I've been thinking about sex ed lately, both because of my kids beginning to ask questions and because of issues that friends are dealing with. This was one of the areas in which my own parents were very weak, and one which my husband and I have intentionally worked at with our children. It is so important that we teach them the physical stuff, as well as the emotional/relational stuff, (disease prevention, biology, contraception, consent, respect, intimacy, etc) and that we avoid turning limits of morality into shame. I came across the following series on another blog, and I thought I'd share. I don't agree with every minute detail here, (there are areas in which this blogger is probably a bit more conservative than I am) and I don't agree with everything else on her blog or that she links to, in case anyone is wondering. However, I thought it was generally very good, very balanced, and well worth sharing.
http://dulcefamily.blogspot.com/search/label/sex%20ed%20in%20a%20Christian%20home
The above is a link to all the posts (they're generally quite short) in the series. A few quotes:
"Perhaps the biggest distortion I see is the idolization of virginity. So many portray it as the be all end all standard of sexual purity. First of all, I think that sexual purity is just as important after marriage as before, and in fact, more so. Furthermore, sexual purity isn't just lack of vaginal intercourse. Such a narrow focus on outward behavior causes us to lose sight of the heart issue. Some wind up doing everything except for vaginal intercourse, and have no idea of the possible consequences of things like oral sex, pornography, and other forms of sexual activity. Others who do have sex feel that they are forever "second hand goods". Both are terrible distortions of what sexual purity really means."
"I also find the double standard with gender that many adopt to be deeply disturbing. Sexual purity is for men as well as women, and the stereotypes of men as slavering beasts and women as cold manipulators are both inaccurate and degrading. Both men and women are created with a strong sex drive. That is a good thing. And both are capable of self control. That is also a good thing. Women should be able to be themselves and dress comfortably without being consumed with worry about "causing their brothers to stumble". Guys shouldn't be automatically viewed as predators simply because they have a penis. Sex should never be seen as a commodity to trade in exchange for emotional security, and women shouldn't feel ashamed of wanting sex."
"Romance novels and romantic comedies have been called “porn for women.” It’s not just because some of the scenes can get steamy, but because of the unrealistic expectations they set up. Just as all bodies are perfect or airbrushed and exaggerated in proportion in a girlie magazine, all life is unrealistically centered on romance in those entertainments. The souls and emotions of the people portrayed in the pages and on the screen are no more real than the bodies enhanced with silicone, makeup, lighting and digital wizardry in a pornographic image or film.
These are not the messages I want my daughter to grow up with.
Not only does it objectify the male gender as a means to fulfilling romantic dreams, but for me at least, it resulted in a limited understanding of my own value as a human being, and a reduced ability to trust God with my romantic future. "
We teach our children about gender stereotypes from our first observations. Do our girls hear that they are strong and powerful? Do our boys learn that we value tenderness and sensitivity? Our society is so proficient at marketing gender roles that by age three, most girls and boys know that pink is a girl color, and blue is for boys, that girls are princesses (passive and prissy) and boys are tough and active. As toddlers, my little girl loved blue and Spiderman, and my son loved dolls and sparkly clothes. Within just a couple of years, though, they were telling each other that blue was for boys and dolls are for girls. I believe that colors are gender-neutral, and that both sons and daughters grow up to be parents. But we must speak up if we don't want our children to think there is something wrong with them.
"We teach our children about body image through our own. Do they hear us putting ourselves down and criticizing our own bodies? Do we point out our flaws or gripe about our weight? Do they hear us make comments about other people and laugh at their appearance? Each word nails in deeper the truth about our values, and what their own bodies are worth.
We also teach them about sexuality when they first begin to say no. Comments like, "Give grandma a kiss or she'll be sad!" teach them to ignore their own body boundaries and give feigned affection to placate adults. Acknowledging and respecting their right to say no to unwanted touches is vital. It may mean intervening when relatives or friends try to bully them with unwanted hugs, kisses or tickles. The message we send about their right to say no is far more important than a miffed adult."
Showing posts with label Teaching. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Teaching. Show all posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Sharing God With The Little Ones
I was reading the evening bible stories with my little guys in Mr. 6 yr old's room, when Mr. 4 yr old asked me, "Mama- if Jesus is right here with us, is he in this blanket? And if he is, why does it feel like a regular blanket? Is he so tiny that he fits between the threads so we can't feel him?" So I talked with him about what omnipresence means, and that while God isn't the blanket, and isn't part of the blanket, God is still here and we can see God in the blanket and let the blanket remind us of God and God's gentle presence and remind us to thank God for soft, warm, and gentle things. After I finished, Mr. 6 yr old said "Mama- how can we see God in a blankie and in pointy sticks? How can God be gentle and warm and also sharp and sticky?" So we talked about God's strength and protective power, and God's righteous anger and God's justice. I think their theology cup was officially full, because when I was done, they were back to giggling and joking and trying to read science books in their rooms without their parents noticing. I love those little guys, with all their mischievousness, their laughter, their frustrating antics, and their simple faith. Children are, truly, a blessing from God.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
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:
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?
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?
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Practicing
Cross-posted from my studio blog: (http://guesspianostudio.weebly.com/1/post/2013/06/practicing.html)
This was written by a violinist, but is very applicable to pianists. Deliberate, intentional, reasonable practice is so, so important to musical improvement! When I was in college, I practiced 8-10 hours a day during some periods, and I paid for it in unpleasant physical symptoms. Practicing too much is an issue, especially for more advanced students; as I tell my students, practice smart!
This article is well worth the read.
http://www.bulletproofmusician.com/how-many-hours-a-day-should-you-practice/
This was written by a violinist, but is very applicable to pianists. Deliberate, intentional, reasonable practice is so, so important to musical improvement! When I was in college, I practiced 8-10 hours a day during some periods, and I paid for it in unpleasant physical symptoms. Practicing too much is an issue, especially for more advanced students; as I tell my students, practice smart!
This article is well worth the read.
http://www.bulletproofmusician.com/how-many-hours-a-day-should-you-practice/
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Trust and Independent Thought
What is trust? Trust, to me, is inseparable from knowledge. Part of trust is a confidence that a person will behave as they have behaved before. Trust can also be choosing to have faith that a person will behave as they have promised or as they ought.
When I speak of trust in a speaker or author, I mean a belief that they would not knowingly mislead me, and are honest with themselves and others. The closer our paradigms for evaluating information and making decisions are, the more likely that we will generally come to the same conclusions and the less imperative I feel it to fact-check and substantiate every word.
On the other hand, questioning, testing, independent thought and study, and gracious dissent are not negative. If truth cannot stand up to questions, it deserves to be questioned all the more. Much good has come from questioning taught dogmas, setting out to substantiate or disprove what we believe, and pushing back against long-held traditions that are contrary to reason and scripture.
No person, seminary professor, no teacher, pastor, counselor, or mentor should be above questioning or disagreement. Professors and teachers may have more technical knowledge than we do, particularly about a specialized subject, but this does not necessarily make them more capable of discerning truth, understanding theology, or knowing the heart of God than we are. Our spiritual selves are our own responsibility, and guarding against error is important, no matter what the influence in question is.
Being able to trust those we look up to and learn from is a good and beautiful thing; however, trusting to the point of blind acceptance or even extreme prejudice is not healthy. I sometimes see Christians who identify as progressive, emergent, post-evangelical, et c. doing a great job at questioning and digging into their more conservative influences but neglecting to do the same diligence with the work and message of liberal, progressive Christian influences. Admittedly, they may have more in common with these influences, and thus may be far more willing to take what they say at face value. This is a dangerous proposition, however, because error and fallibility are ever-present with all of us. No degree, credentials, or history should make a person or idea impossible to expose to questioning and dissent. Any person or system which opposes gracious questioning or dissent should be of particular concern- when I encounter such people and systems, red flags raise immediately in my mind. I may end up agreeing with the core idea presented (it generally doesn't happen, but it's possible- I've seen very good ideas defended very badly) or I may not, but I always wonder, when I see a reluctance to be questioned, what fear underlies such reluctance and why, if the ideas in question are accurate and healthy, such a fear would be present. Don't let anyone tell you that questioning a doctrine, teacher, or message is a sign of a weak faith. It isn't. In fact, you may have a weak faith if you treat it like a sugar sculpture which breaks apart at the slightest touch. Strong faith isn't afraid of new opinions, old opinions, or information of any sort, because it truly believes. Weak faith depends on a hothouse to survive, and is worth little. The Bible teaches us to be discerning; "wise as serpents but gentle as doves." Discernment, in my opinion, is predicated on the ability and volition to think for ourselves.
I also wonder, when teachers resolutely refuse to disseminate a concrete, evaluative judgement, whether they are really desiring to encourage independent study or simply giving themselves an out from possible debate of a weak position. To be fair, I've seen both, or at least a genuine intent (as far as I can tell) for the first and the overt implementation of the second. While I would not write off a teacher who thus eschewed objective positions, such tactics do make me want to substantiate the claims and assumptions surrounding the teaching.
Let's do our best to thoroughly vet and inspect any doctrine, dogma, or system of belief or practice that we allow into our lives, no matter where it comes from. A deliberate, robust, personally familiar foundation of thoroughly vetted ideas cannot fail to be a positive force. We are responsible before God for our own beliefs, thoughts, and actions, and trusting others to the point of abdicating that responsibility is both wrong and dangerous. Trust is good; absolute, unquestioning trust is absolutely bad. Independent thought is not evil, and knowing God, God's will, God's nature, and God's story for ourselves is a beautiful thing. So- let's take responsibility for our beliefs, and refuse to be so many sheep led around by anyone who is approved by the church, or sounds edgy and fresh, or is all the rage in our doctrinal tradition. Popular theologies and teachers come and go, but our relationship with God and our spiritual health is here for the rest of our lives. No one can tend that garden but we ourselves. Let's not neglect it.
When I speak of trust in a speaker or author, I mean a belief that they would not knowingly mislead me, and are honest with themselves and others. The closer our paradigms for evaluating information and making decisions are, the more likely that we will generally come to the same conclusions and the less imperative I feel it to fact-check and substantiate every word.
On the other hand, questioning, testing, independent thought and study, and gracious dissent are not negative. If truth cannot stand up to questions, it deserves to be questioned all the more. Much good has come from questioning taught dogmas, setting out to substantiate or disprove what we believe, and pushing back against long-held traditions that are contrary to reason and scripture.
No person, seminary professor, no teacher, pastor, counselor, or mentor should be above questioning or disagreement. Professors and teachers may have more technical knowledge than we do, particularly about a specialized subject, but this does not necessarily make them more capable of discerning truth, understanding theology, or knowing the heart of God than we are. Our spiritual selves are our own responsibility, and guarding against error is important, no matter what the influence in question is.
Being able to trust those we look up to and learn from is a good and beautiful thing; however, trusting to the point of blind acceptance or even extreme prejudice is not healthy. I sometimes see Christians who identify as progressive, emergent, post-evangelical, et c. doing a great job at questioning and digging into their more conservative influences but neglecting to do the same diligence with the work and message of liberal, progressive Christian influences. Admittedly, they may have more in common with these influences, and thus may be far more willing to take what they say at face value. This is a dangerous proposition, however, because error and fallibility are ever-present with all of us. No degree, credentials, or history should make a person or idea impossible to expose to questioning and dissent. Any person or system which opposes gracious questioning or dissent should be of particular concern- when I encounter such people and systems, red flags raise immediately in my mind. I may end up agreeing with the core idea presented (it generally doesn't happen, but it's possible- I've seen very good ideas defended very badly) or I may not, but I always wonder, when I see a reluctance to be questioned, what fear underlies such reluctance and why, if the ideas in question are accurate and healthy, such a fear would be present. Don't let anyone tell you that questioning a doctrine, teacher, or message is a sign of a weak faith. It isn't. In fact, you may have a weak faith if you treat it like a sugar sculpture which breaks apart at the slightest touch. Strong faith isn't afraid of new opinions, old opinions, or information of any sort, because it truly believes. Weak faith depends on a hothouse to survive, and is worth little. The Bible teaches us to be discerning; "wise as serpents but gentle as doves." Discernment, in my opinion, is predicated on the ability and volition to think for ourselves.
I also wonder, when teachers resolutely refuse to disseminate a concrete, evaluative judgement, whether they are really desiring to encourage independent study or simply giving themselves an out from possible debate of a weak position. To be fair, I've seen both, or at least a genuine intent (as far as I can tell) for the first and the overt implementation of the second. While I would not write off a teacher who thus eschewed objective positions, such tactics do make me want to substantiate the claims and assumptions surrounding the teaching.
Let's do our best to thoroughly vet and inspect any doctrine, dogma, or system of belief or practice that we allow into our lives, no matter where it comes from. A deliberate, robust, personally familiar foundation of thoroughly vetted ideas cannot fail to be a positive force. We are responsible before God for our own beliefs, thoughts, and actions, and trusting others to the point of abdicating that responsibility is both wrong and dangerous. Trust is good; absolute, unquestioning trust is absolutely bad. Independent thought is not evil, and knowing God, God's will, God's nature, and God's story for ourselves is a beautiful thing. So- let's take responsibility for our beliefs, and refuse to be so many sheep led around by anyone who is approved by the church, or sounds edgy and fresh, or is all the rage in our doctrinal tradition. Popular theologies and teachers come and go, but our relationship with God and our spiritual health is here for the rest of our lives. No one can tend that garden but we ourselves. Let's not neglect it.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Improvisation
From the facebook status of Mark O'Connor, one of my favorite violinists:
I have gotten a lot of messages in the inbox and I am going to share this one:
"I am an adult, advanced cellist. I am a cello performance major at Cal. State U. Northridge, classically trained. I love what you do. My problem is that I have not "fiddled" around enough on my cello. I am wedded to the written page. I have been working at improvising, using my ear, trying to break out of my classical box for about three years already and am making slow progress. Can you help me?"
Let me say, you have a LOT of company. Firstly... the ear training that string players "thought" they got as a child, is not ear training. Suzuki promised this to the student, and even traditional training has adopted this belief over the last couple generations now because of Suzuki's influence. If you ever learned something by ear as a young student, and you were in the current classical system of the last 50 years, it wasn't learning by ear, it was simply visual mimicking of either your teacher's fingering through repetition, or following your teacher's hand signals, or written symbols marking what finger to use. This is not ear training, it is learning music by a visual stimulus. Secondly, memorization for children is problematic. That is one of the biggest problems in our last couple generations of students, is that they are memorizing to the test. Memorization, the kind that Suzuki uses and other studios were influenced by consequently, is not ear training. Memorization utilizes sequential information and is related to remembering fingerings, patterns and finger sequences. It is a different brain path. In my own playing, when I use my auditory skills as a creative musician for playing or memorization, I imagine melody, harmony and rhythm and whatever I am supposed to play at once -whether it is worked out or not. It is why I can play my written concerto, have a memory lapse and make up some new notes instantaneously because I already knew what the harmonic and rhythmic context of it was. It is thinking through a different pathway. These problems in classical music learning have been accentuated by such early starts on the instruments over the last 50 years to where this particular "wiring" has been introduced so early in the child's brain development, that it is nearly impossible for an accomplished string player (such as yourself it sounds like) to undo.
What to do. There is no teacher that is going to undo this for you at this point, you will need what I call a cultural intervention. That could include learning an entirely different instrument creatively. For you I would actually suggest the fiddle since you are a cellist! Or the guitar, or mandolin. The other thing I would do, is to either go to weekly jam sessions with welcoming amateur players or actually join a rock or pop band or acoustic jamming ensemble and just make up everything you play and let the guitar, bass and keyboard player give you tips gradually over time. That is the best bet for an advanced classical musician at this point. It can work. Academic lessons in jazz, altered scales or theory will just waste your time as an adult, advanced player because academically you will approach it just like your classical wiring will allow you, and it won't be applicable. It is better for you to find the culture through the things I have mentioned! And please visit me at one of my seminars or camps one day soon!
I really like this. Honestly, it's far, far easier to teach music reading than improv ability. You can learn a degree of basic improv through theory, chord recognition, memorized patterns that can be played over a variety of meters, etc. This is how I've always taught music-dependent adult pianists to ”jam.” This is accessible to anyone, regardless of innate musical ability, because it is at its core the memorization and implementation of patterns and mnemonics. With some students, we go a step further- they will learn to hear, not just a note, but other notes that harmonize with it, or hear a melody and harmonize it logically/creatively in their head. Those that "have the ear" will take things, put their creative spin on them, and make something beautifully their own. Others will become competent enough to, say, play for a worship band, but they are more implementing patterns and harmonic habits than creating something clever and delightful.
All of my students learn to read music, and all of them are required to "practice" improvisation regularly. We practice, teach, and learn, but I must say I don't think the sort of creative thinking that allows us to improvise notes in a concerto based on harmonic and rhythmic context is taught that way- I've always believed it was more innate than learned. Therefore, I find Mr. O'Connor's perspective very interesting. Is this ability innate, or are we simply teaching it incorrectly? I think my experience affirms the former, but I wonder sometimes. Nature, or nurture? Either way, I like it. Improvising/composing have been natural to me since I was very small, and I don't think anyone ever "taught" me how, so it's been a fun journey as a teacher learning how to teach those for whom it does not come as naturally to "speak" that musical dialect.
In my opinion, there are too few musicians who can operate from sheet music, a chord sheet, or their own head with equal fluency. My goal is to foster this fluency in all my students, but I must say, some adapt to/become fluent in all the above with much greater ease than others. That nature is at least somewhat the culprit is clear; but if there is a way to narrow the gap I'd very much like to find it.
I have gotten a lot of messages in the inbox and I am going to share this one:
"I am an adult, advanced cellist. I am a cello performance major at Cal. State U. Northridge, classically trained. I love what you do. My problem is that I have not "fiddled" around enough on my cello. I am wedded to the written page. I have been working at improvising, using my ear, trying to break out of my classical box for about three years already and am making slow progress. Can you help me?"
Let me say, you have a LOT of company. Firstly... the ear training that string players "thought" they got as a child, is not ear training. Suzuki promised this to the student, and even traditional training has adopted this belief over the last couple generations now because of Suzuki's influence. If you ever learned something by ear as a young student, and you were in the current classical system of the last 50 years, it wasn't learning by ear, it was simply visual mimicking of either your teacher's fingering through repetition, or following your teacher's hand signals, or written symbols marking what finger to use. This is not ear training, it is learning music by a visual stimulus. Secondly, memorization for children is problematic. That is one of the biggest problems in our last couple generations of students, is that they are memorizing to the test. Memorization, the kind that Suzuki uses and other studios were influenced by consequently, is not ear training. Memorization utilizes sequential information and is related to remembering fingerings, patterns and finger sequences. It is a different brain path. In my own playing, when I use my auditory skills as a creative musician for playing or memorization, I imagine melody, harmony and rhythm and whatever I am supposed to play at once -whether it is worked out or not. It is why I can play my written concerto, have a memory lapse and make up some new notes instantaneously because I already knew what the harmonic and rhythmic context of it was. It is thinking through a different pathway. These problems in classical music learning have been accentuated by such early starts on the instruments over the last 50 years to where this particular "wiring" has been introduced so early in the child's brain development, that it is nearly impossible for an accomplished string player (such as yourself it sounds like) to undo.
What to do. There is no teacher that is going to undo this for you at this point, you will need what I call a cultural intervention. That could include learning an entirely different instrument creatively. For you I would actually suggest the fiddle since you are a cellist! Or the guitar, or mandolin. The other thing I would do, is to either go to weekly jam sessions with welcoming amateur players or actually join a rock or pop band or acoustic jamming ensemble and just make up everything you play and let the guitar, bass and keyboard player give you tips gradually over time. That is the best bet for an advanced classical musician at this point. It can work. Academic lessons in jazz, altered scales or theory will just waste your time as an adult, advanced player because academically you will approach it just like your classical wiring will allow you, and it won't be applicable. It is better for you to find the culture through the things I have mentioned! And please visit me at one of my seminars or camps one day soon!
I really like this. Honestly, it's far, far easier to teach music reading than improv ability. You can learn a degree of basic improv through theory, chord recognition, memorized patterns that can be played over a variety of meters, etc. This is how I've always taught music-dependent adult pianists to ”jam.” This is accessible to anyone, regardless of innate musical ability, because it is at its core the memorization and implementation of patterns and mnemonics. With some students, we go a step further- they will learn to hear, not just a note, but other notes that harmonize with it, or hear a melody and harmonize it logically/creatively in their head. Those that "have the ear" will take things, put their creative spin on them, and make something beautifully their own. Others will become competent enough to, say, play for a worship band, but they are more implementing patterns and harmonic habits than creating something clever and delightful.
All of my students learn to read music, and all of them are required to "practice" improvisation regularly. We practice, teach, and learn, but I must say I don't think the sort of creative thinking that allows us to improvise notes in a concerto based on harmonic and rhythmic context is taught that way- I've always believed it was more innate than learned. Therefore, I find Mr. O'Connor's perspective very interesting. Is this ability innate, or are we simply teaching it incorrectly? I think my experience affirms the former, but I wonder sometimes. Nature, or nurture? Either way, I like it. Improvising/composing have been natural to me since I was very small, and I don't think anyone ever "taught" me how, so it's been a fun journey as a teacher learning how to teach those for whom it does not come as naturally to "speak" that musical dialect.
In my opinion, there are too few musicians who can operate from sheet music, a chord sheet, or their own head with equal fluency. My goal is to foster this fluency in all my students, but I must say, some adapt to/become fluent in all the above with much greater ease than others. That nature is at least somewhat the culprit is clear; but if there is a way to narrow the gap I'd very much like to find it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)