Klarinet Archive - Posting 000358.txt from 2004/04

From: <tony-w@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: [kl] Music exams in U.S.
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 05:08:22 -0400

From: Deidre Calarco

> I was just discussing the differences in the American and British
> educational systems, and in particular in music education, yesterday with
a
> British friend.
>
> I was trained in the American system, which emphasizes overall performance
> ability almost exclusively. I never knew about these exams, and neither
did
> anyone I know who ended up taking on music as a profession. I'd have
liked
> to have had more music theory in high school, but other than that I think
> the American system works well. I practiced because I enjoyed playing and
> wanted to sound good. My teacher helped me with all the details of
> technique, interpretation, and tone, but there was no pressure to "master"
> anything at any particular time. We worked on all of it, all the time. I
> did well at the solo and ensemble festivals - got "1"s in all three
> proficiencies at the state level. I thought of them as performance
> opportunities, not exams, and loved having the chance to play in small
> ensembles. I don't think studying music would have been as fun if I'd had
> to practice toward tests, having my progress dictated by some kind of
> standardized system. Music isn't manufacturing.
>
> -Deidre

This is interesting. There probably are weaknesses in both systems, but we
ain`t got nothing perfect, so Id like to just compare superficially if I
may.
ABRSM, (several colleges thru`out U.K.) and Guildhall and Trinity,
individual colleges) do emphasise theory almost as much as performance. I
s`pose this good. It makes composers as well as performers, in addition to
giving the performer a deeper insite into the aural, harmonic, and
structural aspects of what s/he is playing. And with strong emphasis in
scales and arps, this would seem to convey that the UK system is a bit more
superior to the U.S.
However, America produces brilliant musicians comparable to all the rest of
the world: a lot of them much more adept than their counterparts elsewhere.
After hearing that the American system concentrates on Solo and Ensemble
'festivals' without any so called 'individual tesing', how is the student
tested in these festivals for competance in scales, sight reading, and
basic theory? Would it be possible to gloss over these during lessons, to
concentrate more on the forthcoming solo. ABRSM stipulate ALL scales -
major, whole tone, harmonic & melodic minor, chromatic and arps up to high
G, (slurred, legato & staccato tongued for clarinet) must be mastered by
18/19 years of age in order for entry into music college. It would seem that
if this is so, the American student will be at a hell of a disadvantage upon
entering university or college, and would then have to work twice, three
times as hard in order to 'catch up'. Is this the case? - if it is the case,
how come that America can produce such fine players? To say that it`s
because America is a 'big country' slips off the tongue a bit too easily for
me.
Obviously both systems seem to work. So my primitive point is, because we
(UK) study theory, we *know* what we are playing. Because U.S. doesn`t, you
*don`t know* what you`re playing, you just play it! But because the U.S.
produces many fine instrumentalists, is this a case, a strong case
suggesting that theory is really not too important to an instrumentalist,
and we in UK are a bit too paranoid, and could dispense with some of it?
Music ISN`T Manufacturing.
Tony W.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org