In the last two posts I wrote about the method of music study espoused by Walter Gieseking, which generally could be described as a glorified step-by-step approach to learning. Each individual note in a piece is carefully examined, alone and in relation to every other note, along with every editorial suggestion. It is probably fair to say that in his system every note in a piece must be understood in its context, and thoroughly internalized. Nothing must be ignored or taken for granted.
A friend of mine, who sings in a choir I direct, takes a completely different approach to learning. He works a great deal with computers, and one evening we were discussing how hard it can be to keep up with new advances in computer technology. One of the other singers complained that computer terms were obtuse, and I chimed in by stating that learning to use computers should follow a carefully designed, step-by-step approach in which every term and every action is clearly explained and the student has time to process and practice every necessary skill. Our computer guru strongly disagreed. He claimed that such a careful approach would take far too long and "you would never learn anything about computers that way". He favored more of an immersion method in which you dive into a subject and soak up as much as you can. In this scenario, over time you would learn the basic concepts, perhaps hit and miss at first, but hopefully more securely over time. As you develop a comfort level, you could begin to pick up finer points.
I understand my friend's point of view, but I'm not sure I'm convinced. There are music teachers who recommend learning a piece of music by "diving in", but I think they would all agree that sooner or later you have to develop a more systematic approach, or otherwise your understanding of the piece will be only superficial. Or perhaps it is not a good idea to compare learning music to learning computer skills. And, of course, we are each different, so we learn to learn each in our own way, but how do we best achieve mastery?
So what do you think? I'll weigh in more later.
Thanks,
Gary
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
There is something to be said for 'jumping' right into a composition. I have always taught my students to 'sight-read' all the way through a new piece first,mostly to get an idea of what they're getting into. Sometimes, I will play the piece for them; especially, if the piece is fairly complicated and will be challenging the level of the student. Not often, have I encouraged my students to listen to a piece first, or even early in the learning of the composition. Not until they have a good part of the music mastered, do I encourage them to listen to a recording to see what others have done with the music. Diving into the music is a little bit different than immersion. To me, actually...both ideas have merit. Diving in means you get an over all sense of the piece and immersion means you are 'in the thick' of studying it. Basically, the way I see studying a composition is to dive in (sight-read), talk about the elements that make up the piece: keys, tempos, styles (and related techniques),composer and his/her background, melodic and chordal structure...the layout of the piece...even take a tour of the other movements to get an over all feel for the completed work. Next...get to work...section by section, phrase by phrase (note by note, if particularly a difficult passage). I always felt it not a good idea to move on to a new section until the present one is thoroughly learned (mind you, I didn't say 'mastered') because many times, thoroughly learning one passage will help you, more quickly, learn another similar passage in the composition. Music is made up of patterns, and once the pattern structure is learned, you can easily play a similar pattern that only asks you to play different notes, and perhaps, a different expression. Lastly, is the 'immersion.' To me, this means to live and devour the piece, even, without your instrument at hand. It is at this point that you become the piece of music; it becomes second nature to your existence, and performing it, becomes pure joy. If you arrive at this point in your study, very often the composition will be memorized, or mostly memorized.
ReplyDeleteAs for learning computer skills...I prefer my Flute teaching method over being swallowed whole by elements that I never learned in the first place. A musician, usually, has his tools learned already, and sharpened enough to attempt studying a major piece. I believe the same is true for anything possible to learn: You build upon what you have already knowledgeably accumulated. Whenever I teach, I always allot for time lapses; an idea is introduced, but needs time to be practiced and to, actually, gel. There are always quick learners, but normally, it takes a matter of a few weeks before a student 'gets it.' Computer is no different. There are a set of basic skills to learn before moving to the next, more complicated level of skills.
Hence, step-by-step, it is all a 'system,' and 'mastery' is the immersion of a subject.
I love teaching Flute literature! Computer stuff...is just a big headache, usually! (~.*)
Jacki or 'creativealways'