Is the Classical Community (Teachers) ignorant or prejudice?

[CaptainUnderpant]

As you can tell there is a little bit of a chip on my shoulder about my childhood piano lessons. So I apologize in advance...

 

Last week I was at a neighbors home, he wanted me to show me his new pool and he mentioned that is wife was a concert pianist and teaches. Since my current teacher just told me she was moving to Nashville, I decided to pick her brains. We felt each other out, based upon what I would like to learn and what her specialty was. The conversation finished with her statement that "You either sight read OR you play by ear. But nobody does both".

 

I already new that we would not be a good fit, as she only does classical, but that statement just soooooo rubbed me the wrong way, and brought up my distaste for my original childhood classical piano lessons.

 

This is my analogy about classical training. Let us say you want to learn creative writing. So each week for 52 weeks, you show up and are assigned a short story. You put this short story in front of you and you re-type the story on your typewriter. At the end of the year you are now an expert in creative writing. Anybody can see regurgitating words on a page, teaches you nothing about creative writing. Yet this is the formula for classical teaching (from my experience).

 

In 8 years of classical training (from a very reputable teacher) I was never taught music theory / chord structure / playing by ear. And combine that with my neighbors statement regarding One or the Other. It appears that the classical community some how disregards playing by ear. Yet all of the people that I know that can play well by ear, always say they wished they could sight read or sight read better. In addition, your contemporary music schools, MIT - Hollywood and Berklee - Boston teach both. So I don't see the contemporary "Play by Ear", school of thought down play being able to sight read. It seems to be only one sided where the classical community has a certain "snobery" about being able to just play without sheet music.

 

I bring this up because when I learned some music theory and how to play by ear, the entire world opened up for me and my love of being able to play music started at this point. It was like the light bulb went off in my head. While I don't regret the 8 years of classical training while I was younger. I basically hated piano and was forced by Nazi Mom to practice everyday. Could the experience have been more rewarding if I were taught to be a complete musician? Very likely.

 

Thanks for reading my rant.

 

Am I wrong about the classical community.?

[rockkeys]

Great musicians can do both, but not equally well. In this sense I get what she's saying. Great improvisers will always struggle to some degree with sight reading and vice versa.

 

As for playing by ear,sure Berklee has their methods, but at the end of the day, I don't think you can teach someone to play by ear. You can teach someone every chord-scale, ear-train, transcribe, etc., but at end of the day either you can, or you can't improvise. Sight reading, on the other hand, can be taught.

[yorgatron]

Sight reading, on the other hand, can be taught.

 

not to me it can't!

 

seriously though, how does one find a teacher, especially if you want to learn electric piano, or clavinet, or organ techniques?

[Dana.]

I have a few friends in their 20s who are classically trained musicians (piano, flute, clarinet, etc.). None of them play by ear or improvise; they only sight read.

[David Loving]

I think I see where she's coming from. All due respect, but you're wrong. What is your definition of sight reading? If it is defined as being able to sit down, play about perfect and in tempo, any sheet music that you have never seen before - cold, then I think she's close to right. I can play by ear and I can read - I practice classical stuff daily and I work from sheet music. I have always been able to play by ear and was not taught how to do it. But I can't sight read as defined above. I work on it religiously and my reading is improved (it's actually quite good) but I can't sit down cold and play a new piece of sheet music I have never seen before accurately and in tempo - even though I aspire to and work towards it. I think she is right for most people - Mozart and Beethoven were probably exceptions to the rule. Another thing is one has to learn to like practicing. Learning classical from sheet music, I see it as learning new ideas that are much better than anything I come up with. Lessons and all one has to get to loving practicing and do it as much as possible. Just my opinion.

[Bobadohshe]

"You either sight read OR you play by ear. But nobody does both"

 

Garbage

[rockkeys]

 

seriously though, how does one find a teacher, especially if you want to learn electric piano, or clavinet, or organ techniques?

not everything in this world is learnt in a classroom or in a teaching studio. Start with listening to your favorite records. Hang out in a jazz club, or wherever these instruments are still played. Ask people on this forum.

[Dugg64]

seriously though, how does one find a teacher, especially if you want to learn electric piano, or clavinet, or organ techniques?

 

If you're up for online lessons through Skype, Mark Harrison is truly awesome (at least for me he is). A former Grove School of Music instructor, Mark has written several contemporary keyboard style books for Hal Leonard. He's also the author of "The Pop Piano Book," an extremely thorough guide on how to play in a variety of popular keyboard styles.

 

For more info:

 

http://www.harrisonmusic.bizhosting.com/

 

 

[wmp]

The conversation finished with her statement that "You either sight read OR you play by ear. But nobody does both".

 

Jane, you ignorant ....

[midinut]

I had a classical teacher and church pianist once tell me she wouldn't take me on as a student because she didn't want to mess up my ear. She said I had a God given talent that she didn't want to tamper with.

 

Either that or she maybe just thought I played like shite.

 

On another note, I had several fellow band-mates and high school friends that went off to "conservatories" or "Schools of the Arts" and came back with no improvisational skills whatsoever. Before, they could sit down, learn tunes by ear, woodshed with the best of us, and after, no way. Couldn't function without the music.

 

Messed with my head for years. Still does. Undergoing therapy as we speak. lol

[Bobadohshe]

There's no reason to think of these 2 things as two mutually exclusive concepts. In fact, they can strengthen each other.

My ear helps with my reading tremendously. My reading helps me to visualize what I hear.

[Dana.]

I think the point here is that classical musicians (at least the ones that I know) sight read everything they play. To my knowledge, they haven't received any improvisatory or ear training. And why would they? If they're playing composed pieces of music, there's no need to improvise.

[timwat]

Another tangent thought - while the OP may not be looking to paint the entire classical community with one broad swath, that does seem to be the implication of this thread's title.

 

And that I'd disagree with. While this particular instructor may have her dogma up her karma (whatever that means) - I wouldn't think she necessarily represents the entire community.

 

Heck, I've heard pretty narrow, rigid "pronouncements from on high" from jazz instructors - and simply moved on until I found guys I felt comfortable learning from.

[Cloner]

Sight reading has always been a weakness for me because of my ear playing. When I took lessons as a kid, I never became an accomplished sight reader. I would get my teacher to play the song and would then play it by ear.

 

I would agree with her statement only in this regard: If you are a great ear player, you can play most pieces simply by listening to them. On the other hand, if you are a great sight reader, you can simply play any piece set in front of you. The inability to do both is more a matter of gravitating toward the easier method, depending on which way you lean. For me, it's a matter of laziness, I think. By ear is easier, so I have to really discipline myself to keep up the sight reading chops.

[JeffLearman]

There must be a lot of nobodies on this board!

 

The only music instruction I've had was a few years of sax in high school (it was a military school; the band practiced while the rest marched with 10 lb rifles ... I figured I could learn some instrument and the bandleader stuck a sax in my hands.)

 

I sure wish I'd learned to read piano music as a kid. I sometimes consider tyring it now. The problem is to go either way, you have to backtrack to much simpler stuff than you can handle on your own turf.

 

But anyone who says nobody does both just isn't in touch with reality, especially at the pro level (which I'm not at, but I know some guys on some forum who are!)

 

My reply would have been "So, Mozart, Bach -- those guys were nobody?"

[David Loving]

To me ear playing and sight-reading are mutually exclusive. I agree that the ability to play by ear is a gift that you can't really learn. I always played by ear because it was easy for me. I was not taught. I used to do it in piano lessons when I was young and got in trouble with the music teacher. I am grateful I can play by ear; play anything if I have heard it. Sight reading has got to be a gift, too. I'm talking here about reading strange music cold,perfectly and in tempo. I have never been able to do that, but I can read piano music, and still work on it - the old school way, 10-15 minutes a day.

[JeffLearman]

I totally disagree that playing by ear is a gift you can't learn.

 

Those of us who do it, learned. Having "an ear" is learned. Sure, some are naturally better than others, just like swinging a baseball bat. But while there may be a few born hitters, most hitters worked their asses off to learn it.

 

And ditto for sight reading. As with anything, those with a gift learn faster, but it doesn't mean the rest of us can't get to a "profficient" level with enough work.

 

Being able to play by ear does slow down learning to sight-read a bit, simply because we tend to memorize and then use the notes as cues, rather than reading them outright. My aforementioned bandleader quickly realized I was doing that, so he started making me do different pieces all the time. Which I hated, but he was right; it's what I needed.

 

Most of all, I disagree that they're at all mutually exclusive. As mentioned above, each can work to improve the other. The problem with most of us is, we tend to work on the one we're better at, when we should be doing the opposite.

[JeffLearman]

I played with a guitarist who had a terrible ear. Bandmates would occasionally tease him about it, but we let up because it made him mad though he was generally a very upbeat guy. After years -- at this time he was a housemate -- somehow the subject came up and for the first time the message got through that the problem was not his ears. (Actually, he had very good ears for tuning or for picking stereo components.)

 

As soon as he realized it was a cognitive thing that he just wasn't a natural at, he was happy as a clam. He was an unusually bright guy (I wish I knew 1/10 of the math he had cold) and before long, his ear was improving steadily. He just didn't know it was something that one learned.

[keyman27]

There is a rise in the "alternative strings" type of programs where students are encouraged to improvise. The classical music educators are waking up.

 

I might be on shaky ground with this statement, but weren't the famous classical composers also monsters of improvisation who had the 'play-by-ear' skills in a big way?

[MoodyBluesKeys]

In my small town, we have a lady teacher who has been living well for decades - with a demanding style of teaching (her way or the highway) - she requires students to exactly follow her prescribed routine. She also charges considerably more than other teachers in the area, but has managed to stay as busy as she desires. I did not choose this individual for my teacher.

 

My teacher (for five years, although he has now moved back to Grenada) is a well qualified concert pianist. He is an excellent sight reader, has a very good understanding of classical music theory, admits that he has never focused on any playing by ear or playing in ensembles. However, his teaching routine (at least for adults) allows me, as the student, to focus on whatever type of music or direction that I wish. His style of teaching was to show me how I can play with less effort, more rapidly with less fatigue, and with better results. This instructor was available to assist in music theory, I was separately taking courses in theory at the local college, so it was not a primary focus in our teaching sessions.

 

I also play by ear in a couple of groups. I'm not very good with improvising, but better than I was a couple of years ago. AFAIK, there is nothing like playing in a group (with good musicians) to speed up learning an ear.

 

So I would say that certain teachers in the classical community may fit the mold described as "ignorant or prejudiced", but by no means all of them.

[Dave Ferris]

The conversation finished with her statement that "You either sight read OR you play by ear. But nobody does both".

 

She really needs to get out into the real world more..

 

Having a classical background is invaluable. As is knowing how jazz harmony and rhythm functions. Throw in some experience playing in bands doing rock, pop, RnB or gospel and you've got a pretty wide range of skills.

 

Sightreading is just another sub-set of all those skills. It can be taught, it can be learned. Like anything else though, it's best absorbed in real world situations--playing with other people where reading is involved.

 

All the younger classical musicians I know have a very healthy outlook on the ear/improvise vs reading. There's a place for each. Of course in the end, depending on your goals, style and background, you will be better at one then the other.

 

That still doesn't preclude working on your reading--trad 2 stave piano music, more 16th note single line/rhythmic kicks that pertain to funk/r&b based stuff. Also jazz based rhythms along with common chord voicings written in charts.

[CEB]

I don't know a really good classical pianist worth their salt that doesn't have a great ear and doesn't use their ear to learn pieces. Especially today.

 

It is pretty much given if you want to play Rachmaninoff you go back and listen to orginal Rachmaninoff recordings. You use your ear there are often many right ways to interpret a piece.

 

Everything I play on gigs I learn by ear or just improvise in the moment. But I can't imagine learning something serious like Liszt's Transcendental Etudes without a score and being accurate. (I would also have to hear them and punt. A man has to know his limitations. LOL)

[wmp]

I had a classical teacher and church pianist once tell me she wouldn't take me on as a student because she didn't want to mess up my ear. She said I had a God given talent that she didn't want to tamper with.

That's rich. It sound a lot like countless guitar players I've heard explaining why they didn't want to learn anything.

 

There are more than a few people teaching who shouldn't be teaching. There are more than a few classically trained people who can't play anything that isn't written out. Preaching that nonsense is bad.

 

The baddest mofos do both very well. Many lean heavily one way or the other. It's more a matter of having the discipline to work on your weaknesses. If you tell yourself you can't read or hear you're probably right about that. The problem is entirely in your mind.

 

I heavily favor the ears, but I do know the language pretty well. Getting charts with recordings is always better than recordings alone. I need more lead time with charts only. If I work out the arrangement and write it out myself, I can read that stuff very well. As I do more of that, my reading chops are slowly improving. But I'll never be what I consider a sight reader. Everybody in my band is a music teacher except me. I'm struggling to catch up on writing stuff neatly and efficiently to take better advantage of their skills. They all have great ears and plenty of experience, so I don't have to fill in all the details. Because there are a lot of ways to express the same thing, I'm at a severe disadvantage deciding the best way to write stuff out for real musicians. Is that 190 bps in 4/4 or 95 bps in cut time? I'm fortunate to have so many real musicians to help me out with that.

 

About twenty years ago homeless sixteen year old high school dropout wandered into my rehearsal room looking for a guitar to play on. Ii was in a good mood. He had amazing ears and dexterity. Not my bag, but he was a shredding fool. He wasn't playing garbage. It was crisp, clean, fast, accurate and every note was in place. He was totally full of the I don't want to learn anything crap and all the standard excuses. I explained the real deal to him and told him that his quickest way off the street would be to go over to Berklee and borrow a guitar. The next time I saw him I was still a bum and he was living large. He did go over to Berklee and got a scholarship and and a degree.

 

 

 

 

[GovernorSilver]

I had a coworker who was an excellent classical guitarist. When I received my new (at the time) guitar, I let him try it out. He played some nice sounding music. I asked him what piece he played and he said he improvised it!

 

In the strings world, there are several popular workshops (eg. Mark O'Connor's annual camp) attended by string playing students - many of them have a classical background but go to the workshops to work on their rock, Celtic fiddle, jazz, klezmer, etc. stylings. I have no doubt this kind of stylistic mixing and introduction to improvisation is happening for today's classical music student on other instruments as well.

 

In short, there are classical musicians out there who can and do improvise and it seems to depend on who is teaching those musicians. Gabriela Montero (pianist) is one of the better known examples. Derek Bailey mentions the French organist school in his book "On Improvisation" - I heard a recording of one such organist who played the freakiest version of "Silent Night" that I ever heard - all kinds of improvised counterpoint, reharms, etc. Apparently if you study in that school, you're expected to have a thorough understanding of counterpoint, arranging, composition, etc. and be able to improvise a full arrangement of music like Bach did back in the day.

[Cygnus64]

Am I wrong about the classical community.?

 

For starters, I'm fairly sure that one teacher isn't "The classical community".

 

I have a few friends in their 20s who are classically trained musicians (piano, flute, clarinet, etc.). None of them play by ear or improvise;

 

I can. I acknowledge that I'm the exception not the rule, but there are plenty of others.

 

The main piece of the equation: Most classical people do not have the desire to do that. And most rockers don't have the desire to learn Alberti bass lines for baroque tunes. There's no superiority/inferiority or any sort of voodoo witchcraft here, most people just don't have an interest.

 

The other piece of the equation: classical players do not have a reason to play by ear. Why would they? It's like requiring a librarian to dance= it aint part of the gig. Those of us who do have interest in it.

 

[Michelle ggurl]

"You either sight read OR you play by ear. But nobody does both"

 

Garbage

 

Agreed. I know plenty of players who are very proficient at sight reading any repertoire, plus can improvise and know theory, plus can play classical. I'm sure it takes a lot of work to keep all those skills at a high level, butvI know some who can. I also know some players who at one time were good in one area, but let that slip a bit to focus on another (I'm definitely in this category, though level of proficiency is always debatable ).

 

Not sure why some teachers insist on black-and-white generalizations, like they proclaim a rule and categorically deny that there could be any exceptions.

[Bobadohshe]

Not sure why some teachers insist on black-and-white generalizations, like they proclaim a rule and categorically deny that there could be any exceptions.

 

So they can feel better about themselves.

[Dana.]

The other piece of the equation: classical players do not have a reason to play by ear. Why would they? It's like requiring a librarian to dance= it aint part of the gig.

Right. I said as much above:

 

I think the point here is that classical musicians (at least the ones that I know) sight read everything they play. To my knowledge, they haven't received any improvisatory or ear training. And why would they? If they're playing composed pieces of music, there's no need to improvise.

[Bridog6996]

"You either sight read OR you play by ear. But nobody does both".

 

If she really thinks that, I feel sorry for her, because she's obviously got a very narrow-minded view of what it is to be a musician.

 

My response would have been: "Well then, I guess Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt...(this would go on for a while) were all nobodies."

 

[iLaw]

I wonder how long it took these guys to figure it out by ear:

 

[video:youtube]

 

Larry