 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2003-03-26 03:51
I'm a little confused/worried as to whether I'm learning my scales and music the correct way. I tend to be a muscle memory person. That's to say that when I play an E scale from the low, left hand finger E up three octaves, my fingers simply play what they're supposed to, however this is learnt by muscle memory rather than thinking "don't forget that the next note is a F# followed by a G# and then to an A natural".
I first realized this when practicing Rondo of the Mozart Concerto which I have to perform for my music "jury" to show what I've learned in lessons. When we reached a certain part of Rondo, which in my version (Carl Fischer) is four measures after section 9, my teacher looked at the music and told me how he remembered how to play it. He would look at it and realize that although it seems like odd runs with some flats thrown in, that it's actually just an Eb scale with a few chromatic accidentals as transitions from one phrase to the next.
I simply pounded it slowly into my fingers. I would never have recognized that as an Eb scale and am not sure that if I did recognize it, whether it would have helped me. I can play it well now, but only because I've memorized the movements my fingers have to make. I don't even look at it anymore. When I get to there, I skip over it and let my fingers do the work.
Is this correct? I just started learning scales, but should I be thinking in my head "E, F#, G#, A, B, C#, D#, E" or is it ok for me to think, "All fingers, left hand F#, Eb key, two, middle, C# key, Eb key, E". Will thinking the second way help me at all?
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2003-03-26 11:41
Hi,
This is a really great question and it is one that is of great interest to me. The answer is quite complex though. It would be learning theory rather than music theory.
In my academic training, I have had a number of ed psych and curriculum as well as learning theory courses. What you are referring to is high level cognitive learning associated with a psychomotor tactile skill.
When closed and/or open loop responses become automatic is beyond my experience though. However, when I play something either at sight or repetiviely, I can almost hear myself saying "I recognize that pattern" or "that's a chromatic scale from ...." I believe though there is a lot of research on pattern recognition.
My thought is that understanding this series of events will be tough. When you think about it though, it was just 100 years ago that Thorndike, Pavlov, etc were doing their work. It may take another century to understand the phenomena you are describing.
I'll be interested to see what others have to say about this.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: janlynn
Date: 2003-03-26 12:51
Hi Alexi ...
I understand what you mean and wonder the same thing. when i play my scales... i do it better by feel. my fingers just kinda know the pattern of that particular scale. but if i stop and think about the names of the notes, i get mixed up and have to go slow.
when i recognize a scale pattern in music, its the same thing .. im not actually reading the music note for note but playing a pattern i have already memorized.
even when its not a scale - certain runs are just easier to play fast when my fingers memorize the pattern instead of my brain memorizing the notes.
i have questioned myself .. is this right? am i doing this the right way? i concluded that this is what works for me. if the end result is the same - then whats wrong with it?
JL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph G
Date: 2003-03-26 13:12
You need both. If you're gonna be serious about music, you've got to know your theory. The more that you can recall instinctively, the better off you are. But even if you have to think for a moment about certain theory elements, at least you have the necessary skills more-less at hand.
Still, actual playing does depend more on muscle action. So what if you can't instantly recall in your mind the note pattern of an F# major scale -- if your fingers can instantly knock out what it takes your mind a few seconds to process, you can still play the thing well. Case in point: this past Monday at my wind symphony concert, we played an arrangement of Rachmaninoff's Italian Polka. It's one of those that has separate parts for first stand second and second stand second, etc. After the opening theme there's a section where the clarinets all have sixteenth note patterns that all counterpoint each other. I'm on first stand second, and for the life of me I just couldn't wrap my mind around what I had to play; it hopped all over the place and there was little conventional rhyme or reason to it. I woodshedded the thing for weeks and tried to embed it in my head, but it just never took root. And at the concert Monday, halfway through the section my mind just gave up on it. But my fingers kept going after my mind threw in the towel, and I'll be danged if I didn't nail the thing perfectly. So my muscle memory took over when my brain clocked out.
In a pinch, muscle memory is more important. But if you don't have a good grounding in theory, you may be no better off than a singer who learns a foreign language song phonetically rather than actually knowing what the words mean. As Roger Ebert often says about actors in poorly-written movies, "they know the words but not the music."p
________________
Artistic talent is a gift from God and whoever discovers it in himself has a certain obligation: to know that he cannot waste this talent, but must develop it.
- Pope John Paul II
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevensfo
Date: 2003-03-26 13:33
The importance of learning scales and knowing which key and even which note you're playing at any given time has always puzzled me. I'm only just starting clarinet but I've played classical guitar for many years and piano for about five years. Since each key has a number of chords and chord progressions found only in that key, one look at the 'pattern' of chords seems to tell my fingers where they should be going and quite honestly there are times when, if asked, I'd have to look at the beginning to tell you what key I was in!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: PJ
Date: 2003-03-26 13:35
I experienced just the opposite in school. My first year in Masterclass we would play our scales from the Foundation Studies book by D. Hite. If your not familiar with this book, Hite took each scale and ran it in 16th notes from the tonic to the altissimo register, back down to low E (or the lowest note in the scale playable on the horn) and then back up to the tonic again. These were great exercises, however I found myself depending on the music in order to play the scales rather than playing them from memory when it came to lessons and juries and I could only play them in that pattern. What helped me commit them to memory was to alternate the patterns in which I played them everytime so that I had to concentrate on each note along with the pattern. This was a great help. Another big help was to actually go through every version of the scale that Hite had provided in his book, which he broke up into different arpeggios, jumps, etc.. If you don't have this book I would highly recommend it as these different exercises demand you commit to 'learning' the scale rather than just 'squeazing the water out of the sponge' or playing merely what is written on the page.
In high school once I had to answer a question from a reading assignment from the night before. Once I'd been asked the question, I couldn't answer as I couldn't remember what I'd read. The instructor asked me if I read my homework, and of course I answered "Yes." He then aswered back by saying, "Ah, but did you take time to UNDERSTAND your homework." Same thing applies here. Although my experience was different from your's, the same holds true. Take time to understand each scale and break it down rather than just committing it to memory. I'll be willing to bet that scale runs like the one in the Rondo will come out much easier by doing so.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Avie
Date: 2003-03-26 13:59
That is very interesting question. We have our differant ways of learning and memorizing especially when self taught. I find it easier to memorize the fingering by recognizing and associating every line or space on the staff with the keys and holes on the clarinet up to a certain speed but If I want to play sixteenths that theory doesnt work for me so I have to play it until my fingers know where to go automatically. It probably helps to know the note name (a,b,c, etc) but you still have to know what keys to press or holes to cover so when playing faster it seems that it would be an extra step and time comsuming. Learning to play the piece by ear after learnig to read the music also seems to help. Than you can focus on the tone, rhythm, articulation and maybe your own style. then go back to reading. I do whatever works for me. I am probably just as confused as you on this subject. I would like to hear more ideas from others on this subject. Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tim
Date: 2003-03-26 14:02
a comment from way down on the list of clarinet player wannabe-s.
I was thinking about this very same thing last night. I can best describe as being like reading. I don't sound out words any more. I look at a word, or even a phase, and instantly say it. why?? Because I have seen it and said so many times. As far as my playing .... I look at a run of notes and play it. If it is something that I have seen a lot before I play the right notes. I don't have a clue as to what notes I just played. If I have not seen before, or very little, I have to "sound-it out" note by note.
So... I have found that page after page of drills and fingering exercises over and over and over again, help me. Even when I play something for the first time if a I a familiar "word" pops up I play it and have and can not tell you what notes I just played.
I wonder how this concept sets with "real " players. and welcome their comments.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tim
Date: 2003-03-26 14:05
I see while I typing my post. HAT posted about the same thing. A bit more Eloquent than mine.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2003-03-26 16:22
You need both muscle memory and music theory.
When you play, you should not have to think the note names nor the finger positions. Ideally, it's see the note and play the note.
Theory is needed so that when you preview the piece, you spot places that are temporary key changes through the use of accidentals, places that are various forms of the minor keys, and of course chromatic runs. That way you have identified that in advance. Then when you get there, muscle memor takes over if you have studied correctly. For example, you should able to do a chromatic run up or down starting and ending on any note as the chromatic scale should be in your muscle memory. Now you preview the music and note that bars xx to yy are simply a chromatic scale starting on such and such a note and just play it. You don't have to drill that section then as far as the correct notes (of course you may need to drill for rhythm and articulation and expression but that's another story). Same thing with a temporary key change. You identify those bars as being in the key of whatever and then play in that key automatically as your muscle memory should know the sharps or flats for that key.
Utilizing muscle memory in conjuction with theory makes learning and playing music much faster and enjoyable.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-03-26 22:32
The notes existed before anyone gave them names.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Suzanne
Date: 2003-03-26 22:50
Being able to recognize a certain pattern in a "theoretical" sense (i.e., "this is an E major scale"), will in turn help to send your fingers more quickly into the automatic, learned motor-function response of which you are speaking. So, if you see an E major scale written on the page, you should both be able to pick that up visually, and repond motorically (i.e., without having to think about individual notes). This will greatly help your sight-reading skills.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2003-03-26 22:55
Hi everyone,
You are all saying about the same thing and I think you may have missed the major point and that is "why do we do this."
As I said earlier, there is a lot of research on pattern recognition coupled with performance of varied task in the psychology literature. Any one know about any of those studies?
HRL
PS This is a lot like the chicken that can play tic-tac-toe. The work of B.F. Skinner is probably the key body of knowledge. Darn, where is a good (or bad) psychologist when you need one?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim E.
Date: 2003-03-27 04:25
Obviously (I hope!) muscles don't have memories, the discussion is of operating at a sub-conscious level. We do this all day long. Do you have to think about the mechanics of walking? Do you think about driving a car? (That's why we have trouble if we get into a car that has controls diferent from what we usually drive, ie a floor shift in place of a column shift.) Nearly anything, if repeated enough times, will get to this level.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2003-03-27 10:44
Hi Jim E.
Some good thoughts. What you are referring to with the car example is called negative transfer of learning. Positive transfer of learning would be to sub-consciously "recognize the same pattern" which is something that people may be erroneously calling muscle memory.
But what about a golf swing? How do we repeat something that is completely psychomotor like that act. There is not time to think things throught, right. You are beginning to get at the underlying phonomena of the issue. I find this pretty interesting and hope others do as well.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2003-03-27 14:03
Hank -
The tic-tac-toe chicken has only a single button to peck. The game has only a few patterns, and a simple set of relays built into the machine responds to whatever the human player has done.
Kalmen Opperman has put out a book called Intervalic Permutations, which has arpeggio patterns, each with small alterations from the familiar ones in Baermann III. They make you feel like a beginner again, since you have to read every note rather than recognizing patterns. Kal told me that Harold Wright used to work on them to improve his reading and get unfamiliar sequences "into his fingers."
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-03-27 15:21
This is quite an interesting thread and certainly one which I know is vital to any good performance is the tactile aspect of our instrument. the playing of any mmusical instrument seriously has to thought of in a physical and momentary way/
By this I mean our muscles and hands must always have a sense of knowing where to go and how to manage all of the difficult choices that are made in the run of even the most simple music...
Harold Wright was my teacher for 3 years and a few things I may add about his teaching is that he felt good playing went beyond listening but instead went towards a sense of "rightness" of how and where the hands and air and embouchure reacted to a given momentary passage. In Weber Concertino which I performed under him he always said I had to get beyond the notes and like inside the "music through allowing the hands to do their thing". I also remeber how fast he could play with apparently no warm up. He would go over to his clarinet and wip off the finale of the Weber at a tempi that was dizzing and say its because its already in his hands....
Mr. Wright also said that once the hands are comfortable then even tuning and intonation become less of a problem...I think he knew I had quite a bit of trouble with right hand tension and eventually he heped a great deal in "freeing" up my techique....as to his approach I knew he had inherenetly
helped me by showing how important the hands and the muscles are in good playing. Sound is meaningless if one does not have the technique to play through difficult fast passages. This is one of things that led to me working in music and becoming an orchestral clarinetist.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2003-03-27 15:44
Execution and recognition are really two different functions, even if you learn them at the same time.
I think that most of us agree that the subconscious 'muscle memory' developed from repetitive playing is essential for all our basic patterns. And, of course, we are generally learning these patterns from written music which is going to result in fairly good recognition. Couple this with key signature recognition and you have a good basic product.
Theory is certainly essential, but much of our use of theory is in higher-level recognition and strategy. I think that this makes it secondary to actually learning those familiar patterns such as scales, scales-in-thirds and arpeggios by rote.
This rote learning also enhances theory. I think that you get a lot more bang from your buck teaching someone about chords when they are already playing things that you can use as a clear illustration.
It seems to me that theory's more proper place is in handling the unusual, such as handling the kinds of passages described by Ken. There, your theory knowledge can help you recognize where to finger automatically, and where to focus your mental concentration.
My more advanced students work an exercise on playing by ear called 'The Accidental Tourist' in which they start going down scale patterns that are briefly altered as the implied harmony slips in and out of the original key center. They have to negotiate these little modulations and quickly snap back into their home key without having their fingers thrown off. To me, this is a place where theory is truly helpful. The key is that their theory is helping them cope with variations in something that would otherwise be completely automatic and subconscious.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-03-27 16:17
Interesting post above from Mr. Cole. I too agree with what you have said and its implications. My students are taught a heavy cirriculum of scales and arpeggios which I feel enhances tactile memory and develops a "feel" for the keyboard of the clarinet....as with any task the more it is done the bettter it should be....
Another challenge which I think is helpful is the memorizition of atonal music or music which has no key centre...I myself have memorized the Berg 3 Pieces and the Stravinsky 3 Pieces mainly becuase I really love this music....even in difficult and atonal music a sort of structured way of thinking about the organization of fingering and nuance is of great benefit and allows the player a change of pace from normal patterns. In fact, I would go as far as to say even atonality is fairly normal.
Orchestral players like myself memorize most solos in order to stay in visual and audio contact with what is occuring in the ensemble. Players who are buried in the score or their part are sometimes playing rather than interacting musically. this is very true with Band players/ or amateur and beginners. Advanced players tend to rely on tactile memory and evaluate difficult patterns way ahead of the average students.....
One important aspect of Band playing is the fact it develops good sight-reading skills and hones ensemble skills. These are things not easily come by, so I feel great playing can begin in the Band setting as long as the player sticks to a good work ethic. Tactile memory can also be developed by just seeking as many performing venues as possible....I think alot of people underestimate the power of rote learning and therefore never reach the full potential they have...
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ginny
Date: 2003-03-27 16:47
I think there is a third modality at work. The ear to hand mode.
I have found theory helpful, do to a low rote learning ability on my part. However I think that a fine ear-hand connection is more important. A person with an excellent ear can very quickly 'memorise.' Muscle memory would imply no ear use.
My son understands theory, but seems to memorise almost instantly, obviously not muscle memory. He has an excellent ear, and it has been connected to his hands. As a result he can learn to play difficult pieces rapidly, with out hammering them in by rote.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2003-03-28 11:06
Remember, Ginny, that what we're calling 'muscle' memory is actually subconscious memorization of the patterns as well as their sounds. And this is what provides the mechanics of ear-to-hand.
Also remember that we are talking about learning scales and other familiar patterns by rote--not actual pieces. It is the rote embedding of our basic scale patterns and the use of those patterns as a yardstick for the ear and a straight-edge for the fingers that bring these abilities about, and allow us to employ our theory knowledge in real-time.
Having been a pop musician for the last 20-some years, I can take anything that I know well enough to hum, and instantly play it in any key. A large number of people posess this skill--and rapid memorization is its companion. I started doing this by using the major scale as my yardstick and comparing all pitches to the tonal center. (i.e. Jingle Bells = 3-3-3, 3-3-3, 3-5-1-2-3 in whatever key)
This used to be a conscious calculation. I have no doubt that it is still occuring subconsciously, but the steady practice of scales and the steady use of the ear creates the ILLUSION of skipping this step.
Give your son a very tonal piece like Jesu Joy of Mans Desiring, and he may have what appears to be a total ear-to-hand experience. Give him something as chromatic as Flight of the Bumblebee, or something with a shifting tonal center like Sweet Georgia Brown, and I think you'll start seeing some conscious thought present itself. The less familiar the key, the more pronounced an effect you'll see.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
