 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: purpleman
Date: 2009-04-11 17:54
Hi, I'm new to the board.
I am working out of the Baermann book on scales, thirds, etc. (the fundamentals).
My edition of the book is arranged by exercise, but I think the Hite version is arranged by key.
My question is whether it is better to learn the fundamentals by exercises (eg learn all major scales, then all major thirds, then minor scales, etc.) or by the key (eg learn C scale, Cm scale, C thirds, C arpegio, then all over again in a G, then in D and so on)?
So far all I pretty much have learned is all major scales at sixteenth notes at 125, and I am wondering how to approach the rest of the Baermann.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2009-04-12 15:56
I think you should not separate major and minor keys.
As to whether it's better to learn all the patterns - scales, thirds, arpeggios, etc. - for each key at once or learn each pattern separately - all scales, then all keys in thirds, etc. - there probably isn't a universal answer. Most of us, at least here in the U.S., probably learned the major scales followed by the relative minors of each scale before we went on to scales in thirds or arpeggios or ascending tetrachords or the other patterns that authors of technique books use. But that may have been because the major scales (usually up to 4 flats and 4 sharps) are required for things like county/district/state auditions, and many school band and orchestra directors use them for seating auditions.
The creators of the books use one or the other approaches as organizing methods (Rubank Advanced actually uses both - the book is organized by patterns or musical forms but a table in front facilitates selection by key) because you have to organize the material one way or the other. Some patterns are definitely trickier than others and you probably would do better to spend time with the easier ones in each key. Diatonic scales, tonic arpeggios and scales in thirds are probably the standards most serious students learn first. Breaking the scales up into tetrachords and other patterns (as Baermann does) like the Hannon excercises for piano are reinforcing but not of primary importance, and scales in wider intervals than thirds - 4ths, 5ths, 6ths, etc. - can be more difficult. I've generally found the exercises that Hite devises near the end of each page (if we're thinking of the same Hite book) to be more fun than necessary.
In the end I don't think it matters much whether you learn all the scales, then all the thirds, then all the arpeggios or you learn all three for each key one at a time. As I said at the beginning, I think major and minor keys are of equal importance. I also think that, for maintenance practice, routines like the ones (Daily Studies, I think he calls them - I don't have any of the books in front of me) in the second part of Klose and included also, I think, in the Hite book and several others, that go through all the keys around the circle of fifths in one pattern, are very useful.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hinotehud ★2017
Date: 2009-04-13 01:26
I agree with Karl's last paragraph that in the end it doesn't matter how you approach it. But if you are trying to get up to speed quickly, learn the scales, arpeggios, then scales in 3rds.
I have my students learn all the major scales first, then melodic minor. The reason is, the melodic minor are really major scales with the exception of the lowered 3rd going up. It makes it much easier to memorize the minors if you can relate it to the majors. Then arpeggios would come next, including the dominant 7th chords and diminished 7ths. Learning the scales and arpeggios will really improve your technique and sight reading. Scales in 3rds are important, but in my opinion, learn the scales and arpeggios first.
Keith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-04-13 02:35
I think that the Baermann scale books (and many scale books for that matter) are a huge waste of paper. Baermann should only be 5 or 10 pages long: have all of the exercises in C Major and a minor and let the player learn the other keys by ear.
If you want to learn by grouping keys together, exercises together, or some combination of both is up to you and your tastes. However, I would say put away the book as soon as you can and do the exercises by ear.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BflatNH
Date: 2009-04-13 11:41
On the point of doing scales/arpeggios by ear, would it be more helpful for improving sight reading to do the exercises while reading the corresponding notes?
Thanks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hinotehud ★2017
Date: 2009-04-13 12:18
You certainly need to recognize the pattern you have memorized. I give my students sheets with the scales and arpeggios written out, then we work on memorizing them one by one. Occasionally, I will pick a new scale, give them the starting note and have them try to play it by ear. They do need to develop their ear so they hear wrong notes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2009-04-13 20:23
I personally WANT the edition you have (if you could send me an email on which one it is and where you got it, it'd be appreciated). I'm not musically trained, just self-taught with some intermittent lessons here and there, but I would vote for learning by exercise. I do what I can as far as practicing, and sometimes my practice sessions get cut short. So I want to hit as many keys as possible. So I'd rather hit every key in one pattern in a session, instead of one key in many patterns. And then continue with new patterns the next time.
I know it's important to do both, know your keys AND your patterns, however for myself, I just prefer to hit every key in a session than to hit every pattern (thirds, fourths, broken chords, returning scales, etc. etc.)
Alexi
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-04-13 21:17
BflatNH,
In my opinion, the benefits of practicing Baermann III are legato, pitch, tonal consistency, et cetera. Maybe it improves sight-reading some, but I imagine that people who practice Baermann on a regular basis do not have serious problems deciphering scales in the context of a piece of music. I have found that it is easier to master the exercises without the use of music, but of course, everyone learns differently.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2009-04-14 08:16
I vote for learning your basics grouped by key. This creates a chance to live in each key for a certain period, just getting to know it. Think of yourself as a blind person moving into a 12-room house. You want to confine yourself at first, to the rooms that you can best navigate and get to know those obstacles. Then move on to the more cluttered rooms one by one, getting to know where the furniture is.
As for reading vs. memorizing, you can have the best of both worlds. I prefer this sequence.
1 - Student learns & memorizes major scales and arpeggios out to at least 4 sharps & 4 flats.
2 - Student transposes from a template, their major scale, a scale-in-thirds, and a sequence of I-IV-V arpeggios in a given key. After the teacher checks the paperwork and discusses the technique to be used in each exercise, the student practices them (by reading) until memorization is achieved.
3 - The student then spends a week sightreading, playing by ear, and preparing pieces in this key, while doing the paper work for the next key to be studied.
Once basics are learned in this way, they are more comfortable playing in Baermann III, Rubank Selected Studies, duet books, etc.
It also allows a lot of flexibility in terms of reading vs. playing by ear, and in playing with the composition of scales and arpeggios. One game I really enjoy is having the student flat the third in different arpeggios of the I-IV-V sequence to experience major, minor, harmonic minor and dorian chord sequences. There are lots of similar things you can try.
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}
