue of his thought-spurring conversation, get some credit for some of the thoughts I post here. :) Even though he doesn't always agree with what I write, he's a big part of my thought processes now, as I am to his. As Shakespeare said:

"Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediment....

Giving Corporations Too Much Credit

Husband and I were watching a youtube video the other day which was critiquing various advertising/commercials as being sexist or racist, and our thought was- "wait. Yes, that ad was sexist/racist/classless. But- why do ads like that work?" I think ads like that work because they are a reflection of a society that  still has sexism, racism, classless, demeaning crudities, etc embedded very deeply. I truly think that corporations' advertising strategies have one goal, and one only- money. They want to sell something. Yes, they can be very unscrupulous and irresponsible in the way they go about selling, and it would benefit society if they tried to counteract social ills instead of reflecting them. However, ad campaigns are reflective of what successfully sells a product, and what appeals to certain demographics within society, so I see one really sure way to combat them- change society. That, and boycott the campaigns, companies, and/or products being marketed inappropriately. We as consumers are not helpless pawns in some corporate game; they do what they do because they believe we want it/it appeals to us. If we can demonstrate that that is not the case, we can effectively eliminate objectionable advertising, whether it's sexist girls' lego ads, beer commercials that objectify and stereotype, or ads that set up straw men to denigrate races, religions, socioeconomic classes, or geographical regions. We should be critically analyzing and both our own actions and prejudices, and those in the media we expose ourselves to.



When it come to children and advertising, it is very important that we as parents realize that we, not the corporations that shower our children with a barrage of media, are the most important element in shaping their worldviews. My children don't really watch tv, so we haven't had to deal with this much yet, but when they do watch we watch with them, discussing what we see and what assumptions and representations are being made in the media in question. It's also important to realize how much our choices in the toys we purchase for our children affect the toys that will be produced and marketed to them. If parents did not purchase or steer their children toward toys, movies, etc that represented inappropriate assumptions about gender or race, for example, I sincerely doubt whether those products would last long. Yes, I find many commercials very offensive. But rather than censor the messages advertisers are allowed to send, I'd rather advise society to 1. Critically evaluate the media to which we are exposed, 2. Critically evaluate our worldview, assumptions, and how our consumer choices reflect those things, and 3. Limit our children's and our own interactions with the constant barrage of advertising most Americans deal with. I think this is one instance in which "ignore them and they'll go away" is actually appropriate- I think that's exactly the way to deal with annoying, sexist or racist advertising.