|
Post by Dulciana on Sept 12, 2006 21:50:13 GMT
What about some views on how necessary it is to learn theory for the student who "just wants to play". I don't mean learning notes/rests/simple grouping, etc, which you'd probably get into in the course of lessons anyway - I'm talking about the neccesity to cover everything that's on the syllabi of the main boards.
And should it be the case that Grade 5 is required for upper practical grades?
|
|
|
Post by princessmoose on Sept 12, 2006 21:51:47 GMT
Interesting question. Will reply tomorrow when I've given it some thought. I might come across as quite hypocritical that I think theory is quite useful, and aural not eek!
|
|
|
Post by Benj on Sept 12, 2006 22:00:33 GMT
I think theory is necessary but I wouldn't say that it is necessary to have Grade 5 Theory for the upper grades. I think that Grade 3/4 would be suitable, as you cover most of what is in Grade 5 but not in as much detail. As long as you understand the basics of theory and how to read music, Key signature, Tempo Markings etc than that is all that should be needed. That probably makes no sense at all but ya know
|
|
|
Post by Steve Hopwood on Sept 12, 2006 22:34:20 GMT
I have no doubt about this. The theory students need is that which helps them to play their instrument. Anything else does no harm, can do some good, but is not actually necessary. Much of what goes into grade 5 theory has no relevance to those who take the exam. TG recognised this, along with the obstacle this pointless hurdle this represents, when they abolished their requirement. Steve
|
|
|
Post by Benj on Sept 12, 2006 22:37:17 GMT
S'pose
|
|
|
Post by kerioboe on Sept 13, 2006 20:31:53 GMT
I used not to have particularly strong feelings on theory until my daughter started learning music in France. Here pupils start learning theory as soon as they start learning an instrument in a separate lesson which lasts for an hour a week when they first start and gradually increases to two and a half hours a week by the time they are the equivalent of grade 7-8. (This is actually an improvement as previously they used to have to learn theory for a year before they started learning an instrument). Schools here don't teach pupils to read and write until they are 6 1/2 so basically the music school is trying to teach written theory to students who can barely read and write.
Not only that but it is not always particularly relevant to the instrument. They start by concentrating on the treble clef - not a lot of help to my daughter who was learning the cello!
In these days of computer software they were given hand-written music to practice reading the notes on which was so badly written that even I had difficulty making out if the note was supposed to be in a line or a space!
Last year I managed to get her moved into a singing class instead which was theoretically reserved for pianists. (Where is the logic of this? Pianists who have two clefs to learn get singing lessons for the first two years instead of theory, string players for whom it might actually be useful to be able to pitch a note get theory). This year (her third) she has no choice but to go back into a theory class. Before her first lesson next week I'm trying to convince her that theory is useful. Any suggestions of how to do so (she is 9) would be most welcome!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Hopwood on Sept 13, 2006 21:49:19 GMT
Ouch, kerioboe. That is stunning. Do you really mean two and a half hours theory for grade 7-8 practical students? What do they do? 'A' level students in the UK only get 5 hours a week, and they have to cover a great deal more than theory. As to your daughter, the only thing I can suggest is moving to the UK. Assuming this is not feasible, how about bribery? Perhaps if her theory classes become inextricably linked with nice treats she will put up with them. Good luck. Is sounds insane to me. Steve
|
|
|
Post by princessmoose on Sept 13, 2006 22:37:43 GMT
Not only that but it is not always particularly relevant to the instrument. They start by concentrating on the treble clef - not a lot of help to my daughter who was learning the cello! Surely that is relevant though? Most of my instruments are treble clef ones but I still learn the bass clef, alto, tenor etc. The latter two might not be that useful to me that much, but bass definitely is. So although she is learning bass/tenor? for cello, it'll do her good to look at some treble stuff, in my opinion. In answer to you question Patricia, yes I think theory is important. I'm not so sure about the ones that just want to play. I can see how some theory is important but if you look at the grade 5 AB syllabus for example, transposition - for a pupil who just wants to play, why is that relevant? If it proves too much of a hurdle, I'd switch them to TG.
|
|
|
Post by Dulciana on Sept 13, 2006 23:55:29 GMT
I think it's important up to a point. Maybe the problem is that the exams are tailored to suit all instruments and all possible potential musical careers, meaning that a lot of it isn't relevant to every individual. If someone "just wants to play", the main aim of any theory that they do must be to enable them to eventually pick up a piece of music and know how to perform it without a teacher's help. For a pianist, for example, once all the time values, ornaments, etc are in the bag, I'd say it was more important to have an understanding of period, style and context than to know all about tenor clefs and transposition.
I also think it's a bit unfair for the less academic/mathematically minded to be unable to take Grade 6 practcal without Grade 5 theory (if they do AB). It's a pity there aren't tailor-made theory exams for different instruments, but this is probably not practical - or, more importantly, not financially viable for the powers that be!
|
|
|
Post by ange on Sept 14, 2006 6:03:49 GMT
i think i'm with patricia on this one, i have often thought that music theory would be less of a chore to those who just want to play and do grades, if it was appropriate to their own instrument
|
|
|
Post by sneekymum on Sept 14, 2006 7:51:39 GMT
I think music theory makes more sense when combined with simple keyboard skills - and since simple keyboards cost so little perhaps that's a real possibility to facilitate the teaching of it to those on other instruments.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Hopwood on Sept 14, 2006 7:56:52 GMT
I think music theory makes more sense when combined with simple keyboard skills - and since simple keyboards cost so little perhaps that's a real possibility to facilitate the teaching of it to those on other instruments. That is often how it is done in years 7-9 of UK secondary schools - usually two or three to a keyboard. Granted, it is pretty basic stuff but is more meaningful than FACE, Every Good Boy etc on the board and in exercise books. Steve
|
|
|
Post by jod on Sept 14, 2006 13:23:13 GMT
This is an area where as I have gained more experience, I have changed my mind. I now start sneeking Theory in as soon as some one is preparing from GRade 1. I find the for Piano pupils it helps them with their scales and sight reading. Small snippets are put in their note books and the rest is doen through work books. Alan Haughton for littl'ns and Eric taylor once the basics have been covered.
I feel it is necessary as I have found it reinforces what I am teaching... but I don't force people to do the exams unless they're into collecting certificates!
|
|
|
Post by kerioboe on Sept 14, 2006 20:13:54 GMT
I can't work out how to quote. Can someone enlighten me?
In answer to Steve, yes I do mean two and a half hours and most of the pupils seem to think this is much too long. I'm not sure exactly what they do but it includes musical dictations which most seem to hate. Bear in mind that this grade related and not age related so some may only be 14 or 15 and as many parents have pointed out, no school lesson of any single subject for children of that age is two and a half hours long without a break. Each week these children have a 45 or 60 minute instrumental lesson (assuming they only learn one instrument), 2 1/2 hour theory lesson and at least one hour of some form of ensemble work. This is on top of the normal French school day which starts at 8.00am and finishes at 5.00 (or sometimes even 6.00) after which they of course have homework and somewhere have to fit in instrumental practice.
Moving back to the UK is not an option for me. I have a better job here than I would in the UK and husband is French and wouldn't have a job at all in the UK so I guess all I have left is bribery! My daughter is actually quite pragmatic about it. She was just learning the cello and wanted to take up the trombone as well. One of her many arguments was that at the moment she only has 30 minutes of instrument (which she likes) and 60 minutes of theory (which she doesn't) if she could do the trombone as well she would be able to spend as much time on the instruments as she would on the theory!
In answer to Saxy, I'm not saying learning the treble clef is not a good idea per se. But, my daughter started learning when she was only six and a half which was also her first year of formal schooling so she could neither read nor write. Written music is complicated to a child of that age as they don't know which are the important details. For instance we know that whether a note is in a space or on a line is vital but it doesn't matter which way the tail goes, my daughter was convinced that if the tail went up instead of down the note had changed as well. Also with the cello you don't learn notes next to each other and start almost immediately with ledger lines (since the bottom open string is the C below middle C). I think at this age, for the first couple of years, it is enough to be able to read the notes which are useful for your instrument and it only confuses things (it certainly did for my daughter) to have to try and remember two different systems at once - and she is bilingual and used to working in two languages. Also I think that the fact that the French don't use letter names but "Do, Re, Mi etc." makes it harder to remember the order of the notes anyway.
|
|
|
Post by SuzyMac on Sept 18, 2006 15:06:46 GMT
When I was teaching *insert dramatic sigh*, I'd introduce theory as and when in lessons, keeping it relevent. So, clefs, bar-lines, lines and spaces, sharps and flats, etc. came quite quickly. Then adding in tempo marks and performance directions as they became more literate.
Those following exam paths worked through the AB books - roughly keeping up with their practical skills. I remember only too well the frustration of having to catch up for theory exams. Those playing for fun just learnt about things that appeared in music they played.
|
|