|
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
78 members (beeboss, brdwyguy, benkeys, Abdulrohmanoman, accordeur, Animisha, Anglagard44, 15 invisible),
2,099
guests, and
469
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,264
4000 Post Club Member
|
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,264 |
It appears that the Theory teacher is the fly in the ointment .
Why not go to the Austrian author of the dated rot on theory JJ Fux? Get there via
Google JJ Fux (and then 8 subjects lower to the Piano Forum chat) Piano Forums at Piano World triads
to discover the blarney ... and then lay hands on an good book on acoustics like:
The Physics of Music by Alexander Wood, M.A.,D.Sc. Faculty Lecturer in Musical Acoustics, Cambridge University
to gen up on the acoustic relationships between notes ... why a note and it’s octave, dominant and sub-dominant are consonant and others dissonant.
Once you realise that the Theory Teacher is driving a hearse to a place with dry bones ... you might prefer to hitch a ride to the more pleasant company of a fun fair or a Lang Lang concert.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19,678
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19,678 |
Theory can be both alive and fascinating, if the learner and teacher can go past the rules and dry stuff that must be learned, and relate it to music itself. Music came first, and theory is a way of organizing it. Correction: systems were, in fact, devised to enable composers to write more complex music and these are indeed artificial, but they also base themselves in some sense on the nature of tones and our psychology in perceiving them. It can be meaningful.
The first question that springs to mind is whether music and theory are meaningful to your teacher, and/or whether it is being presented in a way that would give it meaning. Is it possible to give 1 - 3 examples of a) what kinds of things you are studying and how they are being presented b) what kinds of questions you are asking (specific ones) and c) what kinds of answers you are receiving (whether reluctantly or enthusiastically).
Having written this, there is a certain body of rudimentary knowledge that must be acquired (memorized as well as understood) before you can go very far in theory. For example, later a student might be working with the series of triads that occur in a scale and music, but before doing that she will have to know and understand what a major and minor chord is, where the dominant is located, how to recognize and name an interval. That part is like learning the alphabet, and what to capitalize and punctuate in a sentence. Before this is laid down it is hard to discuss meaningful theory, because you would be constantly hunting for basic terms and concepts. In that sense I could see a theory teacher wanting to skip certain questions and lay down rudimentary knowledge as quickly as possible. I am teaching basic rudimentary theory to someone who wants to learn to compose eventually. I will present certain things, and give a small indication of how those things fit into the composition of music. Knowing that what she is studying now will eventually be used gives context to her present studies. For example, my student is learning to recognize major and minor triads; minor, major and perfect intervals - she is becoming sensitive to the feel of these intervals and can already hear how some are very comfortable and pleasant to the ear, while others makes you want to pull away to something more comfortable. She knows that the Dominant is important and can hear that the dominant chord of both the major and harmonic scale is a major chord. She knows that the seventh degree pulls to the tonic, and that music constitutes creating and releasing tension, moving away from home and returning to it (the key note or tonic). But she also knows that in order to work with any of these things, she needs to have a good handle on such basics as being able to identify a major and minor second, ability to name and recognize the dominant and subdominant, know what a degree in a scale is. We are concentrating on the nitty gritties in order to get them out of the way. There is no shortcut to that. Digressing would only cause a delay, and some questions cannot be answered until a certain groundwork has been laid.
The Fux which was mentioned by btb, deals with older music, counterpoint etc. Physics: the way notes vibrate and what that means, are two other branches of theory.
But I think the question does not involve approaches to theory, but how to best deal with a particular theory teacher. All of the above are actually one long digression.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,391
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,391 |
Actually, keystring, I think that the systems are hardwired into us as humans. There was a study done on aborigines that had never heard western music, and they played all different genres, both those that are considered great and those that were "one hit wonders" in "classical", jazz, rock, country, etc. And the aborigines were asked to pick their favorites, and guess what? They picked the same favorites that we have. Theory is based on what is already there. Someone can compose and not know a lick of theory. Theory explains why something is there, such as what btb touched upon with "why octaves etc are consonant." The theory did not make these so just by naming them thusly, it was designed to explain what was already there.
private piano/voice teacher FT
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19,678
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19,678 |
That is interesting about the Aborigines, Morodienne. Was a study also made of their indigenous music or chants to compare possible characteristics?
I noticed that certain properties of sound are picked up in diverse civilizations so that we get octaves and fifths everywhere, as well as searches for the harmony of the universe or similar. Intervals and rhythms to denote certain emotions, or create them would be another.
Other theory however involves symbolic constructs as well as devices that were needed to create music. We can appreciate music better and play it better when we understand it, I would think. For example, the horizontal independent passages in contrapunctal music, the call-answer in fugues - if you hear it and recognize it then it will be easier to play and more meaningful, no? The Indian Raga is based on formal sequences and microtonic nuances which each express particular emotions rendered ritualistically but as tightly governed improv. If we don't understand these constructions then we cannot appreciate or enjoy their music. It will merely sound strange.
People can compose certain things without knowing theory - I did so myself - but I think that certain kinds of music can only be composed if we also have some theory under our belt. The jazz musician will improvise freely without writing anything down, but he would seem to have a fair bit of knowledge, such as understanding modes, different kinds of scales, chord progressions. I can't see someone being born and somehow innately coming up with a blues scale or a Phrygian mode. I can, however, see him being exposed to this music and picking up the patterns through exposure, because it's human nature to be musical. Is this also part of what you are saying?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,391
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,391 |
Actually, jazz and blues are a primarily aural traditions and so there are many who can play just based on the fact that they've listened to a lot of it and trying to emulate that sound, so your comment about learning it innately, is what I'm talking about. Music of other cultures can be understood if one listens to them for a little while. Perhaps not what kind of scales or tuning they use, but you can understand what it's getting at, what its conveying.
private piano/voice teacher FT
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19,678
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19,678 |
Yes, that makes sense. I would think that the jazz musician who did not study formally has still acquired a host of formal knowledge which he possesses, understands, and uses in the moment. It is "in us" to understand. I sometimes wonder whether some of our formal teaching and learning processes can actually get in the way of natural learning.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 431
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 431 |
I loved how my first clarinet teacher, who wanted his students to write down their questions and then have them answered at the lesson, and I really like students who ask me good music or playing related questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:34 PM
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:23 PM
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,405
Posts3,349,434
Members111,637
|
Most Online15,252 Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|