Watching a "metric" steadily improve is encouraging. I tend to forget exactly how I was doing last week, but looking at a list of scores from the last week really emphasizes improvement-- which I might add, often seems so minuscule during the last mile. (The last 20% of improvement takes 80% of the effort.)
For a really satisfying performance I have to aim for the most relaxed state possible. That's easy in the practice studio and so difficult in front of an audience. Getting to that state while under pressure is, in my opinion, one of the most important technical skills we can develop.Rick Beauregard wrote: Other posts talk about performance anxiety. This is when we spend all our time in the practice room in the left brain learning a piece, then walk out on stage (or in my case the video light goes on) and our right brain takes over and we crash.
I find that to be a double edged sword. On one hand, trying to keep score drives a lot of focus and active listening. On the other hand, it's one more thing to think about. I'm already finding it works better to use a simple three point scale: 3 is perfect, 2 passes the satisfying standard, and less than 2, well. Another danger, would be encouraging a tendency to judge while performing; it's hard enough just letting go of each sound and letting it be what it is. So, yes, for the next phase of my experimenting, I'm going to try judging from recordings.Whiteagle wrote: I am wondering whether doing scoring whilst you are playing could be a distraction. I aim to be able to play a piece 5 times in a row without errors but yes we could write a thousand page book on how do you define an error