 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: jerry
Date: 2001-03-01 23:26
When you are playing and reading music:
Do you place your fingers on the apprpriate key/tone hole, etc. as your mind's eye sees the written information (the music);
Or, does your minds eye see the written information, translate that to a note in your mind i.e., "A", "B", "C", etc., then relate that to a fingering position on the instrument, then *act*?
As a beginner (and still learning to read the notes - and the fingering for them) I feel that I should be doing the former - letting my fingers do the walking (or reading as it were). Understand that I know I must know how to look at a sheet of music and *read* it even without an instrument.
Just seems to me like a lot of translating has to happen in less than a milisecond if the latter is used.
Whatcha think?
~ jerry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. Butler
Date: 2001-03-01 23:46
I try to read ahead as far as the tempo/music allows. I try to keep my fingers moving slightly ahead of my articulation. To tell you the truth it is almost like an automated response now. We learn to read sentences rather than individual words and letters. It is the same process. I have to think more on transpositions, especially Bb to F (horn parts). Bb to C/Bb to Eb/and Bb to bass clef is easy to do for me, but there once was a time.............! I used to be pretty good transposing Bb to A but since I got my A I'm out of practice making that transpotition.
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2001-03-02 00:23
The first approach. Plus combined with "looking ahead" to the coming pattern.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2001-03-02 04:07
I always taught my students to learn the fingerings first, so they could play the notes. And then, second, learn the note names, so they could talk about the notes. My intent was for them to associate fingerings with the note positions on the staff so that their cognitive process would then be "position--fingering--play" rather than "position/name--fingering--play." It seems to me that adding the extra step (name) in the thought process is not the efficient way to read music. I know that when I read music, I never think about the names of the notes--I just read by position and pattern so that when I see a note or series of notes written, to me, it is an automatic fingering response rather than an interpretive "note/name" process. And, not to brag, but for validation, I have a reputation, locally, for being an excellant "at sight" player, usually able to perform music that I have never seen before (theater shows, ice shows, recording gigs) with a fair amount of accuracy. Hope this helps a bit. Good luck!!!!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim
Date: 2001-03-02 04:56
In the end, something as intricate as playing an instrument (or touch typing etc) is learned by rote, that is that it is so ingrained that it truly becomes a conditioned automatic response. Only at that stage does one really have "ownership" on the process.
Interesting, I'm also a chorus singer and sing the same way. Not possessing "perfect pitch" I sing intervals, not thinking the letter name, but ratherthe relative distance between the notes. This then works fine even if the organist uses the transpose feature (Allen Electronic Organ) to change the key. Though I then might begin to wonder why I'm having trouble hitting an E, or why I suddenly have no trouble getting to the F at the upper end of my range.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rene
Date: 2001-03-02 10:31
I am just teaching my son (6) the recorder. He also clearly assigns key presses to note symbols. That's what I do too on the clarinet. When I see a sequence of notes the fingers go automatically there.
However, there is more involved. He finds the keys by ear, even though I did not train him. This is nothing special, I believe. Suppose you manipulate with the instrument of your pupil and switch two little finger keys. I bet they would immediately notice that. There must be a control instance, which expects a certain tone to start at a certain key press from experience, or the pupil is dumb.
Moreover, one cannot explain sight reading of rythm with a finger-note connection alone. This is controlled by an intermediate musical part in the brain. And indeed, it is best to learn rythm without your clarinet and by singing alone.
To the remark about singers. I can sing by intervals too. However, in reality there is almost always harmony involved and guiding tones. Intervals alone would be very dangerous and could lead you into complete desaster. Some modern music requires to be learned interval by interval. But in the end, you hear a musical pattern.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jan
Date: 2001-03-02 12:11
i am at an intermediate level. when i read music for the first time the note symbols i see translates to where my fingers need to be but im not neccessarily thinking of the name of the note. but if i have put my fingers in the wrong position i take a second look, say the name of the note in my mind and now the name ususally translates to finger position if the symbol didnt.
jan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Poulsen
Date: 2001-03-02 13:34
I heard a story on National Public Radio this morning about a baseball pitcher that, when he got into the big time, stopped being able to pitch well. An analyst, who is a former pitcher, stated that the problem was that this fellow had stage fright and was thinking about what he was doing. He suggested that the pitcher should stop thinking about how to pitch and just practice throwing the ball.
Playing the clarinet and many other activities are analogous. Of course, the newest beginner must consciously think that, for example, the next note is on the line below the staff which means that all the fingers on the left hand should be down. Eventually, the subconscious mind takes over and when you see the note your fingers automatically go to the right position. You will do better in most any physical activity when you are able to relax and stop thinking about how to do it and just let your subconscious mind take over.
The main use note names is for communicating with another musician. ("You should be playing an A-flat on the first beat of the third bar.") You don't need to think the names to play.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Ainsworth
Date: 2001-03-02 13:39
I taught myself to play the piano many years ago, and have always read music in terms of chords and structures and finger positions. I tend to use the same approach on the clarinet.
My wife primarily plays the flute, and she always works in terms of reading a series of notes as 'A', 'B', 'C' etc.
I haven't noticed much difference in our ability to sight read single stave music, but I'm probably better at sight reading piano scores than she is. The only other effect I've noticed is that I can find it very confusing to play the clarinet from a piano score - my brain seems to flip into piano mode and starts reading the complete chords, rather than picking out the melody line.
Mike
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2001-03-02 17:33
What an interesting thread - This ranks high among the "Wish I'd Thot of That" 's ! Attempting to analyze what I do, I believe it is direct association of written note to fingering. I had an experience to this point last nite at our Tulsa Comm Band rehearsal [we have a web-site in "communities" ] when, not having a bass cl part to "Li'l Brown Jug" [ala G Miller, folio size], I had a choice of Bb baritone, tenor sax [much the same] or bari sax [prob much like a B C part] . With a few seconds thot, I played the bari part, and rediscovered that if I "visualized" I was playing bari sax, not B C, [the fingering being the same in the chalameau {sp?} ] that it accomplished the transposition "automatically". [It works the same for trans of Eb alto SAX onto Bb clar! ] Needless to say, my feeble brain didn't have to go thru the gyrations of seeing [p e] a bari low D, trans to a BC low G and then fingering it on bass, as I had no trouble with the "half-slow" passages!! Conclusion - I use note name only for conversation [like others have said] !! Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Meri
Date: 2001-03-02 22:47
I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned this idea:
Learn to play the instrument apart from learning to read music, at least for a few weeks. Why? Learning to read music and learning to play an instrument are both mentally demanding tasks. Doing both at the same time is a lot harder--learning to do two difficult tasks at the same is hard. (think of the struggles most grade 4-6 beginners have--I think this is the problem, that reading music and playing an instrument are taught in conjunction) Focus on each of them separately for at least a few weeks, eg: by using programs or books that teach you how to read music to help with music reading, and working on developing your technique without music. (and learn pieces by ear!) When technique and music reading are relatively secure, then bring them together.
Meri
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Al
Date: 2001-03-02 23:09
I recently acquired a new student.;seventh grader. He'd never been taught the names of the notes nor the note values.(quarter,half,etc.)
We're having a difficult time communicating. I might ask him to play a passage again for example,"third line starting on the low G." I get a blank stare. I might say, "the Eb major arpeggio consists of Eb, G and Bb. Just keep repeating the same pitches for the upper octave. Play 8th note triplets."
I might as well be speaking a foreign language.
And it's been a month now. The poor kid was just taught the note-to-fingering method. I diasgree with some of you, as you can see. Learning the pitch and the fingering simultaneously would be so much less trouble. I still drill him by asking him to play specific pitches.(High G#, lowest E,high B, throat Ab etc.)
The student is having a real hard time of it, yet he doesn't play that badly.
Learn the names of new notes from the outset. The student will never be confused later on.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Erica
Date: 2001-03-02 23:17
Don Poulsen: "Eventually, the subconscious mind takes over and when you see the note your fingers automatically go to the right position. You will do better in most any physical activity when you are able to relax and stop thinking about how to do it and just let your subconscious mind take over."
That goes for marching band in memorizing your music too. If I was asked to play last year's field show, I could do, no doubt I'd fumble my way through some of it, but I could do. However, if you asked me to write it out, I wouldn't get very far. Fingering's, to me, seem like they have to be subconscious, where as things like dynamics, tempo etc. are all conscious thoughts that I have to concentrate on.
And regarding Meri's idea about teaching playing, and reading music seperately, I know that that would not work for me. I think part of the reason I picked up on reading music as quickly as I did was because I could associate the symbol with the note. I can see how that (teaching playing & reading seperately) would work, but honestly, I think it'd be easier to learn to play when you have symbols to associate what you're playing with. It might take a lot longer for a player taught to play & read seperately to catch on. Think about it, for say two weeks all you do is play. Then you're introduced to sheet music. You'd have to go back and re-learn what you just practiced playing, but with funky little dots and 5 lines in front of you. Seems to me like that would be taking a step backward. But that's just my opinion.
Erica
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jerry
Date: 2001-03-03 00:14
AL
"We're having a difficult time communicating. I might ask him to play a passage again for example,"third line starting on the low
G." I get a blank stare. I might say, "the Eb major arpeggio consists of Eb, G and Bb. Just keep repeating the same pitches for
the upper octave. Play 8th note triplets."
I might as well be speaking a foreign language."
Having started from "0" .............never a music lesson in my life and having no idea of what any of this is all about until last Sept., I strongly disagree. At this point (in my very, very, humble musical career) I can write down all the notes from "F" below the staff to "C" or so above. I can now play them up to "A" on the staff without the fingering chart.
I'm on my second instructor plus a lot of self-study. But the quote here, taken from your post above, *IS* a foreign language to me I haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about and sympathize with the seventh grader - would have probably dropped out of band if I were him (and I could have been 50 years ago if I had had the music bug at that time). "......'the Eb major arpeggio consists of Eb, G and Bb." What in the^*&%$ is all that? "...pitches for
the upper octave. Play 8th note triplets.' " I can recognize an 8th note as it appears on the music but pitches, upper octaves, and triplets.
If I'm supposed to know all that stuff after 6 months, I may as well throw in the swab ....... anyone like to buy a nice beginner's CL?
I think I like the other's answers better. Thanks for everyones input.
~ jerry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim M.
Date: 2001-03-03 01:36
IMO, truly advanced music reading and playing goes beyond what even Ken has described. As opposed to ever-more-efficiently recognizing groups of notes as past-learned patterns and then recreating the mechanics, I believe that a highly skilled musician will read the music, then "envision" (?) the sound the notes intend, then make the sound that was envisioned. There is no thought to the notes or mechanics--there is only the sound. Infrequently I reach this Nirvanic state, at which point I really feel the joy of making music. To me this is the musician's "zone."
Best regards all,
JDM
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jo
Date: 2001-03-03 05:33
I compare learning to read music to learning to read langage or words. When a child first starts to read, they see the word red as R E D. They sound it out and put it together. As they get more advanced, they will just be able to recognize the word without having to put the letters together.
Reading music is the same concept- you start out reading notes and putting the notes to the fingerings- kind of a three step process- 1. Read 2. Recognize 3. Translate to fingering.
As you get more advanced, you skip step 2- your eyes see a note and your fingers automatically go to the fingering.
Learning to read ahead is like learning to read aloud. Again, when a child starts to read, the often go word for word (very frustrating to listen to- the... dog.. ran.. f..fa..st..fast. - You know what I mean.) As they get older, they learn to read a few words at a time, and eventually a whole sentence so it comes out more fluid- The dog ran fast.
As a musician gets more advanced, they read ahead in the music more and the brain is ready for what is approaching. It's a VERY cool thing!!
Good luck!!
Jodi
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jerry
Date: 2001-03-03 10:39
JO
"...they learn to read a few words at a time, and eventually a whole sentence so it comes out more fluid- The dog ran fast."
Is this *fluidity* what my teacher describes as focus? He says as we continue with our learning/practicing, the sound should become more focused. I asked, "...focus...?" so he played unfocused and then focused. I thought, "Uh Oh - I'm in trouble. I can't tell the diference in what he played."
Thanks again.
~ jerry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2001-03-03 11:49
Al wrote:
>
> I recently acquired a new student.;seventh grader. He'd
> never been taught the names of the notes nor the note
> values.(quarter,half,etc.) ...
> Learn the names of new notes from the outset. The student will
> never be confused later on.
I definitely agree with that. Things you learn early stick with you the longest. I believe that a student needs to learn two direct associations. In a way, these are somewhat indepent associations. Both of these should be taught from the beginning.
1. Directly associate the printed note with the fingering. i.e. He/she doesn't not have to think the note name before playing.
2. Directly associate the note name with the fingering. i.e. If the instructor says play "chalumeau Bb," the student knows exactly what note is being requested and plays it. At a some later point in time, the student needs to learn the relationship to the key of his/her instrument and concert pitch.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2001-03-03 12:01
jerry wrote:
>
> ... I'm on my second instructor plus a lot of self-study. But the
> quote here, taken from your post above, *IS* a foreign language
> to me I haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking
> about and sympathize with the seventh grader - would have
> probably dropped out of band if I were him (and I could have
> been 50 years ago if I had had the music bug at that time).
> "......'the Eb major arpeggio consists of Eb, G and Bb." What
> in the^*&%$ is all that? "...pitches for
> the upper octave. Play 8th note triplets.' " I can recognize
> an 8th note as it appears on the music but pitches, upper
> octaves, and triplets.
>
> If I'm supposed to know all that stuff after 6 months, I may as
> well throw in the swab ....... anyone like to buy a nice
> beginner's CL?
No one has said that a student is supposed to know all this after 6 months. I would be extremely surprised if they did. If the student referred to in the earlier post is in the 7th grade, there is a good chance that he has been playing for a couple of years if he started with a typical school band program. There is a tremendous amount of time difference between 6 months and two years. By that time, a student should know the names of the notes, octaves, and descriptions such as "8th note triplets." At the two year level, the student should be learning or ready to learn what an arpeggio is and should be able to play it after the instructor tells him or shows him in his method book what notes go into that arpeggio.
Learning something tends to accelerate as you learn. Consider how much you have learned in a mere 6 months. In two years, you could conceivably learn not just four times as much as you know now but perhaps 8 to 16 times as much. Of course there may be occasional plateaus and even steps backward, but after one of these, a student generally "takes off" and makes up that ground and then some.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2001-03-03 12:08
jerry wrote:
>
> Is this *fluidity* what my teacher describes as focus? He says
> as we continue with our learning/practicing, the sound should
> become more focused. I asked, "...focus...?" so he played
> unfocused and then focused. I thought, "Uh Oh - I'm in trouble.
> I can't tell the diference in what he played."
I believe that he is referring more to tonal characteristics than anything else. I suspect, however, that he may actually be failing to play "unfocused" since he has no doubt played for quite some time. An unfocused sound may seem fuzzy or airy or not carry well to other parts of the room or somehow just lacking and uninspiring. A focused sound is beautiful in its own right. It is clear without a hint of airiness and even when played softly will carry well out to the audience. It doesn't have to be a passage but can be heard on a single held note. A person can play quite "fluidly" but still lack focus.
However, I suggest that you ask your instructor to try to explain in words what he means. Tell him that your ear isn't yet experience enough to hear the difference in the two examples that he plays so that you need some guidance as to exactly what to try to listen for. Afterall he could be using the term differently than I might expect him to.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2001-03-03 19:10
Just want to add a question! Thinking over my playing on Bb and bass, I find I frequently play clarion notes an octave low [in the bass's great chalumeau] so as , in comm. band, to support the tubas and bassoon rather than the trombones and baritones, likewise to provide more bass in our church orch. In doing so, I dont recall having to go thru the note-name stage to accomplish the different fingerings. Any thots and comments? Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jerry
Date: 2001-03-04 20:15
I just got to thinking of when I learned to copy morse code (25+ years ago). At first I had to learn what combination of dots and dashes made an alpha/numeric character. This was done audibly and when the sound was heard, the mind matched the combination of sounds to a character and the character was put to paper. At no time (as a rule) did one write dots and dashes as they were heard and code copy by character was finally learned until I was able to pass the required 5 wpm.
Now at 20-25 wpm I never here dots and dashes only characters (and some words). Because it is dificult to write faster than 25 wpm (if I could only type.....), in order to break the 25 wpm threshold, one must learn to *hear* words and phrases - this has been challenging for me. There are those, however, who can copy 40, 50, even 60 wpm.
I should recall too, that during four years of Spanish lessons this same regimen became apparent. One has to get to the point where there is no awareness of the translation. In fact, there may be no "translation" at all. When a foreign language is learned, one thinks in the language used to speak, with no translating process. I stunned myself while reading a spanish novel (in college years ago - I've lost it now) and found myself thinking (and laughing - it was a comedy) in that language as I read.
Maybe this helps me to answer some of my own questions. Thanks to everyone for the input.
~ jerry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
