 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Laur
Date: 2002-01-18 16:23
Hi !
I've been taking music theory at my high school for the past 3 years. When did Music Theory become sitting infront of a computer working with MIDI keyboards, Finale and just composing ? This isn't just my high school... A lot of kids i've spoken to have the same set up. Isn't music theory the basic fundomentals ? I've been taking college theory tests admissions, and sorry.. there are no keyboards, and the note to compose a song. Where do you learn " Theory" anymore ? !
A frustrated laurie.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kim L.
Date: 2002-01-18 16:44
They shouldn't be doing that. IMHO, the only way to properly learn theory is through pencil and paper. At my college, we have the option to use Finale if we don't understand the concepts in the classroom. I think you should say something. Just a question--How are you finding those admissions tests? When I took mine I found them quite hard.
Kim L.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joe O'Kelly
Date: 2002-01-18 17:02
In my school the teacher teaches us and makes us takes notes using the old pencil and paper as well as using the computers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2002-01-18 17:22
Laur,
It's evolution. As everything becomes more computerized, there is less personal practical skill involved in teaching, both on the teacher's and the student's part. Flesh and blood teachers cost more to "upkeep" than workstations, so computers with automated teaching and "doing" systems are used instead..
I don't know if you have seen it yet, but there are complete interactive learning systems being offered by some universities, both for home and school use. In these, a classroom equipped with a large TV set(s) and a satellite receiver is used in conjunction with some sort of a Telaid unit to teach classes. A single teacher can provide lessons, nationwide, through a wide area network. They call it "Distant Learning."
If you are a student and you have questions, you press the telaid unit's button and the teacher calls on you to state your question, your voice is heard asking it, then the teacher answers it through the system.
The teacher can't see you, but he/she is in a TV studio at the university and you can see him/her, the chalkboard and whatever other teaching aids they may use.
The system is doubly effective (for the university providing it) as the universities' broadcast media students then also have a place to effectively learn their profession as well.
It's being used for everything from grammar school to post graduate courses, and many private schools are using it to save money on teachers' salaries, while universities are using it to rake in the bucks.
When I went to grammar and jr. high, we were not allowed to use calculators. In high school we were allowed to use them for everything, except tests and exams.
In college nobody cared what you used as long as it helped you get through the courses. As a school requirement, my children had scientific calculators starting in middle school.
Now you see students carrying lap-top computers to school in some universities. What next?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-01-18 17:34
Peter said:
>It's evolution.
Laur said she wasn't learning the fundamentals - that ain't evolution!
I used a "learning machine" 35 years ago in high school - the technique isn't new at all. Distance learning (via snail mail) has been around at least as long, probably longer. It's just a lot more interactive now, but the methodology hasn't changed much.
Face time still counts for a lot in every aspect of life, too.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wendy
Date: 2002-01-18 17:58
Peter said "Now you see students carrying lap-top computers to school in some universities. What next?"
Niagara Falls (NY) High School gives a lap-top to every incoming freshman to use for the 4 years they are there.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: KayR
Date: 2002-01-18 18:51
It seems to me that the basics of music theory should be something you learn from your instrumental teacher. My daughter has been taking piano for a year now. Her lessons include work from a book called "Scales and Chords are Fun". (I had the same book when I took piano lessons many years ago.) From her teacher she's learned major and minor scales, is working on assorted modal scales, chord inversions, how to hear different intervals...in general, everything I remember learning from my college music theory class. She doesn't have to go through pieces and write down all the chords and inversions as we did for assignments and tests, but then again, she's only 8 years old.
My son has been taking clarinet for 3 years now (he's 12). Although he's not having to identify chord inversions (those are kind of hard to play on clarinet), his school tests involve playing major and minor scales and arpeggios. As they progress through the school system, they're also taught the basics of transposing. Jazz band includes learning improvisation, which again requires knowing some basic music theory, and that is also taught by the band teacher.
It may be that Laurie's teacher assumes that someone in their third year of a high school music theory class learned the basics while playing an instrument. Even in the first year of music theory, were no basics taught? Approaching your teacher, and asking about it might be a good thing to do. If nothing else, the teacher could suggest a basic text to read.
KayR
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2002-01-18 19:24
Mark,
You can't compare the "learn by snail mail" home study methods, the on-premisses closed circuit TV systems or the microfiche of your (and my) youth with the modern systems by satellite communications.
While a minimal number of individual students might have done so, schools did not subscribe to "home study courses" and, for the most part, as I remember it, they were ridiculed by most people.
This interactive thing, as you might know by virtue of what you do for a living, is serious stuff. In fact, there is actually a very fast growing market in home education, from kindergarten to post graduate work, all due to it. There are people in the U.S. (and perhaps elsewhere) who graduated from college, with duly accredited degrees, who never stepped inside a classroom at any level of their education.
At some otherwise "normal" elementary, middle and high schools, whether a student graduates or not, may depend on one of these systems. It was not so before.
The most I remember from the old system was that it started out being lessons by "snail" mail (that has been around since the 1800s) then a telephone number you could call to ask questions, if you must, was added, after telephones became more widely used. Then lectures and related programing were added by way of a TV set through the local off-air public service station(s,) etc.
It was much different than what they have now.
Still, O.K., whatever.
Wendy,
Cool.
Do they make the parents pay for them if they get damaged and/or stolen, etc., while in the student's possesion? That's a lot of bucks!
I agree with the practice of students having personal computers for school use, as it's the wave of the future and, as such, young people may as well get a head start, but no machine can replace being able to do it all in your head, if you have to.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-01-18 19:42
Peter wrote:
the microfiche of your
(and my) youth
-----------
It wasn't. It was early CBT. Don't make assumptions about what I did in my youth.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-01-18 19:44
And, Peter, by the way, I work in the computer field for a living and I'm well aware of what's available via computer, satellite, and multimedia, having been intimately familiar with it by writing custom software for GM's education department in very recent history.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wendy
Date: 2002-01-18 20:11
Peter - At first they didn't charge parents for damage or loss, but this got so costly that they have cracked down. Now they decide on a case by case basis depending on how it was damaged or stolen.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2002-01-18 20:39
This is new to me. I mean, as a music major in high school, way back in the Olden Days  - the 'fifties', we hadn't even heard the term 'computer' as it's understood today. Pencil and staff paper, keyboard (piano, of all things!), music dictation and working things out on the chalkboard was standard procedure. Our teacher was well liked and class participation was right near 100%. The class was small enough that everyone got what was being taught or we waited 'til stragglers caught up. Not one of us, to my knowledge, became a muscial whiz but we all had a much better understanding of the 'nuts and bolts' it takes to make music happen.
Being caught with a handheld calculator, had there been such a thing, would have been grounds for sever disciplinary action. It would have been called - LOL -
8[ CHEATING!!! ]
My, how times have changed... in many ways for the better, I'll have to admit. In a music theory class today, although I remember what a chromatic scale is :] I'm sure I'd be right there with the rest of the ground floor beginners
While I may have exaggerated a little to make a point or two, I'm amazed at how quickly things are developing... even in the music department.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2002-01-18 21:34
Computers can be powerful tools for learning and for teaching. The key word here is 'tool.' Pencil and paper are also tools for learning. Yeah, computers are a lot more powerful, but still just a tool. There are circumstances in education when a pencil and paper can actually hinder the proper learning process. One example would be using a pencil and paper to solve simple math problems that you should be learning to do mentally. I suppose much the same thing could happen in music by using Finale 2000 or similar software to convert the learning process into an mechanical process.
Just the other day I read a post by someone who was using software to transpose a part for A clarinet into Bb. Transposing from A to Bb and C to Bb on the fly was a basic skill that almost every clarinet teacher that I have ever had insisted upon. Most teachers saw benefits to this kind of skill that go far beyond just the occasional need to transpose a part to Bb. One teacher insisted that transposition skills developed better concentration.
My point, I suppose, is that a powerful tool sometimes becomes a crutch, and a crutch is a poor friend when you’re called upon to run.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jenna
Date: 2002-01-18 22:43
I've never taken our school's theory classes, but I've been an office aid in the music department (lovingly called a band-aid) for 3 years, two of those years during the same period as a theory class. We have, rather than actual music theory, Beginning Keyboarding and Midi Composition. Both are theory classes, though. While they are taught with students sitting in front of computers hooked to midi keyboards equipped with Finale, the teacher is still very involved. He uses various method books in both classes, and teaches concepts about chords and scales and note values on the chalkboard. The computer systems are reinforcements.
I worry more about theory in elementary schools. I didn't know much of anything until I got to middle/high school and got a dose of theory in my 7th and 8th grade bands. I was just lucky I got the privledge to work with 4 amazingly talented music teachers when I got out of my elementary school. Too bad none play clarient, though.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim E.
Date: 2002-01-19 03:53
My son's school offers a choice - theory with computers, or traditional theory at the AP level. He takes the latter this year.
Drew Univ in Madison NJ (not a music school) has supplied laptops to all students for at least the past 7 years. (Drew is an upscale school in tuition costs.) The laptops are the students to keep after graduation, students leaving earlier have to turn them in. They find little problem with theft as everyone has the same, and each new class has better units than the earlier classes. Drew is in an affluient suburban situation and is somewhat secluded from the public (though it is an open campus.) My niece is a grad, class of 2001. I was a grad student there in the mid 70s. (Then, they wouldn't even allow cable TV on campus, but later were among the first to encourage computers.)
I suspect most players of wind instruments including clarinetists learn little about harmonic structure from their instrument teachers as these instruments cannot sound more than one tone at a time. This makes theory (and/ or piano lessons) important to the overall development as musicians of these players.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2002-01-19 16:28
My students learn theory via the Master Theory Workbook (published by Kjos). It is a terrific, easy-to-use series of books that they use as beginners to learn their notes names and rhythms, and that they use as pre-jazzers to understand chords and harmony. At the end of the third volume, the kids can write their own duets over simple songs, an choose I, IV, V chords for accompaniment.
Laur - If you're not getting your basics, pick up the first 3 volumes of this. Most of the music stores sell them and they're only about $4 apiece. Also, check your library to see if they have Classical Music for Dummies. Chapter 11 is an outstanding crash course.
Jenna - I agree that theory is thorny in Elementary School, but I/IV/V harmony is a plank on our 5th Grade Standards of Learning in Virginia. How to do it? Pick a simple 3-chord song that the child has learned to sing. Take an autoharp (or a cheesy electronic keyboard with automatic chords) and mark the three keys that they can choose from. Then use the same method to play some recognizable pop tune (I usually opt for "Hound Dog") telling the child that they have just accomplished something using this same technology. I can't see teaching a whole course at that level, but little projects like this can be fun and informative.
Jim E. - I believe you're right. Theory is not a popular subject with teachers of band instruments in my area, and some of my students would prefer not to do it. However, I have been insisting on it for some years and I usually get more students into the All-District band than anyone else. This stuff is not rocket science, and my formula for well-balanced instruction is below.
My Rx for Theory in Instrument Lessons:
1 - Use Master Theory. It's a great commonsense course, and it's very gradual. Very easy to integrate with instrument lessons. (I have a concordance on my website with some playable examples at http://allencole.tripod.com/mthelp.htm)
Work should be in pencil only and everything must be corrected. Tell the student that he/she is writing his/her own handbook. (I like to compare it with the concept of being able to fix a car that you've built yourself)
Alfred also has a good book with CDs, but there are not enough exercises IMO for solid reinforcement.
2 - Begin ear training and transposing early. My guys learn learn how each scale amounts to 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-1 from the beginning, and use the numbers as a method of transposition playing simple songs by ear. (it also teaches them the sound of the scale elements relative to the tonal center) We treat it like working a puzzle. The number method was chosen 1) because it is self-correcting (consecutive intervals fall apart after one mistake) and 2) because it is actively used by pop musicians and gives formally trained musicians a basis for interfacing with non-reading musicians.
Towards high school, they use this transposition method to write their technical exercises (scales, scales-in-thirds, I/IV/V arpeggios) and memorize them. This puts technique and theory under their fingers for step 3.
3 - Integrate as it all starts to mature. By time Master Theory has taught my guys about chords and harmony, they already have the tools in their ears and fingers via the scales skills they wrote and practiced. Theory teaches them how to use it.
Final exam: Write the melody to a simple song, choose the I/IV/V chords needed, and then write a harmony part making it a duet. We test the results by playing the melody into a tape recorder and then playing arpeggios (and later testing the harmony part) along with the recorded melody. No piano needed. (I do, however encourage the use of piano, guitar, autoharp, or cheesy Casio/Yamaha keyboards to help in learning chord choice)
4 - Don't fear computers. Once my guys pass basic theory, I encourage them to try Noteworthy Composer for further experiments. It's full featured, easy to learn, and cheap at $40. (http://noteworthycomposer.com) Using this and their basic course, they can pursue any number of things:
A - Advanced theory. The computer program substitutes for the piano when chorale writing, etc. Chording of songs can be quickly tried by copying and pasting left-hand segments.
B - Jazz/Pop issues. Improv & arranging go a lot better if you know what you're hearing and have scales and chords under your fingers in all keys.
C - Arranging. After book 3, it's easy to arrange up to 4 parts, based on the old Austrian military band formula. It's not much work to write up a Christmas carol or church hymn for whatever four instruments are at your disposal.
Part 1 - Melody
Part 2 - Harmony (based primarily on diatonic 3rds & 6ths)
Part 3 - Arpeggios (computer modeling helps in avoiding clashes with parts 1 & 2)
Part 4 - Bass (easily determined by chord choice)
I encourage the guys write things along this formula for summer chamber groups to try--although no one took me up on it the first year.
The best thing about this program is that it is very practical, and doesn't require a piano or that the instrumental teacher be a genius. The actual technology is probably less than that of a good amateur guitar player. Most schooled musicians should be able to make the transition to paper.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2002-01-19 16:33
One amendment to the my previous post. I don't propose the outlined program necessarily for schools. It's what I use in private lessons.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken
Date: 2002-01-20 21:43
Allen, wow, an absolutely stellar entry-level theory program and among the most informative/helpful posts I've had the pleasure to read on this BB. I will definitely incorporate a few modules into my own method and for my students. Thank You!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2002-01-20 22:03
In my day (high school in the 70s) I learned all my theory, counterpoint and harmony (etc etc) from Dr William Lovelock's wonderful series First, Second and Third Year Harmony, Free Counterpoint and Form in Brief. These harmony books were written with the 3 year University level music theory course in mind, hence First, Second and Third Year - in their titles.
My teacher was very "old school" and played the pipe organ, so he was fantastic as a harmony/counterpoint teacher.
My only criticism with Lovelock is that he gives no "suggested answers" to the numerous exerices that he sets throughout the book(s). However, if your theory teacher is profecient (and he/she should be) then that is where you will get your guidance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2002-01-21 03:31
Diz raises an interesting point here, and I think that it may bring us back to Laur's original dilemma. Laur appears to be taking a fairly advanced level of theory without a solid foundation in the rock-bottom basics. I find the same problem in young jazz students who have no background in theory or playing by ear before beginning their Jamey Aebersold coursework. Few hot solos (or intricate chorales or fugues) are likely to come forth from someone who can't play Jingle Bells by ear, or feel two-part harmony.
This is the beauty of the Master Theory Books. They keep it simple, move slow, and have a lot of exercises. Some instrumental teachers are uncomfortable with the whole theory thing, and such people should probably not be teaching counterpoint, chorale writing, etc. But the Master Theory series is definitely not rocket science and I think that the student benefits from constant and repeated immersion in key signatures, rhythms, the basic scales, and basic chords. Almost any teacher will be comfortable with this, and it all relates directly back to the playing of the instrument itself.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2002-01-21 04:20
good point ... I also feel music teacher should not teach theory or musicianship unless they have a flair for it. I had seperate teachers: instrumental and theory. Worked well for me .. I still reckon I could sit down and "work out" a 16 bar "tune" harmonize it, modulate AND make it look like Bach's Chorales in style .. and it's been years since I did this. That all boils down to learning well, and learning theory early on.
One final tip ... every time you learn a new work by a new composer, make sure you grab your reference dictionary (Groves is great) and at least read about the composer. My clarinet teacher made me keep a book full of biographies etc, I've never regretted it for a moment.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
