Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Do Most Piano Teachers Have it Backwards?

I'm quoting my earlier post just to sum up my position, which is in danger of being distorted.

(My piano teacher from my teens would be amused to hear I was being accused of favouring reading to the exclusion of improvisation.)

Look, I wasn't demanding Limefriday to post one up, I asked him/her if they wanted to, as I didn't know they improvised. I've asked Gyro a hundred times to do the same, because he keeps talking about improvising and yet I wonder if he actually knows how to do it. Same with currawong.

Improvisations are both for the performer and the audience. Some people chose to just play for themselves which is fine. If you ever heard Keith Jarrett, you'd know the audience plays a huge role in giving him energy and feedback.

This isn't a contest about who's the better improviser. There's always people who are better and worse than you. You are looking at it like a competition to see who's better. I'm looking at it as a way to share my approach and musical personality.

Go to the jazz threads, most everyone has posted stuff for others to listen, share ideas, explore, critique, and simply enjoy.

This is a MUSIC forum!!! If you aren't going to exchange musical ideas and actual music, then what are you here for?

Actually that seems like a pretty good idea to me. I'm often surprised how much kids enjoy random improv around 6 or 7 years old. If you encourage it they will more easily acquire a regular habit of playing piano at home, without parent having to constantly remind child. Quite good finger and ear exercise too. But I don't fill the whole lesson with this I don't do reading of notes on staff either. Too early and gets in the way. We learn some songs by rote, and some other activities.

Reminder to self: don't forget to do free improv with All your beginners.

Gary D, I still believe playing by ear is more important than reading a score. Both skills are great for a musician's arsenal, but for practical purposes your ear will serve you much better.

Reading is needed only if your sole focus is playing classical pieces. I stopped classical altogether after high school, and now I never read music while playing.

The only time I look at a score is for tunes which have unusual key or chord changes, or jazz tunes which use non-functional harmony like a Wayne Shorter or Herbie modal song like Dolphin Dance, Maiden Voyage, Nef.

And I use it to learn and practice the shifts, but when I play the song I put it away.

Reading is distracting to me and messes me up, I'd rather hear the song in my inner ear and channel that through to the fingers.

If you asked Beethoven what he thought was more important I have a pretty good feeling what he would say. My guess is he would have given up his eyesight rather than be forced to go deaf.

That's your choice and I don't think anyone is trying to convince you that it's a bad choice for the sort of music you play. My choice is to cultivate reading AND playing by ear. I teach both so as to develop a well-rounded musician.

currawong, I told you not to reply to any of my posts. Why aren't you listening to me, oh wait, you're just reading!!

If you are a session musician you need some pretty serious reading chops....

Wizard, I would expect a jazz musician to be about freedom and open mindedness. I deeply resent your apparent attempt to tell me and everyone else how we should approach music rather than allowing us to do what we enjoy and feel comfortable with. Have you any idea of how intolerant and judgmental you come across? This is not how I imagine jazz musicians as being.

I play first of all by ear because I was not fortunate enough to have the instruction that you had when you were younger, so that you can choose to use what works best for you. I imagine that possibly how these instructions were given was not in a good way so that you have one particular view of it. Being able to approach music a number of ways, from different angles, is my own choice. One can also approach the traditional classical things in different ways, and then it becomes alive and probably not that far removed from what you are pushing. There is no one way.

Wiz, I don't have enough time to get into an in-depth research project to determine where this all evolved between you and currawong, but I have a distinct impression it began with you.

How about we stop it?

Ken

Why do people over here love to gang up like this? I'm reading the posts and I can clearly see some very good points being made by both sides, yet most of the replies seem to want to shut up Wiz and debunk anything he says. This is immature participation, especially by people with very high post count. I didn't see anything Wiz said that was insulting or demeaning to anyone, so why the childish acts? Really this terrible, and I did comment on it somewhere else in response to someone who decided to leave PW because of acts like on this thread.

Mim, I have always been very open and interested in all kinds of views. But here a member who presented views on how she approaches music was told that she was forbidden to respond. Also a way that I have approached music my entire life, and which is both real and enjoyable, was depicted as ridiculous. Also professionals are told that they cannot do a simple thing as playing a song a small child could play unless they had the sheet music in front of them - am I mistaken that this is intended to insult? When a teacher says that she can do so, she is told to shut up and go away. These are the kinds of things I am objecting to. The things that Wiz has to share are informative and interesting. The put-downs are unpleasant, however.

You do have this groupthink thing, don't you MiM.

Wiz has written about 1/3 of the posts in this thread. He seems quite content to wrestle with people, and if you can't see any aggression in his posting pattern then I respectfully think you have blinkers on. Even the moderator stepped in, ever so gently. I guess Ken's part of the lynch mob too.

There is some good stuff in this thread (hat tip to Opus Maximum, among others). Let's leave it at that.

TRUE!

On a philosophical note, when does "a preponderance of dissenting views" turn into "ganging up". Is it proper netiquette to not post ones dissenting opinion if some number of others have already posted in a similar vein, even if the member(s) with the original opinion continue to argue for it? Certainly a large number of "me too" posts can be non useful, but if someone has additional insights or personal experiences, shouldn't it be ok to voice them, even if a large number of people voiced similar opinions? If one states an opinion that runs contrary to the beliefs of the majority of responding members, what should the response of those members be to not create this "ganging up" phenomenon?

Plus from a practical standpoint, I would argue that it is Wiz that has been more steadfast in their position that their point of view is the only correct one. Many others, including myself, have actually argued in a more inclusive manner (that his methodology is certainly valid, but not the only working one).

So after all the Sturm und Drang, it really all just boils down to what Nietszche said about Wagner: "Where he lacked a capacity, he posited a principle."

"preponderance of dissenting views" is subject to group think, as noted above. So, it is not always clear that replies in favor of an opinion are independently, logically, and fairly formed, or that they are a result of some dysfunctional group dynamics. Also, in the above discussion, some of the replies weren't only expressing the opinion of the contributor, but went on to question the character of the person and belittle his views, and that's what usually stirs the pot and steers the discussion into the woods.

I have three thoughts.

First, since music is about sound, being able to make sound—or sounds—is the central issue. If my ear is not working, I am useless as a musician. Anything that improves my ability to "hear" (meaning listen and understand what I hear, with the potential to use that to create music, in any way), is a good thing.

Second, there seems to be a disagreement about whether reading well has a) no effect on the ear (making it an entirely separate skill-set), b) detracts from hearing and thus from playing, in general, or c) may enhance the way we hear, in some ways.

Three, no one does everything equally well. We all, to some extent, make a decision to specialize. Some only interpret and thus have little or no interest in composing or arranging. Some prefer the latter, which has become true for me, and focus on the compositional side of things. I do not claim to be a great composer (that would be absurd), but my ability to write music that excites and motivates my students is central to my teaching.

Perhaps the most misleading thing about this discussion is that somehow it seems to center on READING music but not on WRITING it. You mentioned Beethoven. The fact that he was able to write his greatest music while deaf, or very nearly so, is a huge support of the idea that hearing is the key to everything. After all, he was still able to hear his music in his mind. On the other hand, people who do not read well seldom write well (in my experience), so for all those who like Beethoven's later works, I think we can assume that it is unlikely that they would have been written if he retained his hearing but went blind.

Final point: the exact way in which the ear develops remains a mystery. None of us know for sure what role reading plays in helping the ear develop, just as we can't be sure what role reading (and writing) language enhances the ability to work with language.

Ponder this, between musicians who can only do 1 or the other, either just play by ear or just read (or they have very poor skills in relation to the other, like 90% vs 10%) which do you think ends up being the better musician?

There are so many pros who can't read music yet play incredibly. If you are a concert pianist and need the sheets you'd be laughed at.

So a question, if you could only use one skill which would it be?


There's a blind jazz pianist named Marcus Roberts who played Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, and he just nails it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjQLM0EaZ8k


His lack of reading ability certainly hasn't hurt him.

I rest my case.

Sightly off topic perhaps, but there's an interesting article in this month's American Music Teacher on improving duets with young students. It's titled: Musical Conversations: Improvising Duets with Students to Awaken Creativity. But it would surely sharpen listening skills as well.

Perhaps I exaggerate somewhat.

and yet, I think there's a point here.

How many teachers insist a beginner do all, or a significant portion of their practice with a metronome? It may be a large number, I've just been unlucky enough to meet any. But quite often any discussion of metronome use here is met with horror.

Or, barring a metronome, just a CD. Or drum machine, as rocket suggested. or duets.

What is the most significant characteristic of beginners? isn't it the stutter? It's not wrong notes at the right time, it's any note at the wrong time.

Contrast that to guitar students who may do 99% of their practice with metronome or CD.