Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Various issues with pupils

Hi there other forum users,

So...first post!

Basically I am having a couple of issues with pupils that I'm asking for advice on. I should say that piano is actually my second instrument, 'cello being my first, and I have only recently started teaching piano (I have fairly extensive experience as a 'cello teacher). The issues are as follows:
I have one pupil who is, although not a complete beginner, not yet at a standard I would describe as "intermediate." I am actually teaching him on a keyboard. He had some lessons before starting with me, and his previous teacher appears to have taught him by putting stickers with the note letters on the keys and teaching him songs by ear using the note letters. Reading notation is a real struggle for him. I should also add that he wants to go more in a gospel/r'nb direction rather than classical. My impression is that he would like to develop the ability to improvise harmony parts and basslines to popular songs, however he does not have the technical and musical grounding to really develop this ability. I have discovered all this from trying to work from notation with him, and the process being laboriously slow (he does read notation to some extent but seems to have had little tuition in notation). Basically my feeling is that he wants to be able to take on the role of, say, a keys player in an r'n'b band, but does not realise how much he needs to develop his technique to get to that stage, and also would not, at this point, have the necessary motivation. He's twelve years old i.e. at the age where lack of imput that he feels is catering to his needs could easily result in a give-up, so I'm reluctant to force him to do scales and studies etc...help!!!
I have another pupil (7 yrs old) who is a total beginner, and also does not yet read notation very well. I am trying to teach him music theory whilst teaching piano technique and am trying to think of good, integrative ways to do this. So far I have written a couple of little tunes for him to illustrate note values in practice, and done c and g major scales. How does one explain the circle of fifths to a seven-year-old child? And what about the fact that one note appears in a totally different place on the stave in the bass clef than in the treble clef? Any ideas anyone??
I have a third pupil (adult) who is around grade 2/3 (ABRSM) standard. She does not have very much confidence, and I can tell that, where she plays wrong notes, she often knows the right notes, but a lack of confidence and the resulting nervousness means that they then come out wrong. At the moment I find myself telling her that, after thoroughly learning the music, one has to tell oneself that it is actually all "there" and the less we worry about making mistakes, the better the playing will be and the higher our confidence level will be. But I feel that this is not helping her at the moment. Can anyone recommend any practical exercises for overcoming nervousness and increasing confidence?
At the moment I am not using any teaching books, but if anything I've said prompts a recommendation of a particular book, that would be great...

I would very much appreciate any advice on the above issues!

Many thanks

Matthew.

Matthew,

I've had success with using John Schaum's note speller with students ages 5-15. They are fun excercises, and students learn much by completing the excercises. I would all the students you've mentioned go through these books, as the basic foundation of musical rudiments seems to be lacking from them.

Also, regarding student number two, it seems that teaching the circle of fifths to a student at that age would be over their head. Try the note speller and the theory speller from the aformentioned author. It goes through theory, without being over young students' heads.

Hope this helps!

For student #1, I'd get him to agree to certain conditions. You will teach him what he wants to learn, if he practices what you tell him he needs to learn. I had a boy around this age who anted to do Jazz, and refused to work on anything else. Before I took him, I let him and his mother know that I was not a jazz pianist, and while I could help guide him in playing some jazz tunes, he'd have to agree to do the things I told him to because it would make him more capable of playing jazz well. With some time to adjust and some ups and downs, he finally agreed in action (as opposed to just saying OK) and his playing is taking off. Knowing that he would have to audition for college playing classical music in oder to later major in jazz piano helped too. I don't know how serious this kid is, but whatever it is that inspires him, help him learn the things he will need for that. Of course, he'll have to learn to play scales & chords so he can improvise within a key, as well as play chords underneath. If he agrees to it, then you can work on some pieces in his style of choice, while he also work son pieces that will help him become a better player.

Student #2 should really have pieces to play! I do like using a method book because it provides all that stuff in abundance. Piano Adventures by Faber & Faber is a good one to start. You don't have to go all the way up to level 5, I'd say just the first 3 books or so, then you can move him into ABRSM repertoire. As far as explaining the circle of 5ths...I don't. Not at the beginning. It is far too complicated a concept for most kids this age. I have them first work on a C major scale. Once they can do that hands together (usually after a few weeks), then I have them try to play a scale starting on G. I'll ask them which note sounded "weird" and we may play through it a few times for them to really hear it. They usually pick it out after that. Then I point out that because we're starting on a different note, we need to add an F# to make it sound right. I'll just continue on like that around the circle a bit. I will always ask them what the next scale is going to be by playing the first 5 ascending notes of the previous scale(on the sharp side), or play the first 5 descending notes (on the flat side). If they catch on quickly, I may even ask them to figure out the new sharp by going down a half step from the new tonic.

Student #3, do improvising with her. This will really help her to open up. Make sure you set parameters so that there is no way it could sound bad or wrong. I like to do improvs on the black keys. It is important you improvise together, so it's not a "performance". You can also improvise by emotion, like I have a list of about 60 different emotions. I have a student pick a number between 1-60 and then we find out what emotion that is. Then I ask, "How do you think excited would sound? Legato or staccato? Forte or piano? High notes or low notes? Fast or slow?" There are no wrong answers to any of these questions. Once you've nailed down some things, then ask her to improvise something say, fast and staccato on high notes. Assure her that the actual notes don't matter as much as it matters that it is high, fast and staccato. Sometimes if they really like it, it's fun to help them put it on notation software to really help define which notes they like better. They are very proud when they see a page come off the printer with their name in the Composer's place!

I'm not a piano teacher but I can respond as a student to #2 & #3. I took piano for eight years (ages 10-18) and never understood the circle of fifth. Because I was supposed to know it, I just faked it. I think what would have really helped me is if my teachers worked on intervals and what a third or fifth or a seventh is in different keys (when you get there).

Now as an adult, I'm student #3. My teacher has become a close friend, but when we are in our "lesson," my hands actually shake which makes it hard to press the right keys. My scales are off, and my fingering goes awry. But now, I play the "rough draft" and then immediately do it the second time and then usually by the third repetition, my nerves have calmed down. For pieces, I now start with two or three measures that gave me difficulty and I play those and narrate why I'm having problems. Then she asks me to play it from the beginning and I usually feel pretty good about the effort. Then, we talk about what I can improve on and we play together. Also, I notice that I do a lot better when I have a few minutes to run through things right before the lesson vs. when I go to the lesson straight from work.

Susan

P.S. I understand the theory behind the circle of fifths, but I can't really USE it yet to help me identify key signatures.

This student doesn't really know keyboard geometry, so isn't at the level you think she's at.

Although it's really difficult to diagnose by short postings, there are some general practices which would probably help you and her.

Get a repertoire book or series from a level below where you think she's at and start learning a large number of pieces. Keith Snell's Piano Repertoire series is carefully graded, as are many others, and would be a good place to start (pub. Kjos).

Even if she can stagger through the whole piece pretty much, identify troublesome measures and work on those, including the measure before and after. Often, it's helpful to work by phrases, so you might find that you're working in 4 measure groups. Keep the tempo very, very slow, untl the passage is executed correctly, several times in succession. You may have to work hands separately a couple of times. BTW, when my students are working HS, I generally will play the other line, so they hear the complete passage and are forced to stay in tempo.

Get a series which has fingering included and religiously stick to the suggested fingering. This is not because it came down from Mt. Sinai on engraved tablets, but because she lacks the wisdom at this point to invent her own fingering.

If you're not including scales and chords as part of the lesson, please consider doing so. They may be boring, in fact, I make a big deal with my students about how REALLY BORING they are, so that most tackle them with great delight, just to prove me wrong. And it really helps them learn keyboard geometry.

I'm a big believer in memorization and then continued playing so the piece percolates and improves. It doesn't make any difference what level the student is at. The more they repeat playing something familiar on the piano, the more comfortable they get.

Hope some of these ideas help.

John

Thats exactly right. I have had several students just like this one...in each case, I had to explain that the fundamentals of piano playing, and of music in general, are pretty much the same regardless of the style of music played.

Its the same scales, same chords, same fingers, same hands, same piano, etc.

I tell them, "lets get through this basic lesson book, then you will be able to play at this level, and thus be able to play this..." and I play the last song in the book, then something along the line of what they like that is equally simple.

So there is a goal to get through the book, and a reward at the end.

Hi!

My first reply & post!

I have been teaching piano for over 20 years and hope to share & learn from others.

All your students would really benefit from a course of study. I prefer Thompson, Bastian and sometimes Schaum with supplemental Dozen-A Day.
I also always teach scales right away because the fingering & basic knowledge
is so important.

I find positive encouragement the most helpful for those who are timid or nervous. Comfort and trust are so important and then even my shiest students open up when they are ready.

Good luck in your new teaching area.

Joan

I agree with Edwardian, that "comfort and trust" are tantamount. Also, don't forget the wonders of positive reinforcement. A few "good job" and "great work" go a long way, when well deserved.

I do this too with some students. One doesn't get particularly nervous, I don't think, but her first time through is always a bit rough. In fact for many students, that is how it is unless they were able to practice a little before the lesson. Believe it or not, a teacher can actually tell when a student knows something better than they are playing. They can always tell when a student practiced but when it's just not going well. Sometimes a 2nd run through helps a lot.

true, but the lesson should not be used for practice. This brings up a good point- practice. Emphasize

Emphasize PRACTICING over PLAYING while at home. The lesson should be reserved for mostly learning new material.

Tommytones

I don't believe anyone suggested using lessons for practice. Did I miss something?

I believe what most of us do is this: we keep talking about HOW to practice, and we spend a good deal of each lesson reinforcing better ways to practice or introducing new concepts (as music becomes more complex).

Students do not inherently know how to practice. They must be taught by example. Therefore, all lessons must include a considerable amount of actual practice with the student. I'm not saying that you spend the entire lesson or even entire pieces in practice at the lesson, but unless we teach them (just telling them does not work), they will not learn the skill and it will be completely our fault.

I wouldn't worry about the circle of fifths. I never was taught it outright but just picked up that if you hop up by a fifth you pick up another sharp until the flats start showing up ... and that hopping up by a fifth always gives you the seventh that resolves into that key. You probably won't need to say it out loud.

Jazz Kid is another matter. Ask him who his fave jazz players are and get him some bio on them. Chances are they'll have had some classical training. Just tell him that he needs to fill his toolbox before he starts building a house.

The circle of 5ths is one of the simplest things in music, if you know it.

To help those who don't, it's a matter of finding a way to explain it that clicks with their way of thinking.

Wow, I was student #1 when I was his age. I hated practising anything my teacher gave me, just stuff I wanted to do. Im a big fan of students like these following their musical desires. However, a good musician knows how to sight read, has good technique, theory knowledge, ear training, etc. I think the best thing you can do is take what they are interested in and use it to teach him/her something. For example, if you want to teach this student how to sightread, get him to write out his favorite pop tune on blank staff paper using key signitures, clefs, etc. If you want to teach him scales, get him to improvise using scales over his favorite R&B tune. If you want to teach him theory, teach him the intervals and chords that exist within one of his tunes. He needs to see that these rudiments are relevant. You can motivate him by finding some gospel/r&b music materials on youtube and show him some keyboard playing where those skills are used. Maybe he could transcribe it and try to play it. He might try to get it up to speed, and see why he needs this good technique. This would take place over a series of lessons, obviously. Good luck!

Cheeze...

Here is an example you could try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5fXhoxJqQQ

This is Fred Hammond, gospel artist from the states with an insane band/choir to back him. There are several different bells/strings/lead sounds that the keyboardist does throughout this tune. Especially around 3:20 listen for the scale he is using with the lead sound. This might motivate your student.

Cheeze...

[quote=Minniemay]Students do not inherently know how to practice. They must be taught by example. Therefore, all lessons must include a considerable amount of actual practice with the student.

I agree with MinnieMae. By adding my comment about practicing, I was bringing up a relevant topic in piano pedagogy.

Tommy

Forget about teaching kids the Circle of 5th and cluttering their mind with useless theory. What is music, it is SOUND. Teach them to play by ear. Especially the first kid, if he's interested in jazz and improv.

This is how you play a song by ear:

-Take a simple melody, play it for him, then break the song down into 4 bars.
-Get him to SING ONLY the melody for the 4 bars. Repeat up to 10 times, so it's in his brain.
-Figure out what key the song is in
-then start playing right hand only the melody, singing the note out loud as he/she is playing
-work out the left hand chord progression and play separately
-put the hands together
-repeat with the next 4 bars...then piece them together, so 8 bars, 12... until you have the whole song

I don't know if your background is in classical or jazz, most gospel and R&B derive chords and scales from jazz. It's the rhythm that's altered.

Teach the standard 2-5-1 chord progression.

Same with the 7 year old, forget the note reading and focus on the sound. Play him middle C, get him to sing it and internalize C, go up and down the register, and then let him play the key. Do that with all keys.

Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles was blind, they sure have no problems playing the blues or R&B!

To the illiterate, language is sound—and only sound. To disregard reading notation seems like a recipe for remaining musically illiterate.

Steven

Well put, Steven.

There is also something about writing down a thought -- whether in music or word -- that crafts something together that cannot be done spontaneously. By putting words or notes to an idea, it solidifies and becomes for defined. You can also revise it until it is just right, the closest replica of the original idea in your mind. Notation is a positive aspect of music, just like the written word is to spoken language.

Useless theory???? That's a new one to me!!! Theory is so important, and should be taught to each student, at all levels. Obviously, one needs to teach appropriate to the age

Tommy

Don't pay attention. Jazzed23 is a troll.

:::wonders how Horowitzian got that picture of Jazzed::

Forget about teaching reading too. More useless information.

Wait, let's not teach fingering either.

Wait, let's not teach the names of the keys either.

Wait, let's not teach scales or chords.

Down with clutter!

Great! While we're at it, forget about teaching rhythms! And then, let's learn some Rachmaninoff!!

Woah woah woah... lol. Let's not get carried away here! I think the idea is to prioritize. The cycle of 5ths sure isn't the first thing I teach my students. No one is saying throw out theory and fingering etc. You get the point.

You weren't saying that, Pianos n Cheezecake (nice nick, btw, albeit a bit messy), but Jazzed23 was. I agree that teaching the Circle of 5ths as a concept is tough for kids to grasp. But we do play scales in the order of the circle of 5ths, and by the doing, it makes understanding the concept later on much easier.

In teaching piano to anyone, any age, any level - the garbage that goes in is what comes out - as in computer programming.

I give attention to all that is on the music page when starting an assignment: the title, the composer, the style, the era, the key signature, the positioning. We learn to analyze by finding form and recognizing patterns of repeated ideas and new ideas. We work the difficult measures of rhythm challenges out as we find them.

Teaching a student to have reasonable expectations about the music they take on is a side benefit to teaching analysis of the music. They will recognize when a piece is over their head in the present moment. They will being to see that what they are "getting" and "using" is a large part of providing a base for their future efforts. Accumulative learning is really a bit motivator.

You aren't supposed to understand the Circle of 5th going in - it's a result of knowing theory of the 5 Finger Positions, the Major Scale formula of tetrachords, and the theory of how 7 letter names are written as white (naturals) notes, altered to flats and altered to sharps, giving you 21 possibilities for an A - and so on for the B,C,D,E,F G. Exercising your fingers in accurate movement around the keyboard culminates in having a "Circle of 5ths" which is simply a diagram of music logic explaining the theory written about in the 1700's era by Rameau.

Everything comes to us in piano understanding in due time after we have put the time and effort into learning the building blocks. Piano is a structured instrument of huge proportions using the 7 elements of music.

How could it be as simple as some would have it be? If expertise could be gained in under a year of lessons, why has piano been such a fulfillment, enjoyment, passion for me as a student, and then in the many years of piano teaching since. I relish every detail of musicianship regarding the construct of the piano instument, it's mastering by a student, and the beautiful music we have to choose from in the several centuries of it's existance.

To be in a hurry, or to be careless in your study is just something that will grandly set you back, perhaps never allowing you to achieve your very best work. Piano study is a very serious time and work effort as well as using your intelligence and physical coordination and kinesthetic capacities to develop nuances of touch and control.

Were you to have a serious teacher that you could cooperate with, the endless pleasure and enjoyment of it would have been returning many wonderful experiences during your journey.

If the learner understood that there is sequence, order, and procedures to learning the piano, there would be a better result to all. When you apply less of yourself, you are going to get less of a result on the piano. Piano represents your learning and thinking and doing capacity. It's either 100% or it's not.

Lax teaching leaves the student with pockets of nothingness akin to looking at a slice of swiss cheese with all the pockets of air holes within what might have been a solid block of cheese. I hope the humor of that description makes a point.

This is just my vested opinion, so don't waste your time in argument with me, just state your opinions without feeling you have to tear mine apart, please. I would appreciate that courtesy.

In teaching piano to anyone, any age, any level - the garbage that goes in is what comes out - as in computer programming.

Betty, I honestly believe I am after the same thing you are after, but my main point is this:

"You can't argue with success." For instance, if you and I have completely different method of introducing concept, but your students and mine all successfully absort those concepts.

Let me give you a concrete example: I just finished teaching a young girl who told me that a quarter note is an eighth. In this particular case I don't care, because she just nailed all the notes, and she counted the piece perfectly. She has absorbed the basic idea of a 3/4 time signature and how the counts work. Will she know that a quarter is a quarter? Yes. But I am looking at the bigger picture.

This same girl started off hanging her thumbs so far off the keyboard, it was really funny. I tried to correct it by having her hold her hand in a more "correct" or "standard" position. The immediate result was tension and cramping. I could have stopped everything else at that point and drilled and drilled and drilled, but I chose to watch. I introduce scale patterns and chords quite early, and I saw that the moment she began to use her thumb in patterns or chords, the thumb was moving into position naturally. I continued to ignore the "problem", and it perfectly corrected itself. Her hand position is now fine.

In this medium (Internet) we are all working deaf and blind unless we are exchaning videos of our students playing while showing us teaching them. This is why I am very wary of judging the teaching methods of other teachers according to the words they choose to describe their methods. I think we make huge assumptions that cause us to seriously misjudge each other.

I tell my students that playing music you THINK you want to play may not be "fun" at all if you have to work really, really, REALLY hard to learn the music. I tell them that many students, at least, prefer playing things that they can play very well in a reasonably short period of time, and that by mastering many things that are quite "doable", they should get to their "dream pieces" in a much shorter time than they think. The principle is that people tend to be very proud of what they can do, so if they spend a huge amount of time working on something they are dreaming of playing but at the end are unable to play at full tempo or with all the polish that makes the dream piece come alive, it may turn into a nightmare. They may not even want to play that piece later, when they are really ready. Bad memories!

I would argue that the circle of fifths is something that becomes very obvious at the right time, though the except timing and the exact path that it comes into focus will be different for each student. Do you know exactly how and when it all made sense to you? I remember seeing a diagram when I was just beginning and thinking that it looked like some weird, complicated and impossible to understand drawing. A couple years later I looked at it and thought, "OK, what's the big deal? It's so obvious." Unlike you, apparently, I understand tetrachords, as a concept, because I know my scales, in my bones. To this day I do not use them for myself. I have used the concept for *some* students. Others seem to absorb scales in another manner more quickly.

However, a "solid block of cheese" an ideal, not reality. ALL students will have "holes". They may be little tiny holes, but it is the skill of the teacher that allows the teacher to fill these holes as they appear, and at the right time.

What are the 21 possibilities for an A? If I count only the Ab's, A's, and A#'s (not double flats or double sharps) I get 23 possibilities for an A on an 88-key keyboard. Or have I misunderstood what you are counting? Of course, other instruments will have a different number of possible A's, and on some stringed instruments the same pitch can be played on different strings, so one might count something entirely different for the number of possible A's there. I play with a lot of different instruments, and since I started in band, not piano, have always played with lots of different instruments, so my take on music theory isn't piano-centric. I assume you (eventually) let students know that music theory isn't piano-centered, even though they are starting to learn it on a piano.

I also *think* you mean, when you say the 7 letter names are written as white notes that you meant to say "are white keys on the piano" - since they are *written* on lines and spaces on a staff. I assume, again, that although this is a piano-centric viewpoint because you are teaching piano, that eventually you do explain to students that music theory is broader than just piano.

Please note I'm not arguing with your opinions about what constitutes a serious teacher. I'm just attempting to clarify, for my sake, what you meant, from a factual standpoint, in the above-quoted paragraph.

Cathy

PS - I see that this is the "various issues with pupils thread", and not the "serious teacher" thread. However, I'm still simply trying to clarify, for myself, what was being said from a factual standpoint.

Thanks.

Cathy,

I'm happy to reply to your questions hoping that the answers I give bring further clarity to what I was trying to express.

Regardless of the number of registers or the total number of keys on the keyboard, my example is that an A can be natural, sharp, or flat. Since there are 7 letters of the alphabet this results in 7 letter times 3 choices for letter name. It is not necessary to duplicate the same information for each register because it is speaking about one set of A-B-C-D-E-F-G that is applied throughout the keyboard.

I did not use double # or double b - because they do not appear in major scales, they appear in music literature by various composers and doubling accidents are not valid in a major scale key signature, they are additional chromatic placements for interest in compositions. Chromatic meaning "color".

Music theory is universally applied to voice and all instruments, however, in my opinion, the piano is the best instrument to express the construction of music theory. Theorists have primarily been piano specific actually earlier keyboards being their focal point of explanations. Music history is full of the development of the evolving keyboards and music theory is the developing knowledge for the learning and playing of the keyboards and the reading of music literature.

Music theory discusses the notation of sound and rhythm and the elements of music. It includes rules which have come to be proven factually through science and mathematics - acoustics, physics, kinesthetics of movement of the human body such as in technique which is the "how to" of producing and controlling the instrument's musical potential. A good music dictionary is a good start toward building the knowledge of music theory, but to really learn what is involved in music learning to the degree that is under consideration in music theory, the best approach is through personal experience in mastering the reading of music, and the ability to present accurately what has been notated on any piece of music written for the instrument by any composer in the various era's of music history.

My point as you "boxed" it, is that it's a huge mass of information and knowing about it is different than being fully versed in it. It is possible to misunderstand many things about theory, and as in math, a small error makes the equation incorrect. It is a huge undertaking to gain complete understanding of music theory and to be able to demonstrate it upon the instrument, write it in notation, or to teach it. It is a long term study, I believe, to totally grasp with accuracy what has been written over the history of music. Like math, the theories of music can be proven.

As in knitting, when one drops a stitch, there is a noticable gap between stitches. In playing music, there is nothing concrete that shows us there was an error that occured here or there. I think this is why music theory seems difficult to understand, if we don't catch our errors in thinking, the error will be forever with us, unnoticed. It takes great diligence and interest to work through theory to the point that I am talking about. Verifying our work is a huge task also. And, remember that the music symbols are basically hieroglyphics and we are reading and thinking in another language - music.

Betty

Aha, Gary!

I couldn't agree with you more than when you say, "They may be little tiny holes, but it is the skill of the teacher that allows the teacher to fill these holes as they appear, and at the right time."

I think many times our individual experiences in teaching bring us to similar conclusions, but it is our own explanations, voiced in words that are comfortable and relevant to each of us, that makes it seem like there is a difference of opinion, when really there is a lot of commonality.

The hoped for outcome is that things will transpire between teacher and student so that progress and success can be enjoyed by both. I think we do that through the logic and understanding we've gained by teaching, I don't think it was all clear and valid when I began. It takes experience and intuition to be able to find a "fix" for a piano student who is having a problem.

But, as in another topic, the serious teacher topic: I think the serious teacher will work very responsibly toward creating the good outcome for the student at every opportunity. Being in an on-going conversation and providing information and effort toward helping a student is what we do. It doesn't happen in a vacuum.

I enjoyed reading your post, Gary!

Betty

So there's only 3 choices for an A, not 21, I believe, in your conceptualizations? You misstated that the first time?



I've reread this whole post a couple of times, and this is the only time in this post I've seen you address "color". So is this when you are addressing my question about the note names being "white"? They're white because they're white keys on the piano? And, pardon me for my obtuseness, but are you saying that A#, Cb, etc., when used as "accidents", are "chromatics" because the piano keys are different colors?



Yes, that is your opinion. I think piano is, for some aspects of music theory, a good example, and for some not so good. It is particularly unsuited for understanding intonation, as a major example, since its pitches can't be altered on the fly. Many people never really learn to listen to intonation and can't tell, for instance, that barbershop quartets sing intervals that aren't tuned on a piano (I could give an example from PW if you want), and, IMO, miss a lot of music theory and practice that is rather common. Many good musicians understand that a choir accompanied by a piano has a restricted set of pitches to use. Other people never understand that an orchestra can choose to play at least some pitches in intervals that a piano can't use of the fly. Do you, now, eventually teach that to your students?



I wouldn't make such a statement as "music theory is the developing knowledge for the learning and playing of the keyboards", but then, as I say, I have always had a wider view of music theory because I interact with many other instruments. But you're entitled to your opinion



You have made statements about the mathematics and scientic underpinnings of music theory many times, but I don't remember you ever actually giving an example. On the other hand, I've explained several times, in various posts, the theoretical ratios of the harmonics of a pitch, and where some of the intervals fit in a set of harmonics. I've also explained why one can't tune all the 5ths within an octave in such a way that they all fit the theoretical ratio of a fifth if the octave has a 2/1 ratio. It is my opinion, and I stress that this is an opinion, that if you are going to invoke the mathematics and the science, implying that one needs to know those to be musical-theory literate, that you ought to demonstrate that literacy. To me, and this is my opinion again, it is disengenous to do otherwise.




To me, that is a limited definition of what music theory is about.



I don't know what this colloquialism means.



Although we do have, in math, ways of indicating that there may be small variances in results, inputs, variables, etc. It's tough to be fully versed in math, as in music theory



"Complete", "totally" - what all encompassing words. Are you implying that is a goal for students? That teachers must be at that level? It is, indeed, a "long term study" - I'd be willing to believe that if it includes math, science, and acoustics, as you noted early, that there is much that I, and you, don't yet know



I'm afraid I have to take issue with your grammar here, as I have done sometimes in the past The phrase "As in knitting" implies that one is going to cite a parallel example (in music). But you claim an opposite effect in music - you say there *is* something *noticeable* when there's a mistake in knitting, but there *isn't* something noticeable when a mistake is made "playing music."

In addition, I disagree with the universality of the conclusion. I can, often, tell if I've made a mistake when playing music. For me, a wrong note or wrong rhythm is pretty concrete.



And, for some people, when they *have* been noticed, they are still unacknowledged. C'est la vie.



I asked two questions in my original reply: What are the 21 A's? and Are the letter names white because they correspond to white keys on the piano?

Your answer to the first one indicated that you meant there are 3 possibilities for each letter name, for a total of 21, but you did not acknowledge that your original statement was in error. You didn't address the second statement, unless you mean for your opinion that the piano is the prime instrument for learning music theory to address that question.

IMHO, a lot of words, not much clarity.

Cathy

Jotur said: So there's only 3 choices for an A, not 21, I believe, in your conceptualizations? You misstated that the first time?

Here goes my explanation from my point of view:

Well that's 3 times 7 alphabet letters, Jotur.

For Pete's sake, the "color" refers to the sound produced not the black and white key configuration. Chromaticism introduces coloration and interest in a composition.

Originally Posted By: Betty Patnude
My point as you "boxed" it,
This is what I mean when I say you 'boxed' it. The highlighting of the many comments I made that you are going about to undermine. Actually I'm surprized that you found some of what I said to be difficult and that you missed the points I was making.


Students are taught what they need to know and what they are ready for.

When it comes to other instuments of the orchestra (for instance) many were invented after the keyboard which started in the 1600. So the keyboard in my opinion is the foremost best instrument that fully used music theory to it's advantage. The range of the keyboard and the organ alone makes it so, as well as the number of composers for the instrument during the centuries of music. Folk for instance is very often an aural expression, unnotated, and handed down person to person by hearing, seeing and doing. In other words, not read. And very open to improvisations.

I'm going to cut you off Jotur - I will not respond to your postings in the future. You should be aware that antagonizing me by misapplying what I have been saying is the epitome of deceit and bullying on your part when it is used to make me defensive.

You may have your opinion and continue operating from it as it gives you pleasure and one upmanship. Congratulations in your lengthy effort here. I do not appreciate your attack one iota.

Music educators reading this should take a dim view of such tactics to trying to entrap another music teacher in what on my part was a serious attempt to answer your questions. If you are truly stuck on the two questions you asked, and you believe what you wrote, you are the perfect example of the situation I was talking about where the learner does not know they are compounding an error in thinking.

I owe you nothing further in communication.

Cathy

A lovely picture isn't it?

BTW, Jazzed is serving a temporary ban.

I think from this:

The idea was that there are 7 white keys with letter names, repeated over and over again, and each one can be sharped of flatted, omitting the more advanced concept of double sharps and flats.

"giving you 21 possibilities for an A - and so on for the B,C,D,E,F G." should have been "giving you 21 possibilities for an A,B,C,D,E,F G.

That may be incredibly obvious, stated that way, to you and other people who play, but for beginning students it is not. For instance, the idea that there is an E# and a B# is difficult for many people to understand. They read them as Eb and Bb, or as Ex (double sharp) or Bx, thinking that a sharp must be a black key.

A point I keep making is this: some of the best teachers you will ever meet do not always write concepts out, on the fly, in public forums, with the same logic and clarity as they teach them.

I often talk about the "white and black notes on the piano". I TRY to be consistent about saying "keys", but I suspect I often don't notice when there is not miscommunication.

While it is true that theory goes far beyond piano or keyboard or keyboards, I do believe the for pianists (beginners and intermediates), at least, it is logical to concentrate on theory as it applies to the piano unless these students are studying other instruments.

As I've said before, when I was in theory courses, the pianists generally found such courses easier than those playing other instruments. Who was better? Probably excellent pianists who also sang or played other instruments that further develop the ear.

This is interesting enough to me that I'd like to try getting a good basic textbook on music theory. I can't even remember learning a lot of this stuff; I was so young. I don't ever recall anyone -- although my teacher must have -- telling me explicitly that a sharp or flat was simply a half-step up or down from wherever you happen to be at the time. I don't recall absorbing the circle of 5ths, or being told that you add sharps one at a time as you hop up until the flats show up, and you pick them off one at a time until you're back at C. The only things I recall her telling me outright was that you hop down a minor third to get the minor key that corresponded to a given major key, and that there are three types of minor scales. And I recall her telling me about diminishing and augmenting chords on minor and major. Everything else, I can't recall when it hit me. It's like trying to remember when I learned to read.

Other oddball things, like the fact that equal, just, and meantone temperament even exist, are things that I didn't encounter until very, very recently. I guess they are harder to avoid if you play a stringed instrument where you have to go looking for the notes and each string does triple and quadruple duty. Weirder things like how an Eb and a D# aren't necessarily the same note still makes my head cramp up -- I suppose that comes from playing an instrument that has a diatonic scale sort of built into it.

Pianos come with a lot of Western music theory built in, while guitars and violins seem to have a lot of acoustic physics up for grabs -- tuning two strings that play well together until you hop up by an octave, that sort of thing.

I need to find a good book on music theory so I can start in on this stuff. It's really interesting.

The circle of 5ths is one of the most elegant and useful principles we have in music.

However, there is no completely right or wrong way of teaching it. That's the point. People who see patterns everywhere see patterns. People who are very good at math see something else. People who are good at both will have yet another view.

Here are several ideas that help.

1) Practice writing the key signature for C# major and Cb major. The forces you to learn all the sharps and flats, but you also feel the pattern in your hand as you write them. For instance, with sharps you realize you put a sharp on F, then move to C, then to G, eventually completing the pattern of FCGDAEB. All with sharp symbols.

2) You can then play that same sequence of letters, but using white keys, going straight up the piano, and you are clearly playing all perfect 5ths. You can also start way up high, playing down, and you notice that you are playing all perfect 4ths.

3) The flats are just reversed.

These things are probably all obvious to you now, but it's the matter of putting it all together and using it that eventually absolutely imprints the sequence in your brain.

All the other rules for remember key signatures, or reading them, are just using those principles. In my experience most students memorize rules but never grasp the patterns behind the rules.

Does this make sense to you in writing? I can show this SO easily, when I am working directly with someone, but here, in this medium, simple things seem hard and hard things seem (in a totally illusionary manner) simple.

I have other ideas but first want to find out whether what I just wrote connects with anyone who is learning…

It makes sense to me, but like I said, I feel like I took this in without even realizing it. It's like explaining the word "the" to me at this point.

I'm definitely a pattern-searcher, though. What must have happened is that my teacher explained a bit to me, and I raced off and started transposing like mad to see how it worked with every key, then once I saw the pattern, I just figured I'd cracked it.

The weakness of being a pattern-happy learner is that I never developed anything near perfect pitch and have a hard time seeking out keys to things sometimes. Every key is exactly equivalent to every other key, so my head stopped trying to tell them apart.

I get it. I don't know how I absorbed the circle of 5ths. I learned it and understood it so early, I have NO idea what it felt like not to know it. It's almost like trying to remember what it felt like not to know how to walk.

I would forget about perfect pitch. Most people work out things relatively. I have what I call "imperfect pitch", meaning that it is not always accurate but usually is, so much so that I can't play any instrument like trumpet that has different "sizes" so that the written notes and fingerings remain the same but the pitch changes, relatively.

In the most of simplicity, I was trying to say: there are 7 alphabet letters from which to name notes on the music staff or on the keyboard.

ABCDEFG are repetitions on both the music staff and the keyboard and they can move (be read) in either direction - ascending/descending up/down.

On the piano keyboard there are 3 possibilities of notating each letter name (regardless of which register they appear).


1) ABCDEFG
7 natural white key names

2) Ab Bb Cb Db Eb Fb Gb
7 flatted key names a half step down from the natural key

3) A# B# C# D# E# F# G#
7 sharpened key names a half step up from the natural key

The above is the 21 to which I referred. (7 times 3 = 21)

I did not want to do double flats (bb) or double sharps (x).

The purpose of identifying these being to show the Circle of 5ths.

The Circle of 5th ASCENDING from Middle C with # names:
(C) - G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#

The Circle of 5ths DESCENDING from Middle C with b names:
(C) - F-Bb-Eb-Ab-Db-Gb-Cb

In a one on one lesson in person, the misconceptions and wrong turns in logic could be handled easily to make corrections to help a student become adept at writing and playing the (12)Major Scales for complete understanding. And, afterward, to organize all of the Major Scale in order of their appearance by starting with the Key of C which has no accidentals, and adding one new # in ascending by 5ths, or adding one new b by descending by 5ths from the keynote of the previous scale.

As in math, one simple error will create miscalculation within all scales. It is important to learn the C Major Scale first and completely before moving on. This is not to be a read only exercise, it is at the piano with correct notes, correct fingering (standardized) and a steady, slow tempo until it is absolutely clear in your mind. Some teachers would also want you to take a blank manuscript paper to draw your own notation to represent the scale.

The experience of learning scales and organizing them into the Circle of 5ths is a high level logic requirement, in my opinion. The capacity to recite the theory is one thing, the ability to play them accurately without stumbling is another. This is not a novice activity, it takes patience, diligence and intelligence.

If you like puzzles and games and patterns, you will probably thrive on this!