|
Post by AnotherPianist on Sept 21, 2006 11:07:47 GMT
A fascinating discussion. I always see posts that say something like: "One can't learn to play the <instrument name> without also being able to do <scales/sightreading/theory/aural> but so many teachers do it ." (I'm probably guilty of a few of those too ). However, of course, if so many teachers do it then it is indeed quite possible to do that. Which means it's only the authors definition of 'being able to play' that is actually influenced by that thing. For example, I would define being able to 'play' an instrument as being able to learn pieces efficiently and independently (at early stages semi-independently), without necessarily needing to hear someone else play them first; and that the final result would sound musical. Therefore I would say sightreading, or at least efficiently reading and working through a piece, not necessarily fluently in one go, is essential to playing the piano and a good awareness of style is also very important. Others would probably say other things are essential, for example, a violinist might say being able to pitch notes with one's voice is essential for playing the violin. Pitching notes in one's head is probably unquestionably useful, and if one is a natural at singing this is probably a good way to verify one's accuracy. However, if singing doesn't come naturally, the tool may well become a harder sub-task than achieving the overall task in one go and just pitching on the violin. I guess what I'm trying to say is very little is 'essential' in being able to play an instrument, except playing pieces on the thing, unless one specifies the essential thing in one's definition of being able to play. Many things are certainly useful: theory being one of them; but unless I change my definition it's not essential (note this is the separate study of theory since note reading well enough to sightread would have to be covered in the process of that anyway). I do believe all sorts of other things are helpful, if one can do them, a broad listening experience, theory, even being able to hear music in one's head at sight would be helpful. They are, however, certainly not essential as there are people who 'can play' who can't do these things. Change my definition of 'can play' for someone else's and there are also people who 'can play' who can't sightread or don't know about style themselves. A long winded and philosophical answer there: the short one is that it's not essential but could be very useful if one does feel inclined to do it. The useful but not essential things are probably what will allow those at the very top to edge ahead slightly (then again we could add looking beautiful to that list ) but for someone who is just playing for fun it's necessary to see if the cost of doing something one doesn't like outweigh the benefits one gets from it. Theory can be helpful in forming one's own interpretations, particularly when one is more advanced, but it depends how much one wants that benefit and how much (or not) one enjoys theory. For me it's worth it; for someone else maybe not .
|
|
|
Post by Dulciana on Sept 21, 2006 15:44:58 GMT
Hi, AP. I always enjoy reading your posts, 'cos they're always thoughtful and very logical! I do actually think theory's important, but only for its own sake - not for the sake of the structured grade exams. Once the student knows enough to know how to perform (technically) without a teacher's help, then the rest is up to the individual. I enjoy harmony and rhythm, for example, but couldn't really be bothered teaching the likes of transposition just for the sake passing an exam. But then I'm a pianist; a clarinet player would be different. What I'd like to see is theory exams structured specifically for pianists - on the assumption that the piano is probably the most popular instrument for private tuition (?), and the instrument that's used for accompaniment. An accompanist needs to know that he/she is getting it right (most of the time!) so will probably have done theory exams - much of the content of which will never be used!
|
|
|
Post by AnotherPianist on Sept 26, 2006 20:08:29 GMT
Thanks for your kind comments Patricia . Of course I'm not arguing that theory is not important or useful: I consider it very much so; merely stating that someone who wants to just play and finds theory really difficult may find they don't gain as much as they lose (in terms of time and not enjoyment from explicitly learning theory). Obviously in an ideal world everyone would enjoy it and take naturally to it and indeed should study it. I think this is the usual time my discussions with Steve go haywire: he usually talks from a very pragmatic point of view what happens with the average child that is learning with him and getting them to enjoy things and do what they can, convincing them to practise etc.; I usually talk from a very academic 'ivory tower' perspective of what 'should' be the case in the ideal world. For some reason I've gone the other way in this discussion, maybe Steve is affecting me . I think that it is more likely to be the word 'necessary' in the title that did it though, nothing is really necessary, but many things, inclucing theory can help and should definitely be taught to a high level above what's 'needed' in lessons in an ideal world . I agree entirely that it's important; but from a pragmatic side I don't think it's essential just to be 'able to play' however one defines that . So I'm definitely pro-theory, but I think if it's really hard for someone and they don't have enough of a desire to do the things they don't like to learn then they can still continue playing without it .
|
|
|
Post by anacrusis on Sept 26, 2006 21:23:18 GMT
I've often wondered just how little one can "get away with" in learning an instrument...perhaps the ABRSM's preconditions for various exam levels are there to prevent people like me from swimming happily through one part of learning music without also squelching through other bits - because it is certainly possible to reach a reasonable playing standard without an equivalent qualification in theory, given good teaching and a reasonably musical mind. I did, in fact, work through some theory on my own when I was preparing for grades 7 and 8, but it bore little relationship to what I was doing in my playing, and informed it not at all. Reminding myself of chord structures helped a teensy bit with aurals, but only because I also tried playing the things I had written out. I'm now picking apart the Bach piece I'm learning, finding out where the theme is, where he's inverted it, where the left hand of the keyboard player has the main part, where the right, where the recorder, and yes, it'll help me to tone down when I'm accompanying and beef up when I'm starring...but in fact, I was playing it all a bit like that already anyway, because I've heard so much of that sort of music that the idiom is familiar to me. I do wonder if I'd be a much better musician for having done grade 6 or even grade 8 theory...and I'm not sure - better rounded maybe, but not a better player for it.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Hopwood on Sept 26, 2006 21:57:45 GMT
Thanks for your kind comments Patricia . Of course I'm not arguing that theory is not important or useful: I consider it very much so; merely stating that someone who wants to just play and finds theory really difficult may find they don't gain as much as they lose (in terms of time and not enjoyment from explicitly learning theory). Obviously in an ideal world everyone would enjoy it and take naturally to it and indeed should study it. I think this is the usual time my discussions with Steve go haywire: he usually talks from a very pragmatic point of view what happens with the average child that is learning with him and getting them to enjoy things and do what they can, convincing them to practise etc.; I usually talk from a very academic 'ivory tower' perspective of what 'should' be the case in the ideal world. For some reason I've gone the other way in this discussion, maybe Steve is affecting me . Don't let this happen again ;D Seriously, I tried several times to reply to you highly perceptive original post. Every time, my replies seemed so condescending that I gave up. I will try again. Like you, I am pro-theory. In addition, I am pro-aural training. I am pro technical training. I bet you are too. I am pro anything that is relevent to the kids I teach. I am anti anything that wastes time, bores them and turns them off playing the piano. I suspect you would support me in that. You appear to understand that 'theory' will mean different things to different people. I assume you have a similarly open mind when it comes to other aspects of musical study. Never considered music teaching as a career, have you? Steve
|
|
|
Post by Steve Hopwood on Sept 26, 2006 22:04:00 GMT
I do wonder if I'd be a much better musician for having done grade 6 or even grade 8 theory...and I'm not sure - better rounded maybe, but not a better player for it. It all comes down to AP's cost\benefit analysis - something with which I agree wholeheartedly (and not just in relation to theory). Time is finite. Individuals have to decide when spending time on x justifies not spending time on y. Not everybody understands this. Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dulciana on Sept 27, 2006 8:40:31 GMT
I find it very difficult to make if interesting and fun for pupils - hence I very rarely teach it formally at all. I cover what's relevant to what they're playing at the time, with the occasional reference to past papers, but any that are at all likely to take their music seriously I send to a colleague to them get through the exams. He's more on the ball with it than I am and loves to teach it. But I still have to listen to their moans about the boring bits!
|
|
|
Post by princessmoose on Sept 27, 2006 9:26:47 GMT
Oh dear AP has fallen for Steve's influence - another victim what will we do . anacrusis: I've taken the grade 6 exam and I don't feel a better anything for it. It's certainly not improved my playing. It just made me bored one Saturday morning for 45 minutes fiddling with notes on a piece of paper .
|
|
|
Post by Steve Hopwood on Sept 27, 2006 10:09:43 GMT
I find it very difficult to make if interesting and fun for pupils - hence I very rarely teach it formally at all. I cover what's relevant to what they're playing at the time, with the occasional reference to past papers, but any that are at all likely to take their music seriously I send to a colleague to them get through the exams. He's more on the ball with it than I am and loves to teach it. But I still have to listen to their moans about the boring bits! The trouble is having to try to cram this stuff into a few minutes stolen from an instrumental lesson and we both know that does not work - fails the cost\benefit analysis. I solved the problem by adopting TG for all my post grade 5 exams. I teach a fair amount of theory as I get sent students for the same reasons you send yours. I make the sessions fun by poking fun at the stuff they have to learn; not difficult to do as so much of it is rubbish. ;D We are likely to be moaning about it together. ;D Knowing that the whole point of the lesson is theory and that the student needs a grade 5 pass takes away the pain of what would otherwise be loosing practical lesson time. Like nearly everybody else, Heidi whinged her way through grade 5. She then announced that she had found the experience beneficial to her GCSE music and wanted to do 6-8 as well. Post grade 5 theory is really useful to serious young musos, so I gave her a classical harmony course and now we are working through the big 6 book, soon to be replaced by past papers and the exam in March. We still whinge our way through the sessions, but that is the game we play ;D
|
|
|
Post by possom on Sept 27, 2006 10:53:25 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 It does make sense ben I took the old syllabus of theory exams back in the 80's and early 90's, when I took grade 8 piano I didn't have a clue about the theory that is in the new syllabus and it didn't hold me back Saying that, all of my pupils study theory to some extent, I usually go for what's relevant in the lesson and the piece but set work from the workbooks as well especially for the certificate collector's
|
|
|
Post by Steve Hopwood on Oct 12, 2006 22:43:32 GMT
Not exactly on topic, but Heidi had to take the day off school today with a bit of a bug. Naturally, I went round to give her a bit of a cuddle. Equally naturally, we didn't want the day to be an entire waste. So, yes, we had a cuddle. We also did quite a lot of work towards her grade 6 theory ;D ;D ;D What a girl.
|
|
|
Post by kerioboe on Oct 14, 2006 21:40:53 GMT
I took my oboe for a check-up yesterday and while sitting in the waiting-room was flicking through back copies of a bi-monthly magazine for French music teachers. In every issue was a two-page article on whether theory was necessary. The three issues I looked at all claimed it was and gave the following reasons: 1) It is an elitist attitude not to teach theory. In the nineteenth century the upper classes claimed that poor people did not need to learn how to read and write in order to do manual labourer. Compulsory education was a huge step forward for the working class. Music theory should be seen the same way. By refusing to teach theory to everyone you are just trying to keep people out of the elite. 2) (A bit of background information to understand this one. Until recently French music schools required their pupils to learn theory for one year before they were allowed to get their hands on an instrument. Some still do but fortunately not the one in the town where I live). A year's theory enables the teacher to see which pupils are motivated and which are not. You can be fairly sure that if they have stuck with the theory for a whole year they are going to practise when they actually have an instrument. 3) That the French system (with its great emphasis on theory) works is born out by the large number of French professional musicians to be found in orchestras throughout the world. (I have no statistics on the relative nationalities of orchestral players but surely there are also a large number of non-French orchestral players )
|
|
|
Post by recorderlady on Apr 20, 2007 15:50:46 GMT
pertinent, as I am currently struggling to get grade 5 theory so that I can progress up the practical exams. I have to confess that, although it is an irritation (and has also been a fantastic excuse not to take any exams for ages) some things do help to make sense of the music I am playing, so I think I would have to say it is useful. However, as an old cynic, I am to some extent learning to pass the exam, not the theory, as I am never likely to need to know how many strings a harp has in my musical life. I would take issue with some of the syllabus - recorders can play more than one note at a time, and a baroque trill certainly isn't actually played the way grade 5 says it is.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Hopwood on Apr 20, 2007 20:35:33 GMT
However, as an old cynic, I am to some extent learning to pass the exam, not the theory, as I am never likely to need to know how many strings a harp has in my musical life. That is the kind of question that has me replying, "Not a clue. Let's Google it" when it comes up in a past exam paper. No other trill either. You neatly sum up my objection to the grade 5 theory syllabus; it is drivel. Having said that, I enjoy teaching this rubbish, but that is because I enjoy teaching. I have developed a method of teaching the grade 5 requirements as a complete syllabus, rather than flogging through those silly books published by the AB. Me and the kids enjoy it because I enjoy the kids, and they enjoy my irreverent attitude to the rubbish. Of course, I only teach this nonsense to students of other teachers. Mine are entered for TCM exams and do not have to leap this particular hurdle.
|
|
|
Post by jod on Apr 20, 2007 20:42:34 GMT
I teach mine tehaory all the time, but very few do theory exams. The sheer art of writing out D major, + d minor melodic and harmonic minor scales for a pupil yesterday gave them a theory lesson and a clue how the keys worked for her to play in. I now only get piano students to pratice the scales they are playing pieces in between exams to help them understand they keys as much as anything.
But in these days of IT, the art of writing things on manuscript paper is a dying art.
|
|