Author: annev
Date: 2011-12-27 15:24
My teacher uses this "master class" style of teaching, although I never recognized it as such. As an adult amateur, I find it a great way to learn. We start with any technical questions I've uncovered - things from scales, thirds, arpeggios, etc., which are part of my daily practice. Those questions can cover anything, from fingerings, to articulation, to tone production, and so on. Then we usually go through an etude that I'm working on. I chose the etudes based on what area it feels like I need to build on - often there are specific things I can identify, but if not then I make sure to alternate them around - different key signatures, tempos, musical styles and so on. Then we look at whatever repertoire piece I've brought (usually I have two or three of these on the go so we chose one to look at) and we often finish with a duet. The duets are probably the only thing I don't self-select - we're just sequentially working through Voxman and there are lots of lovely duets in there.
At first I was surprised that my teacher didn't assign specific music to work on, but I actually really like it. I usually have a pretty good idea of where the (numerous) holes are in my learning, and I can feel how things develop and build. I think it helps in terms of supplying knowledge where the student is open and ready to receive it.
I've noticed that my teacher uses a more structured version of this with his high school students. He assigns specific music (etude, repertoire, duet), but is also open to having them bring in something they are struggling with from school band or elsewhere. Sometimes the lesson will "derail" completely into whatever learning issue they bring from this outside music. It's a semi-free form version of what I recieve.
Like Bob's comment above, the lessons are probably the best musical investment I could ever have!
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
