Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
For Bernard re: talent; GK and I discussed this
Topic Started: May 11 2009, 08:15 PM (127 Views)
Pianolicious
Senior Carp
from the male soprano thread. . .

George and I talked at length about this last night. Part of the reason I am in school at all is to do my level best to figure out a way to make a living debunking what seems like an endless refrain I hear from people of "I tried piano/music/whatever as a kid but I don't have talent."

It's so false. Natural innate talent rarely exists, and no naturally inclined person can become a success without study. The biggest problem I've seen with much of my career in the piano biz is that people are taught wrong or intimidated by degreed snobs who sucked at theory and resorted to teaching by rote and never enlightened the students with the theory part because they probably never figured it out themselves.

The worst thing a budding pianist can say to an insecure teacher is "how to I play a tune I heard on the radio?" That usually gets close to their Achilles heel.

I took one of George's Mozart sonatas and did an analysis on a small part of it based on two semesters of theory. We realized that a pretty passive was basically a short series of notes transposed twice -- but played in the same key, and an extended "I" "V" "I". Not even a IV in in sight. SO simple yet so delicately phrased that it sounded completely new and fresh, which was Mozart's talent.

When you look at a piece by what it consists of and how its played in whatever key its written in, you can get to work memorizing the PATTERNS and the relationships between the notes and what perhaps Mozart (or Bach or whomever) was thinking and so you end up seeing notes and recognizing the concept the composer was using instead of just looking at groups of seemingly unrelated notes, which makes the overall study time decrease by leaps and bounds.

It was great fun. George is immensely talented by the way in large part because he is very dedicated. No burning bush experience for him. He is disciplined and gets a lot in return. Maybe when I get out of school I'll make him my guinea pig with the "Pianolicious Method" of supercharged music study.
Sit tibi vita longa et omnia bona!!! -- Dr. Spock
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pianolicious
Senior Carp
we also discussed my semester as the only "white guy" in the gospel choir.

Blacks don't read music. They feel it. They suck at reading printed choral music because they dont use it in their churches. They teach the kids young about progressions and transposition. We had a concert where we sang choral arrangements of black music with a white choir and it was really interesting hearing our coach telling US to harmonize by roman numerals while the choir all had reading glasses on.

You give the gospel choir a melody line and the altos and tenors "figure out" the inner voices by ear and by knowledge of the rules of harmony. The bass (me) sings the tonic and/or the root/fifth notes of the roman numerals. And that's it. Then you just sing and polish it.

It was a great experience.

This was one of the songs we sang:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPIjjBL3x00

Note that some of the people have music and others don't. I learned more theory in Gospel choir than I learned in Music Theory.

Sit tibi vita longa et omnia bona!!! -- Dr. Spock
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
This is a very interesting thread, and I agree with you, PL. I learned a lot of this sort of thing the year I studied comping with my last teacher.

There are a lot of bad teachers out there. I loved my first teacher who I had for 5 or 6 years, but I eventually came to realize that she just pretty much ran me through the Alfred books and mostly just listened to me. I did not truly absorb the lessons in those books. Now she was very close to home, and I am glad I went, but my next teacher will be very different and I will be starting some things over again.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bernard
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
PL, this look interesting but I can't take the time to respond propertly at the moment--at work--will come back later.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bernard
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Pianolicious
May 11 2009, 08:15 PM
from the male soprano thread. . .

George and I talked at length about this last night. Part of the reason I am in school at all is to do my level best to figure out a way to make a living debunking what seems like an endless refrain I hear from people of "I tried piano/music/whatever as a kid but I don't have talent."

It's so false. Natural innate talent rarely exists, and no naturally inclined person can become a success without study. The biggest problem I've seen with much of my career in the piano biz is that people are taught wrong or intimidated by degreed snobs who sucked at theory and resorted to teaching by rote and never enlightened the students with the theory part because they probably never figured it out themselves.

The worst thing a budding pianist can say to an insecure teacher is "how to I play a tune I heard on the radio?" That usually gets close to their Achilles heel.

I took one of George's Mozart sonatas and did an analysis on a small part of it based on two semesters of theory. We realized that a pretty passive was basically a short series of notes transposed twice -- but played in the same key, and an extended "I" "V" "I". Not even a IV in in sight. SO simple yet so delicately phrased that it sounded completely new and fresh, which was Mozart's talent.

When you look at a piece by what it consists of and how its played in whatever key its written in, you can get to work memorizing the PATTERNS and the relationships between the notes and what perhaps Mozart (or Bach or whomever) was thinking and so you end up seeing notes and recognizing the concept the composer was using instead of just looking at groups of seemingly unrelated notes, which makes the overall study time decrease by leaps and bounds.

It was great fun. George is immensely talented by the way in large part because he is very dedicated. No burning bush experience for him. He is disciplined and gets a lot in return. Maybe when I get out of school I'll make him my guinea pig with the "Pianolicious Method" of supercharged music study.
There's a lot there PL. Just a bit...

Quote:
 
I tried piano/music/whatever as a kid but I don't have talent.


Probably, more than anything, what was lacking was desire. I think desire is one of the attributes that separates those who move along and those who don't. I have no doubt that if I practiced playing catch I could probably become a pretty good ball player, but I have no desire whatsoever to spend my time playing catch. (A short story: when I was young we didn't have any close neighbors with children my age. When I was somewhere between 7 and 10 years old, we acquired new neighbors with a son my age. He came down to our house a few times and wanted to know if I'd like to play catch. Well, I tried, but after the first few tosses I was bored out of my skull and couldn't figure out why the heck would anyone waste their time on this? Maybe it was because I was gay, who knows. But the desire wasn't there.) This is neither good nor bad. It just is.


Quote:
 
The biggest problem I've seen with much of my career in the piano biz is that people are taught wrong or intimidated by degreed snobs who sucked at theory and resorted to teaching by rote and never enlightened the students with the theory part because they probably never figured it out themselves.


Well this is true, but I don't think theorists are necessarily the best teachers either. The best teachers are those who thoroughly and absolutely LOVE music. Regardless whether their forte is technique, theory, music history, whatever. I believe this is what makes good teachers good teachers. But you're right, it does seem that for many teachers the accepted dry academic approach gets in the way.

Theory works for some, it doesn't work for others. It is possible to be a superb musician without a theoretical understanding, and it is possible to be a superb musician with a superb theoretical understanding. But when it finally gets down to making music, theory takes a seat in the back of the room, if at all present.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply