 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-05-06 19:49
Lately I've been intrigued with the possibilities of different ways to spend one's practice time... how long to play, what to play, how to play it, when and how long to rest. Am toying with the idea of doing some research on the matter, with live and/or internet-based guinea pigs, and, depending on how that plays out, possibly developing some methods.
Does anyone know of research/studies/experiments in that area that you could direct me to? Any other comments on the matter?
I'm starting to experiment with myself on this, but would love to build off and refer to other studies if there are any.
For context, I've wondered a lot lately how effective the many variations of "play it until it's right" actually are, and which common (or uncommon!) approaches are more effective. For learning a tricky passage, for example, there's no end to attention paid to playing it slow vs. fast, strange groupings, alternating articulations, etc., but I have yet to see assessments of how effective they are in comparison. Most of the time it's anecdotal, the same kind of anecdotal that tells you to breathe from the diaphragm. I'm also intensely curious about the effects of, say, a mandated 5 (, 10, 15) second rest between attempts, and of learning scales via variable and highly irregular configurations compared to straight runs.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2010-05-07 14:20
Never heard of a mandated time between attempts. Sounds like a waste of time to me.
I can't help with the studies but will add another anecdote to your list:
Doc Severenson used to say he'd practice a difficult passage by playing it 100 times in a row without making a mistake. That is you don't stop playing it, until you can do 100 consecutive correct iterations.
As harsh as this sounds, I've heard some rummblings of something similar from others of the OLD SCHOOL of playing.
...................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RoBass
Date: 2010-05-07 14:33
Every people has his own structure to learn well. Practicing methods will differ from student to student. ONe needs scales, one needs delays, one needs pressure at all.
Which kind of result do you expect? I agree to Paul - will be wastetd time...
kindly
Roman
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-05-08 01:02
Well, good, then, looks like it's something new. Whether it's worthwhile or a waste of time, I don't know.
I've seen lots of stuff recommended to lots of people, both in clarinet and in other endeavors, where people practice or train to get better at one thing or another. Some of these things are really effective, and some of them not so much. However, distinctions are rarely made, especially in something like clarinet where comparative analysis is so rare (compared to, say, sports training).
Spending any sort of time practicing will lead to some degree of improvement, but some kinds of practice get things done in 5 minutes that other kinds of practice take an hour to achieve. I'd ideally like to look at a whole swath of things clarinetists generally regard as "good things to practice" and maybe get some insight into which are effective across the board, which are good in certain situations, and which, if any, are wastes of time.
Am also way interested in the effects of different kinds of warm-up routines.
It may be too variable to make any generalizations, and it could be that most of the options are similarly effective, but if nobody's even LOOKED at this before, I think it's worth my time to investigate.
I might not come out of this with any useful conclusions.
However, what if it turns out that long tones are completely ineffective?
Or that they're the single most important thing you can do?
Heck, maybe playing a passage 100 times correctly in a row IS the best use of your practice time. Until we try it in comparison to an alternative, how do we know?
Alternatively, we may all be doing the equivalent of trying to lose weight by running. It'll get you in the right direction, but there are far more effective ways about it.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: weberfan
Date: 2010-05-08 04:04
Alex,
I can appreciate your interest in this research. The goal of practicing to reap the greatest benefit is a never-ending quest. I wish you luck, if you choose to pursue the grail.
Everyone is different, though. For example, what is the most efficient use of time for a 14-year-old who is dedicated to the clarinet? His/her fingers are probably faster than those if us in late middle age. What about development of facial muscles? What about attention span?
In returning to the clarinet after many years, I find that my skills at reading music still fall a bit short, and my fingers fumble more than I would like. How does that affect my practice sessions? A good deal, I can tell you. For some of Baermann and Rose, 100 times through might not make a difference. But for me, after those 100 times, a layoff of a week on a particular exercise, coupled with more work on related scales and patterns, can give me a big boost toward something just a bit short of competent.
I suspect you will have to decide on who your typical clarinet player is. And if you do, your results may suit only this one person's profile. Or a narrow range of players.
Nevertheless, best of luck.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-05-08 16:38
I realize that, and that's why I'm asking about prior studies done in this area. Ideally, I'd have dozens of participants trying different things for years, but that's immensely time-consuming and requires a large studio, and lots of free time and a large studio are things I do not have at the moment, so this is all still in the large-project-I-may-undertake-some-day realm. I'd hope to get some sort of idea of what works when, and which techniques work for everybody or nobody.
Problem is, there are just so darn many variables. Heck, weather patterns may make more of an effect on your playing than whether or not you're doing Baermann scales.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: interd0g
Date: 2010-05-08 21:38
You'll have to allow for the placebo effect - giving some participants advice which is not the subject of the particular study, to ensure any differences are due to the technique in question and not to the bracing effects of some individual attention and positive encouragement.
Also you should start off with identical subjects if possible.
Remember the famous study in which the effects of wall color on productivity was the subject.
When they changed to green, output went up.
When they changed back it went up some more.
The girls just appreciated the attention, or maybe any change at all.
Difficult as it is, I wish you success - there is no objective and credible data on this and everyone wants to get the most from their limited time and energy.
I hope you open the subject right up.
Maybe you could look at the methodologies from physiological , psychological, sociological , and industrial investigations. They have faced the problems of getting useful data out of fuzzy sources, presumably with some success.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-05-08 23:12
Hmmm... given the wall color effect, maybe a first round could study the effects of practicing in the same place every day vs. different environments.
It's made doubly hard with the difficulty in identifying anything meaningfully quantifiable when it comes to performing.
The placebo effect, plus the uncertainty introduced by measuring things, make this pretty darn close to a crap shoot. Which makes it all the more intriguing.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: interd0g
Date: 2010-05-09 14:48
I just remembered a recent study with college students about juggling.
They had the latest live real time brain scanning equipment on hand.
As the volunteers learned juggling, the scans were recorded.
An easily seen zone in the brain became engorged as the skill was acquired.
The object in this case was to see how long a motor skill like this lasted once they stopped practicing.
The visible signs in the brain , and the skill, returned to the pre-test levels after 3 months, with a linear-ish falloff as I remember.
This result alone is useful for us, if we have to go on family holidays and other unavoidable interruptions to the regime.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2010-05-10 12:49
I think the problem with this kind of study is that there are so many variables in terms of the end objective to practice and that so many of those results cannnot be assessed in a truly objective way. How would we quantify how "nice" someone's tone was? Whether they played a piece "better" than they did a few weeks ago? And in some cases, whilst something like the speed at which one can play a scale could be measured, sheer speed may not be what we were aiming for or find attractive artistically. We would all have opinions on what we liked and in many cases we might mainly agree or even be unanimous but those opinions would still be coloured by our preferences, training and experience.
The only thing I could think of is you could persuade X pupils who had all recently taken exam Y and prepared them in two or three different ways for exam Z but all with the same pieces etc and saw who increased their score most you might get a fairly "like for like" comparison. Then again, could you really guarantee whether these pupils would use the ideas you gave them as you had asked? Whether they would put in the same amount of practice? Whether they all had the same amount of natural aptitude etc.?
I think that most of us who get to a reasonable level know what works for us, pick up a new idea whenever we can and, I'm sure, would agree that the vast majority of progress is sheer hard, repetitive work.
Interesting idea though.
Vanessa.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: salzo
Date: 2010-05-10 13:40
"For context, I've wondered a lot lately how effective the many variations of "play it until it's right" actually are, and which common (or uncommon!) approaches are more effective. For learning a tricky passage, for example, there's no end to attention paid to playing it slow vs. fast, strange groupings, alternating articulations, etc., but I have yet to see assessments of how effective they are in comparison."
Personally, I never take the "play it until it is right" approach with myself or my students. my approach is "get it right the first time"- Basically, whatever it is you are working out, break it down to whatever you can play correct, do that a few times, then add a little to that, studying it first, working it out in your head until you KNOW that when you commit to playing it, it will be right. Continue this until you can play whatever it is you are working on.
And when it comes to working on technical passages, I NEVER have my student play it slow and build up the speed. Play it at tempo, doing what was mentioned above. Sometimes it means starting with only one note, sometimes you can play more-it all depends on the passage.
Obviously, people are successful with the "start slow then get faster" method, but I find it less efficient, and takes much longer to get something under your fingers. Every element in music compliments, and has an effect on every other element of music, and this includes tempo. Playing something under tempo, for the sake of getting it under ones fingers, is going to have an effect on the other technical issues of the clarinet, and the music. Play fast, but small, making sure focus is on every technical and music aspect the music is calling for.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-05-10 15:47
Nessiel:
Totally agree on the difficulty of assessment, and as a result I'd probably restrict the study to things that are even remotely quantifiable.
I would also disagree that the majority of progress is sheer, repetitive work. I've had a handful of revelatory moments over the years that have made huge impacts on my playing literally overnight. What I'd be most interested in in doing studies like this is getting some sort of inkling of which kinds of repetitive work are productive, and which are a waste of time, and how often that's the case.
I also know the whole "everyone's different" line. I'm not setting out hoping to find some perfectly optimized practice routine, but if I can identify one particularly ineffective but commonly used technique to throw out, or one minor change that makes a huge difference for a lot of people, I think it will have been worthwhile.
Salzo:
That's exactly the type of thing I'm looking at. Lately I've had a lot of success with things like singing a part until I have the rhythms perfect before trying to play it. Pretty much anything that challenges "keep playing it until it's right" intrigues me, but I also don't want to get just as dogmatic about other methods that might turn out to be just a bit less of time-wasters.
An experiment, for starters, might be to try woodshedding short technical passages through a variety of methods, and see what tends to work, both immediately, and what sticks a few days down the line. Might woodshed 4 different passages, one by singing it between each play, one by slow-to-fast, one by bits of fast put together, and one by messing with the rhythms (e.g. short long short long for 16th notes). With a couple dozen people on this, picking at random which passage uses which method, might start to see a trend.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2010-05-10 16:27
Sorry - I can't agree with salzo's opinion that slow practice is not worthwhile - some people may find that they can play a difficult run, say, which is not made up of any recognisable kind of scale, at speed correctly first time but I think that the majority of us mere mortals will do better by reducing the tempo initially, taking it in small, overlapping sections and gradually working up to the whole thing.
On the other hand, by repetitive work, I do not necessarily mean that you mechanically repeat exactly what is written ad nauseam - it may well help to try different rhythms and so on.
Vanessa.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: interd0g
Date: 2010-05-10 16:55
I see a problem with using a daily routine including a standard form of scales and arpeggios, intervals etc..
I find that I can become quite fluent in these , but fluency does not translate to real passages in which those patterns occur but with significant differences.
In fact, the fingers tend to produce the practiced patterns in a robot like manner, and have to be bullied into doing something different , until that too becomes automated.
So ,in a way, the fluency with oft repeated exercises gets in the way. particularly with modern music in which you can't trust them to stick to predictable or instantly recognizable patterns.
I am now experimenting with constantly changing exercises in which elements of scale or interval are broken up in different ways.
In Jazz, for example, one doesn't practice a solo, which is supposed to be spontaneous and driven by the events of the moment. So the technique needs to be capable of essentially random development.
( Although arpeggios are going to be very helpful)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: salzo
Date: 2010-05-10 17:58
Nessiel wrote:
"Sorry - I can't agree with salzo's opinion that slow practice is not worthwhile - some people may find that they can play a difficult run, say, which is not made up of any recognisable kind of scale, at speed correctly first time.."
That is not quite what I wrote.
Basically, if i see a difficult run which I CANT play at tempo correctly the first time, then I do not attempt to play the run.
ill look at it, and decide how much of the run I can do at tempo, and play that. Then I add more, first looking at it to decide how much more I can add to the original part of the run that I played. And I continue this until it can be played in its entirety. Sometimes I get snagged, which means the run is too long at the moment to continue building. At this point I cut off about all of what I have already played, maybe start a beat, a note , whatever, before where I start fumbling, work out a string, and then start moving BACKWARDS back towards the beginning, maybe a beat at a time, measure at a time, whatever is necessary.
Of course I have done the slow to fast thing, but I no longer do it because I find this a much better way of practicing. I do this with my students, some of them starting in 4th grade, and I never tell them to slow down-just break it down.
Interestingly, the ones who start with me right from the beginning, have no issue with it whatsoever. They just do it, they do not know anything different.
But the older ones, who have heard EVERY band teacher, or clarinet teacher tell them to slow things down, and gradually increase the speed-they often have issues with it. But I really make them do it, and rather quickly they realize how much more effective it is.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-05-10 20:05
Interdog:
Are you familiar with these books...?
- Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns, Nicolas Slonimsky
- Jazz Clarinet, Bill Smith
- Intervallistic Concept, Eddie Harris
Think they're relevant to what you're suggesting...
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vjoet
Date: 2010-05-11 17:52
Excellent thread. I hope it continues.
A personal observation:
I think we must look at musical learning as something that continues through time, and that the time away from the practice is necessary for learning to take full root.
I've noticed that after a really good practice session, if I look over what I was working on immediately before bed, the next day there is more improvement than if don't review just before bed.
I think the hours of sleep, with prior reminder, is vitally important for the best progress (at least in my case).
Perhaps a few here would give the "review immediately before bed" a try to see if they also experience a benefit.
vJoe
(amateur)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: interd0g
Date: 2010-05-15 14:57
I've been trying the ideas suggested here but it is too soon to report.
I include the idea of playing at tempo, fumbles and all, rather than always practicing at the tempo where you are comfortable and fluff-free.
That one feels a bit like pushing off a ski slope too steep for you and letting the boots fall where they may but the jury is still out.
An area which interests me is the phenomenon often called 'muscle memory'
I take this to mean that with practice you can perform a given exercise much faster than you could using the step-by-step conscious procedure, and such passages become a sort of stock-in-trade for the performer.
Hence we get good at scales, arpeggios , exercises and set pieces.
It may be a little akin to the 'reptile mind' which allows sportsmen to respond with a rapidity and skill which gets there long before the intelligence has caught up with the action. This can be astonishing.
For example , there is still a major prize waiting for the first machine to play a decent game of table tennis.
So we have two mechanisms - (1) a conscious note-by-note process playing a passage not previously learned and (2) a sub conscious process playing learned passages or those containing predictable elements such as previously learned scales and arpeggios.
I am going try a routine reading random passages created by a little program such that the next note can not be forecast to try and speed up the conscious process.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ohsuzan
Date: 2010-05-15 15:33
Thanks, Alex, for the suggested titles regarding "non-standard" melodic and harmonic structure.
My experience with that is much the same as interd0g -- knowing the standard scales and arpeggios serves me well, as long as the music in question utilizes those patterns.
But much of the challenging music I am being asked to play today (Whitacre, Welcher) is NOT based on the "period of common practice", and that's where it becomes bitterly difficult to read, and in fact, to learn. The fingers know where they want to go, and the ear knows what it wants to hear, but unfortunately, with increasing frequency, none of those places are what the composer has written!
Susan
(currently struggling with the second page of the oboe part of John
Williams' "Summon the Heroes")
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: interd0g
Date: 2010-05-31 16:15
Sorry to revive this topic, but I just came across something which anyone could try to illustrate my point ( that practice of set exercises does not translate directly to facility in other similar exercises as previously described.)
Most do the Klose "Scales in Thirds", in their warm up and can do a clean job at 126 to 144 .
Now try it inverting each third interval i.e. ec, fd, ge, af etc etc..trhough the keys
Speaking for myself, this slows me down to a crawl except in the most familiar keys. No doubt if I persist with these I can automate or "muscle memorize" this also and feel like I am getting somewhere.
A similar thing happens if you take the Klose scale piece to do it in ascending group of three i.e. cdec,defd,efge........ Once again in the outer keys its like starting from scratch, even though you clearly know how all these scales work.
Unfortunately This is not leading me to a better practice method, but I would be interested in what happens to others with these procedures?
Maybe it's just me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2010-05-31 20:50
EEBaum,
Before you get too far out on the limb here, have you had a formal research course in your academic career? If so, review the part about problem statements and hypothesis development and testing. Also, recall that the experimental design is all about controlling variables and you have a whole lot of them in what you propose.
If you have not had such a course, get a research textbook and review the first part where the scientific process is explained. Getting from an interesting idea to a formal research study can have a lot of twists and turns,
Good luck,
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-06-01 00:48
Aware of that type of thing, Hank. No formal course, but familiar with most of the concepts.
I'm debating whether I would even want to go the research-to-publish route, at least initially. Hell of a lot of commitment, and tends to be very focused during any given study. Since there seems to be little to no research in the area as it is, I'd probably be more interested in starting with a bunch of trials, controlling most variables within reason at any given time, and seeing if anything really jumps out as particularly effective or ineffective, which can point in directions to do actual research.
In any case, it looks like this will go on the back burner for a while due to more immediately pressing projects.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2010-06-01 12:04
Alex,
Just keep the idea in mind as often, events take place that give you a new and more analytical minset on your initial problem (aka research focus). But first say to yourself "what is the real problem here?" Mull that over and probably go through several iterations along the way and you will learn much about all the facets involved. However, do not lose sight of the research truism that says "If this was easy, everyone would be doing it."
Personally though, I think the qualitative nature of practice is the thing that is going to be hardest variable for you to control. The relationship between the subjectivity about the quality of ours and others playing is certainly not something we'd all agree on (I remember the thread here on Drucker's Mozart - that was a real smack-down).
HRL
PS Oh, also apply the test which says "Who Cares About This Other Than Me?"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-06-01 15:05
Hehe, indeed. While "If this was easy, everyone would be doing it" does tend to ring true, I'm possibly more interested in finding fallacies in "everyone's always done it this way, so it must be effective."
There are a lot of things, in all walks of life, where many people's answer to a problem is "if it doesn't work yet, do it a whole bunch more until it works." It tends to work in the end, more or less, so they're vindicated, but often (though not always) it's been a horrific waste of time.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2010-06-01 16:32
Hi Alex,
The "old professor" in me wants to ask just one more question. If you are looking for fallacies, how do you know they are not the truth?
Look up Type I and Type II statistical errors, please.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2010-06-01 17:03
Alex,
It is relevant. Pretty funny.
But when you look closely, the comment about the engineers is probably correct. And as a faculty member at a small engineering school in Indiana called Purdue, I know several individuals that fit the description. LOL!!!
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Plonk
Date: 2010-06-01 19:26
Just wanted to add, there are some pretty interesting anecdotes in Sack's book "Musicophilia" about how the brain functions in relation to music. If you haven't read it, do - it's very entertaining.
For example, I'm sure we've all experienced the phenomena of getting better by not practising. E.g. you go on holiday for a week and when you come back you can suddenly play something you were struggling with before. Apparently, with enough repetition, the brain can continue to practise passages subconsciously. This also manifests itself as getting an "earworm" for what you've been playing a lot of recently - in fact you're not just replaying for pleasure (as you might do when you get an "earworm" of a pop song or something), but you are actually sending neurological messages down to your fingers and "feeling" the notes being played.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-06-01 21:22
Haven't read it, but it's sitting on a shelf. May have to get to that sooner rather than later.
I suppose it wouldn't surprise you, Hank, to learn that I have an engineering degree... well, computer science, actually, but it was in the engineering school. Probably worse than engineering as far as "let's try random crap and see what happens" goes. :P
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2010-06-01 21:31
Too funny about the "random crap." I know that trombone players are prone to saying "hey, watch what I can do with my slide ..."
Alex, in time you'll get over the engineering stigma! But in research, just think Boolean and you'll be fine. LOL.
Post Edited (2010-06-02 02:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: interd0g
Date: 2010-06-09 18:20
Just came acroos a clip featuring one Theodore Dimon who's studies bear on this topic.
He suggests that practice , as we mean it, is actually harmful, and he turns upside down the concepts of acquiring skills.
It somewhat resembles the ideas in 'The Zen of Tennis", which I have also studied. As in Zen, there is a time for looking at technique, and a time to let go. Effort in Zen is to be avoided, as is lack of effort.
I will be tracking down his work
howtopractise.artistry21.nl/2009/04/30/a-method-of-learning-how-to-learn-fiona-tree-and-theodore-dimon/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-06-09 20:59
I believe that the way people practice is an individual thing in many cases. But basically it falls into the following categories. Time, concentration, rote, patience and endurance. Two hours of good practice is better than one and much better than three hours of poor practice. You not only have to learn how to play a passage but you need to understand the passage and recognize the patterns. Sometimes there is no pattern, no scale, chord, 4th, 3rd etc in a passage so you have to learn something by rote, going over it many times slowly until you get it in your fingers. If you practice only by rote and don't concentrate on what you're playing it will take you much longer to learn something. If you don't have the patience to go over something many many times and figure out the right way to play it first, ex. which fingering is best, it will take longer and be less efficient. And then if you don't work in a few breaks your endurance will break down. You also have to learn to read ahead so you see the difficult passage coming and not read one note at a time. It helps me to learn a passage and close my eyes and play it many times so it becomes in grained in my mind, and fingers. It also helps me to write in which hand I'm going to do something in if I miss it the first or second time, the same with accidentals. If I miss them I write them in so I won't miss them again. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-06-09 22:22
Great video, interd0g! Probably get a lot more mileage out of something like that than a lot of the structure I was looking at. Will definitely look closer in that direction.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ryanw
Date: 2010-06-10 01:47
"One must practice slowly, then slowly, and finally slowly." -Saint Saëns
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-06-10 23:04
A really excellent (and FREE) resource for research related to education/learning (including music) is ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), a database of articles on topics relating to education. Key in words like "music" and "practice" and you'll be on your way to surveying the available literature on this topic. Many of the articles are available full-text online, too.
http://www.eric.ed.gov
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BflatNH
Date: 2010-06-11 15:21
If I can paraphrase, the Fiona Tree video suggested that there are different constituent skills that can be (independently?) developed before integrated into a final 'performance'. Perhaps the following could be some of these separate, but related areas:
Pattern & interval repetition (muscle memory)
Particular passage repetition
Understanding and analyzing the music
Physical stamina
Relaxation & awareness
Balance (Alexander)
Interpretation
I'm also interested in ohsuzan's 'bitterly difficult', material not 'of common practice' that is more frequently occurring and wonder if there is anything this sort of material that has a common theme that can be practiced or prepared for.
I might hope there is a neuroscientist lurking out there that has access to a fMRI to check out the above to see how each light up different parts of the brain, and if they all work together in the 'performance.' I think it would be great to get someone like Dr. Dan Siegel/USC on board.
Is there software available that can generate a particular music sequence (excerpts or newly generated) and while being monitored by that same computer, adjust the patterns being presented and the tempo, etc. in response to how the patterns are played? If the 'bitterly difficult' music were statistically analyzed, perhaps those numbers could be used for generating the practice sequences.
Just some thoughts - thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-06-11 16:11
As for "bitterly difficult" material, I find myself getting a LOT of mileage out of singing it to myself first, and not even trying to play it until I can sing it (albeit out of key). Knowing "how it goes" eliminates the surprise-panic and can let you play something without having to "learn" it, at least to some degree.
I've been woodshedding a piece lately ("Tattoo for One", Poul Ruders) that I think qualifies as bitterly difficult... lots of irregular patterns and intervals, fast, and different enough each time that practicing the first line of page 2 does little to assist in learning the second line of page 2. What hit me, though, was that there were a few very familiar passages... small motives that were exactly the same (though transposed) as in a couple pieces I wrote some years ago. Although some of them mirrored a piece I wrote for solo horn (and therefore I never had under my fingers), those spots were instantly playable, in an "I know how this goes!" manner.
Similarly, a handful of years ago (as an undergrad composition major), I'd listened to recordings of R-K's Scheherazade dozens of times but never so much as seen the sheet music. We read through it in an orchestra, and I nailed the solos, and switched from first to second parts at will to cover important parts because the other clarinetist was out. Any piece I didn't know as well, this wouldn't have been the case.
I think that knowing and/or being able to recognize "how something goes" is a huge step toward preparing for bitterly difficult music. Practicing stuff other than diatonic exercises would probably help significantly to have a greater variety of intervals and motives under the fingers and ready to go, but I think that may be only part of the equation.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: interd0g
Date: 2010-06-11 20:49
I'd like to thank EEB for introducing this topic and all those who threw something in. It's a privilege to hear from some of these notable performers.
I am going to continue following up leads on this, as I think the results could be helpful in many aspects of daily life in addition to music and tennis.
My wife is encouraging, and agrees that there are aspects of my performance which could use improvement.
I will post links to anything good that comes up.
My background was also in physics and later electronics and system design, - although my undergraduate studies almost crashed as i was trying to run 3 groups including a full big band, on the side.
I can, therefore, claim to be as warped as the next nerd.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WoodyBb
Date: 2010-07-06 00:50
This may surprise some folks - there has been very little academic analysis done of instrumental music teaching, outside of school bands and orchestras.
The world of private lessons, especially, has been the unquestioned territory of master players, whose teaching styles, lesson plans - and practice plans - have mostly been off limits to researchers. Their approach is typically commonsensical, but not to the point of caring for the student as an individual. The focus is on the product.
Roland Persson (two s's) is a professor (and a clarinetist!) in Sweden who has written some papers on these concerns, if anyone has access to academic subscription services.
Post Edited (2010-07-06 00:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
