 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2014-07-13 19:54
I enjoy reading Noa Kagemaya's blog, and his latest article really rings true to my musical education (or rather lack of) and my struggle to interpret what's on a page.
I quit all music classes except clarinet lessons when I was 15 and now I can only use my ear and gut to understand a piece, leaving much to be desired in my interpretation choices.
http://www.bulletproofmusician.com/why-i-should-have-paid-more-attention-in-music-theory-class/
Here is one of my favorite quote:
"For me, the takeaway is that pure intuition, instinct, and feel are necessary, but not sufficient. We also need some structure, some understanding of the fundamental principles that make music work, in order to take our art to the highest level."
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2014-07-13 20:08
I don't know, perhaps the quote is true for some people. Personally, I don't like Hindemith's music, yet we are aware that he was well versed in music theory.
On the positive side, I think knowing something about music theory has helped me understand Sheryl Crow's version of "Begin The Beguine". I assume you are talking about Western Music theory.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2014-07-13 20:23
I am talking about music theory in general, but yes in my case it is western music.
Understanding it is important at so many levels from the most "local" decisions, such as knowing your place in a chord to tune and balance it, to intermediate ones such as recognizing the structure of phrase, to global ones such as understanding the overall architecture of a piece.
Pieces are carefully crafted by composers following, bending and breaking rules of harmony, rhythm and structure and I guess the point being made is that having a good "feel" for these doesn't quite get you all the way to a successful interpretation.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2014-07-14 00:40
The pedagogical material for clarinet instruction ought to include much more explanation of how to count time and subdivide meter, especially the mixed meters introduced into Western music since the time of Stravinsky and on through to Elliot Carter, Boulez, and beyond. It also could do much more to give the clarinetists a sense of how classical music uses chord progressions compared to the way popular music and jazz uses them.
A very detailed and understandable presentation of classic music theory is presented in composer Elie Seigmeister's two volume work Harmony and Melody: The Diatonic Style (Vol 1) , and Modulation, Chromatic and Modern Styles (Vol 2). Many of his examples can be written out linearly in arpeggiated style for clarinets to play. These books are out of print but used copies are not hard to find.
Playing through college-level sight-singing books with selections drawn from centuries of Western music should also be part of every clarinetist's training. These take the clarinetist way beyond the usual "warhorse" rhythmic and harmonic material found in Klose, Rose, Cavallini, and even Jeanjean.
Saxophone books by Joe Viola and Lennie Nehaus explore how jazz uses chordal and rhythm patterns in ways most of the standard study books for clarinet do not.
Post Edited (2014-07-14 02:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2014-07-15 22:32
I think that theory is most relevant if you are composing, arranging or teaching. In performance as a soloist or member of the ensemble, all you need to do is playing the correct notes in tune with the correct rhythm. To do this does not need a knowledge of the music's chord progressions. However, in jazz, its a total different story. A knowledge of chordal function is essential to effectively improvise solos.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2014-07-15 22:44
William wrote:
In performance as a soloist or member of the ensemble, all you need to do is playing the correct notes in tune with the correct rhythm. To do this does not need a knowledge of the music's chord progressions.
-------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, but you are *so* wrong. How can you tune the third of a chord if you don't know what the third is?
Or are you one of those guys who point to the tuner and say, "See, the needle is right in the center, so I must be in tune"?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2014-07-15 23:17
William said:
"all you need to do is playing the correct notes in tune with the correct rhythm"
While I still can't achieve these two things reliably, I would still like to think that there is a little more than this to music interpretation, some of which can only be achieved with a proper background in music theory (and many other things).
rmk54 said:
"How can you tune the third of a chord if you don't know what the third is?"
Not only that, but the type of chord will dictate the tuning.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TJTG
Date: 2014-07-16 00:11
The first discussion held in my Music 101 course as an undergrad was: Respond to this statement "Theoretical knowledge of music enhances the listening experience beyond that of a "layman" listener. Do you agree or disagree?"
I was very adamant in my thinking that music was music and we can all come together and enjoy it as such. I thought too much time was spent on chords and theory and things I did not believe were necessary to ENJOY music.
My view has changed considerably after my education. Both music theory and history, and world history, help inform a performer on whatever they're playing. Educated empowers a musician to make their own interpretive choices. Any field has an huge amount of information to learn, which can lead to improvement in that subject. The more educated I've become the more I realize I don't know enough.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2014-07-16 04:24
TJTG wrote:
>
> I was very adamant in my thinking that music was music and we
> can all come together and enjoy it as such.
>
> My view has changed considerably after my education. Both music
> theory and history, and world history, help inform a performer
> on whatever they're playing.
I think you've touched on both sides of the coin. It's true enough that at some level we *can* all "come together and enjoy" music for its own intrinsic qualities. But it seems also clearly to be true that with an understanding of the inner workings of the music, the theory on which the musical creation is built, we can enjoy the same music in a different, more analytic way. This is true for both listeners and performers.
To say that an understanding of theory is unnecessary in order to perform at one level is true enough. To say that it's irrelevant to the way a performer experiences and, therefore, reacts, to the context in which he's working seems to me to miss something. At a certain level of performance those reactions are an essential part of the process.
On the other hand, theoretical understanding can to a degree come to an especially perceptive musician from simple experience and doesn't need to be gotten through formal instruction. Even without the right terminology or systematic study, much that we explain with formal theory can be internalized without a person's even being aware of it.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2014-07-16 12:41
rmk54 wrote:
> ... How can you tune the third
> of a chord if you don't know what the third is?
>
By instinct and listening. You just have to make it sound right.
> Or are you one of those guys who point to the tuner and say,
> "See, the needle is right in the center, so I must be in tune"?
Do you point at the tuner and say it's the third and 14 cents flat so it's right? I assume not. You just listen and make it sound right.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2014-07-16 16:15
Dibbs wrote:
> rmk54 wrote:
> By instinct and listening. You just have to make it sound
> right.
----------------------------------------------------
You mean you just *know* what position the note is in the chord without any training? I'm afraid that is a bit naive.
> Do you point at the tuner and say it's the third and 14 cents
> flat so it's right? I assume not. You just listen and make it
> sound right.
-------------------------------------------------------
My father-in-law used to say, "When you assume you make an ass out of u and me".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2014-07-16 16:39
No, not knowing what position the note is in the chord but hearing whether the intervals are pure or not and compensating appropriately.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2014-07-16 17:19
But you can't do that without knowing the theory behind intervals...
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2014-07-16 18:18
Surely someone can hear beats without knowing what causes them and can also figure out how to eliminate them by slightly altering the pitch.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2014-07-16 18:35
rmk54 responded:
"I'm sorry, but you are *so* wrong. How can you tune the third of a chord if you don't know what the third is?"
Unless you have Van Gogh's "ear", you do what most real musicians do and *listen*. Playing in tune requires a lot of co operation with all others around you and is NOT dictated by "what chord" was written by the composer. It doesn't really matter if it's the third, fifth, seventh or root unison of any chord, what is most important and the musicians only guide is to listen and make certain you match those players around you. Especially true when you are playing with operatic divas who "know" they are always "in tune". LOL
Music theory is only necessary when composing or arranging, teaching or conducting, and playing jazz--therefore, it is a valuable course of study for any musician. However, to sit in the clarinetist's chair and play musically and in tune, one only needs to have a background of sound instrumental technique and a good ear for intonation. If you think you are in tune solely because you know what tone of the chord you are playing, you must be watching your tuning needle too closely.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2014-07-16 20:02
I've played clarinet for 30+ years. I have even been paid to do so at times.
I have never taken a music theory course and I barely know how to recognize a minor from a major chord. All in all though, I can pretty convincingly fake my way through orchestral literature and a tiny bit of chamber/solo pieces. In orchestra this is somewhat easier as the conductor bears much of the responsibility of interpretation.
Yet, in my heart, I know I am *faking* it. Last time I worked on the Brahms sonata was with a properly trained pianist who opened my eyes to the importance of at least attempting to understand the score. I'm not talking about tuning or playing the right rhythm, but about making decisions about how to structure our phrases, where are the high points we want to emphasize. This was very humbling and demoralizing to realize how poorly I have approached this music.
But even music theory is just a small part of the equation. Music history, performance practices and other contextual knowledge are all important ingredients to add to the recipe for a successful (or at least informed) interpretation of a piece.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2014-07-17 22:38
William wrote:
> Well said, Sylvain--I totally agree.
-------------------------------------------------------
Really? He just disputed everything you ranted about.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bubalooy
Date: 2014-07-19 02:24
I'll weigh in on this one. If you're playing the Brahms, I would hold that you should ideally do a complete analysis of the piece, not just the clarinet part, before you play a note of it. This analysis should contribute substantially toward making good decisions about how you want to play the piece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
