Thoughts on reading re-evaluation (deep warning!)

Interesting thought.

I am totally pro-reading, but now that I think back...

I took piano lessons as a kid. And briefly in college. And perhaps one other time. But I could never grasp it. And I think back, yeah, the having to read. Reading the rhythms, no problem, but the notes on the staff, forget it. I still don't get why the bass clef staff is different than the treble clef.

Even now that I write for strings and keys, I do it all on the piano roll. Doing on the a staff is just doesn't jive with my head.

DrumEatDrum you've just inspired a me to create a new thread!
 
I've always thought the joy and fun can never be removed because they're all the motivation one needs to continue on and be productive. As long as that's being maintained, you can douse the whole thing with theory as much as can be tolerated while still remaining fun. When the work outweighs the fun, that's when people typically start to lose interest.

I've been playing a lot of bass lately and I spend a lot of time just playing along to tunes I like trying to pick out the roots and grooving. But just as I was with needing to understand time signatures and reading when I was a begining drummer, I've been getting fixated on learning scales, though just so I know what I'm dealing with and don't have to guess so much when looking for the "right notes". Beyond that, I don't know how much time I'll spend getting up to scratch on reading for bass - probably no more than I did when I was first learning drums.

Again, I'm not looking to turn pro with any instruments I'm playing - I'm just nerdy enough to want to know the basics in some detail, but not nerdy enough to sacrifice immediate gratification.
 
Ah. I didn't think that they could be spending years on their small collection of pieces so that is a valid point. But the whole enjoyment factor was something I never see at a regular school orchestra concert performed at high school (or even college) age and younger. I figured once you had them playing, they would simply apply that to other pieces.

Yeah, that is one of the issues with teaching my rote, is that they aren't really learning concepts they can apply, they're learning that piece. And then that piece. And so on...
It is possible that the student might hear a connection between one piece and another if they contain similar material but because they've never seen the music they don't have any visual connection to it to reinforce it, just muscle memory and perhaps some aural recognition.

Speaking for myself (and hopefully for my students too) the enjoyment factor is something that might be hard to see at a "regular" school orchestra concert because standard concert decorum is another part of the education they get. Come to the classroom and you'll see how engaged they are and excited they were about the performance...

That said, and I'm not being argumentative, but I've met and know a few music educators that said exactly what you said. Part of me wonders if what you said is more part of the state-sponsored music education dogma or not. And forgive me for saying it, but here in California, we have more of our fair share of music teachers who shouldn't be teaching, know what I mean?

I certainly don't take anything you've said as argumentative, I think you're just speaking your mind and sharing your thoughts, as am I. :)
I do think that "state-sponsored dogma" implies that there is a big machine that all music teachers are trapped in when we'd normally all be yearning to do it some another way. That isn't really true in my case, and I don't know that any of my colleagues feel the same way either. Some of them started in Suzuki-type programs too, and without trying to speak for them I think we all realize that in order to give our students the greatest possible chance to be a functional (and hire-able) musician they must have the best possible reading skills.
 
Looking at this Ray Manzarek interview it seems that - with teaching as with playing - it's not so much what you do but the way that you do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxY1LkVeimk

Ray obviously had good chemistry with his first teacher's methods and found use for written music. Still, keyboards are more deeply associated with written music than other instruments - just read off the page and you're immediately performing a complete song, accompaniment an optional extra.

As drummers we can only do that with abstract drum music, in which case most of us might as well just noodle ;)
 
Wonderful topic...I've really enjoyed reading through it this morning.

Some of them started in Suzuki-type programs too, and without trying to speak for them I think we all realize that in order to give our students the greatest possible chance to be a functional (and hire-able) musician they must have the best possible reading skills.

Agreed. But I can't help but think that it would be more exciting (for the students) to give first-year music students time alone with their instrument, and it's sounds. Teach only the chromatic scale, after a little while, and let their interest in reading develop on their own if they like, and start them reading in the second year, maybe.

I'm not a specialist in education, but I do feel that the main focus (here in the States at least) is maintaining the status quo. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!", seems to be the idea. That, instead of learning new ways to improve upon our current education system, from different/unique ideas, and building from there to recreate the learning experience for a new generation.

I do not mean for this to come off as a focused attack, Winston....not at all. I'd bet that you are passionate and driven, and are a wonderful educator within your field. I just wonder if we've tried hard enough to make music as accessible as possible, and as welcoming an experience as it can be inside of the school walls, that's all.

Great topic...good conversation, thanks.
 
Yeah, that is one of the issues with teaching my rote, is that they aren't really learning concepts they can apply, they're learning that piece. And then that piece. And so on...

It is possible that the student might hear a connection between one piece and another if they contain similar material but because they've never seen the music they don't have any visual connection to it to reinforce it, just muscle memory and perhaps some aural recognition.

That's a big problem, the way you've described it. That's not a professional understanding of music. At the very least, it's an extreme form of classical musician syndrome-- you can play a set, finite repertoire well, but you can't just sit down and create. To me, that's a dead paradigm.

I do think that "state-sponsored dogma" implies that there is a big machine that all music teachers are trapped in when we'd normally all be yearning to do it some another way. That isn't really true in my case, and I don't know that any of my colleagues feel the same way either. Some of them started in Suzuki-type programs too, and without trying to speak for them I think we all realize that in order to give our students the greatest possible chance to be a functional (and hire-able) musician they must have the best possible reading skills.

And, from the sound of it, rhythmic skills. I guess a player could get by with a vocalist's level of rhythmic understanding 60 years ago, but not today.

Re: dogma: Suzuki is decades old, has its own institutional apparatus, and is a set thing in its own right-- at this point it's really not a radical upstart movement. And having been around public school music education and educators my whole life, the idea that there is a "state-sponsored dogma" of it is kind of hilarious. Among other things, the state just doesn't GAS enough about it to have a dogma.
 
...I can't help but think that it would be more exciting (for the students) to give first-year music students time alone with their instrument, and it's sounds. Teach only the chromatic scale, after a little while, and let their interest in reading develop on their own if they like, and start them reading in the second year, maybe.

I think if a student just wants time alone with an instrument and a chromatic scale, they don't need me...

To bring it back to a drummer analogy it would be the same as giving a kid that wanted to learn how to play the drums a snare drum, showing him a paradiddle and telling him to come back next year for more.

Technique alone, whether it is scales or rudiments, quickly becomes meaningless (and boring) if it isn't connected to the bigger musical picture early enough.

In my experience there is nothing less exciting for a student than feeling like they're aimlessly wandering just making noise. They want to play songs, and the faster they get to something musically familiar and a measurable achievement, the better. There's also a difference in the goals, requirements, and methods between teaching a student or small group privately or in a public school ensemble classroom setting, which is where my perspectives are coming from.

I'm not a specialist in education, but I do feel that the main focus (here in the States at least) is maintaining the status quo. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!", seems to be the idea. That, instead of learning new ways to improve upon our current education system, from different/unique ideas, and building from there to recreate the learning experience for a new generation.

Music education is hardly a stationary target. The explosion of technology throughout the public school system has brought a lot of growth in the way we teach, learn, and reach information. Of course, that has to still be tempered with the expectation that the students actually learn how to play their instrument too... ;)

I do not mean for this to come off as a focused attack, Winston....not at all. I'd bet that you are passionate and driven, and are a wonderful educator within your field.

I don't feel attacked at all. :) I'm pretty confident in what I do, both as an educator and as a player, and I'm really enjoying the discussion myself. This was the first time I've been able to address my opinions as a teacher, drummer, and as an orchestra director all in one topic before. That alone has already blown my mind...

As the discussion in this thread demonstrates, there are a lot of different perspectives about both what a music education should contain, and the different ways to go about getting it. Since we all don't have the same needs or interests in what or how we learn, there will probably never be a "one way fits all" kind of answer either. Bringing it back to the "to read or not to read" that started this thread, I have to say that it depends on what you want to do, and how fast you want to accomplish it.

If anyone wants to learn more about music there are a lot of ways to go about it, and I think the individual needs to choose based on their expectations and desired outcomes. Whether it is learning from a private teacher, at church, with friends, or being self taught there is plenty of room for finding the "right" way to go about it. It is just important to match the method to the desired outcome.
 
I would agree. For most kids, in the least technical language, they want to play music to make a cool sound or impress others. The playing should come first and then the reading. I have learned this with my 9 yr old son about 10 times now... I tried and quit 4 instruments because I could never make a remotely cool sound with them.
 
To bring it back to a drummer analogy it would be the same as giving a kid that wanted to learn how to play the drums a snare drum, showing him a paradiddle and telling him to come back next year for more.
That's not really what I meant, lol. Regarding reading, if you taught someone to read the chromatic scale, and had them play a few written notes from that everyday, but taught them songs by ear, instead of by reading them...and then came back in year two for a little more focus on reading, but already with a better understanding of the instrument itself.............anyway, that's what I was getting at

People all have different strengths and weaknesses. Learning styles vary from person to person. It is impossible to cater to every student in a classroom full of pupils, so you use the methods that are proven in that situation. That makes perfect sense. And, if it is a fluid environment, and the curriculum is adjusted for the times and human-kind's expanse/evolution, then we are on good terms, lol. I don't see that happen everywhere, which is why I brought it up.
 
Back
Top