# Efficient Learning, Thinking, and Teaching in music



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

My interest in efficient learning stems from the fact that:

1. I get terrible eye-strain (especially from reading dark text on white paper) so waffle just tires me unnecessarily. Modern books often contain more waffle than older texts, since paper was more valuable and modern authors also like to appear affable, inserting jokes and pardoning puns.

2. I tend/prefer to get the jist of things without needing the waffle

3. There are already too many things I want to do and learn, so the most direct methods are desireable to save valuable time I could spend composing or learning something else.

4. I have worked through many volumes of theory (mostly on world music) and I invariably end up with an understanding that requires nothing like the amount of space or time consumed by the original source material! So, a short demonstration (for instance) can often save many pages of text and hours of confusion/digestion.

5. The history of western music theory (harmony, counterpoint, etc) education seems to accomodate many unnecessarily complex, thwarting notions and customs that unnecessarily cloud the underlying points or method.

6. I'm interested in how we can understand things in 'layers', so we might deliberately develop a skeletal understanding of the main principles and then 'flesh it out', so to speak.

I recently acquired a book called 'A Geometry of Music', which attempts to remove outdated or style-specific pedagogical obstacles (unfortunately replacing it with an unnecessarily complex mathematical model in my view). It is pretty good in revealing the key concepts that we really need to understand and the chapters are arranged according to need. (I agree with much of the criticism in the review by Athanasius on Amazon.co.uk, but it's still worth studying.)

Were I to write a book on my area of expertise, I'd go even further: I'd put the justifications and further explanations in the second half of the book. So, the student can simply accept what the author is explaining first, then find out the reasoning if it is not registering as self-evident. This is what would happen in an apprenticeship, or a master-pupil exchange: The student would know the master can compose -he may even have chosen him because of this (e.g. Beethoven chose Haydn). So, he can simply accept what the master is teaching and be rather confident that it will help him reach a desired standard (unless you're Beethoven, who didn't get on with teacher Haydn, but eventually realised that Haydn was right in his teaching).

One of the most efficient texts I've read was supposedly written by Mozart "…without the expenditure of a single superfluous word" (see 'A SUCCINCT THOROUGH-BASS SCHOOL') 
It's very useful to have a "do this", "this is better", "Good", "Bad", "weak", "more full" in front of you than paragraphs of explanation, especially in music: the whys and wherefores should become self-evident, otherwise there's something wrong with the theory!

I'm wondering if a (humanised) algorithmic approach (like that used by David Cope to create computer programs capable of generating music) might be valid as a starting point to construct an accessible set of procedures: http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/grad.html

If a great composer were to talk us through what they were doing when composing, what would they say? "Right, I've got this melody in my mind from somewhere, it suggests this harmony...start with the continuo...this phrasing needs balancing out here..." ...perhaps? This is not too far from an algorithm really.

Such an algorithmic approach is used in 'A Geometry of Music' to explain a progression underlying Chopin's E minor prelude.

Also, there are some quite interesting ways of visualising key concepts being developed as software: 



 (demo)

One thing I'd like to start with... though I don't support equal temperament as the totally dominant system it has become... I do think we can reduce everything to 12-notes for the sake of learning key concepts of western harmony and counterpoint -even though equal temperament renders many of the original countpoint conditions obselete! 
What we can do with 12 equally-spaced notes, we can do within the other tempered systems. (I realise that certain choices were made by composers like Bach that depended on the purity of certain intervals and chords, but these decisions can still be applied by ear at the tuned instrument.)

Is there really any need for all this 'leading note', 'mediant', 'augmented', 'diminished', etc, etc...? Can't we clear away these dead leaves, and just see what is really going on in western music in terms of 12 fixed notes? Can we not also stick to treble and bass cleffs too? You know what I mean.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Minona said:


> Is there really any need for all this 'leading note', 'mediant', 'augmented', 'diminished', etc, etc...? Can't we clear away these dead leaves, and just see what is really going on in western music in terms of 12 fixed notes?


No, because that's not the way tonal music operates (or so-called atonal, either, for that matter). Leading tones change throughout a piece, sometimes very quickly (as in late romantic and expressionist music), and we don't hear in terms of "pitch classes", but intervals and harmonic profiles. And these things are all related contextually, too.

I looked over the reviews from the book in question, and the following attracted my eye:
"Especially, the author shows us the graphs that Schoenberg's Op.11 and John Coltrane's Giant Steps solo have identical rates of pitch-calss circulation (pp.164-165).... but, for jazz musicians, this is totally nonsense not to recognize the fundamental difference between atonal "Schoenberg's Op.11" and tonal "Giant Steps" and to criticize the geometric aspects of music...... It is clear that the author turns everything around to his advantage."

Well, I looked up the portion of the book in question, and found that the entire reason he made the comparison is to show that despite the use of all 12 notes in both pieces, one seems "more chromatic" than the other. He attributes this to the Schoenberg's atonality (what he refers to as a non-distinct macroharmony).

I gave another listen to Schoenberg's Op. 11 No. 1 (Pollini, DG), and I am utterly convinced that it's tonally centered, perhaps on G, but that it doesn't end on a tonic chord (which does not make something atonal). I wonder how anyone could not hear leading tones in it.


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

Well, I mean... can we not find a less archaic language/approach? Obviously, the present system evolved by trial and error (as did notation and the diatonic-based keyboard) from a very different and more primitive understanding... so the chances of there not being a better way (by design) is unlikely in my present viewpoint.

As for 'A Geometry of Music', I'm only part way through, but some of the early insights seem valuable (although perhaps they can be found elsewhere). 

Thanks


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

There is no need to make a further reduction / simplification of that which has already been about as reducted / simplified compact and tidy as is humanly possible.

Unless, of course, you have written a textbook based on some fashionable trend which otherwise contains all the same old stuff, and you are trying to give it a marketing edge.

So, stop thinking so much, and as you said, 'just accept, as a novice / student' the information presented, learn it, and above all, work it in exercises. Being told how something 'works' from the outside is at best slight, shallow, half-baked, and ends up being forgotten quickly, because it is not so much 'learned' as merely memorized, like a laundry list.

Learn the circle of fifths by rote, like a laundry list, and you can forget them in a week, as well as remaining on the outside of knowing at all how scales are actually constructed. Learn how they are constructed, the whole / half-step pattern, and then as an exercise write them all out using that pattern, and you are likely to not forget your key signatures for the rest of your life, because you built them using your own brain rather than 'accepted' and memorized a meaningless laundry list.

Good pedagogy has the student actually working with the actual stuff of those abstract and clinical laundry lists, and that is where you reach your own 'enlightenment' -- in working them, figuring out how to work them to make them work: there is the real understanding, and that type of understanding is the sort not easily forgotten.

There is, unfortunately, a truckload of bad pedagogy out there, including far too much rote 'learning,' and at least just as many poorly conceived textbooks and course plans. To that reality, I can only say it is the responsibility of the student to be as aggressive as possible, and more than willing to move or travel to find what is well taught, and where.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

This explains what Sonata Theory is all about, but despite the book being pompous, waffly - essentially not particularly well-written - I have learnt a great deal from it. I learnt nothing from the wiki article (which I read first) - only the notation. The notation is unimportant. The justification is everything.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2013)

I can certainly verify the "pompous" and "waffly" nature of textbooks ('gobbledygook', I call it)! Charles Rosen was a particular culprit in this respect. Let me recommend Claude Palisca as a lucid writer on renaissance and baroque music. He taught, at Yale, a fellow member of a previous forum to which I contributed and the man spoke very highly of Palisca. I have a couple of his books on my shelves and they make excellent reading.

Rote learning can and does work for certain types of learning. For example, learning how parts of speech work - verbs, nouns, adverbs etc (though few students know any of this nowadays). I had to rote learn my seven sharps and flats but these are now all but forgotten, so I have to periodically write them all down again. Unless using this every day (I'm not) it is easily forgotten but age may be a consideration for me now!! Also, 'rules' of harmony are better remembered by rote when one is producing exercises in 4 and 2 part harmony. I am also somewhat bemused by these rules because, essentially, like Latin they are a 'dead language' for the modern musician!! (Polemic Alert!!!)


----------



## hindsight (Mar 25, 2013)

Hi TC, first post.



Minona said:


> Well, I mean... can we not find a less archaic language/approach? Obviously, the present system evolved by trial and error (as did notation and the diatonic-based keyboard) from a very different and more primitive understanding... so the chances of there not being a better way (by design) is unlikely in my present viewpoint.


You can use "less archaic" labels if you like. All they are really good for is to allow us to communicate ideas with each other.

But to say the _approach_ is archaic. Is the law of gravity archaic?


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

Thanks. My thoughts were based on the size of the books I've studied and understood, and the relatively small amount of real comprehension required in the end. That is not to say that I don't have a good understanding of world music, but compared to the many volumes I've read through, the final crystalised comprehension is smaller than anyone would think looking at the books.

That's mainly because a working knowledge is not a collection of linear information. Also, I've learned somethings extremely quickly (and clearly!) from demonstrations on Youtube, which is a growing trend, where young people are learning instruments, composing and understanding theory from actual interactions (of sorts).

I just wish we would start to formulate which approaches are the best (from results).

Some of the problem I have is to do with authors trying to impress readers with 'ingenious insights' rather than trying to actually teach!


----------



## hindsight (Mar 25, 2013)

Minona said:


> What we can do with 12 equally-spaced notes, we can do within the other tempered systems. (I realise that certain choices were made by composers like Bach that depended on the purity of certain intervals and chords, but these decisions can still be applied by ear at the tuned instrument.)


Not so. There is one thing ET surpasses all other tempered scales on: modulation.

Have you read Hindemith?


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

hindsight said:


> Hi TC, first post.
> 
> But to say the _approach_ is archaic. Is the law of gravity archaic?


No but I seriously doubt Newton's _Principia Mathematica_ is the best way to go about understanding it today!


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

hindsight said:


> Not so. There is one thing ET surpasses all other tempered scales on: modulation.
> 
> Have you read Hindemith?


Apart from no key sounds fully settled once established.

(I just wish the myth that Bach used or invented it would die. It is known without doubt that it was not favoured until pianos became too difficult to tune.)

I've looked at some of Hindemith's books. I've got the 'Elementary Training for Musicians' -not so quite elementary for these times!

Don't get me wrong, I've got a comparitively decent understanding, it's just the gaps and long brain pathways that I think could be avoided. I understand counterpoint and harmony, but I do believe something like 'A Geometry of Music', in terms of its intention, could be written to clarify my understanding.

One of the best books I ever read was 'Sketching at the keyboard', and that book makes me aware that there are definitely different ways to understand these matters.


----------



## hindsight (Mar 25, 2013)

Minona said:


> No but I seriously doubt Newton's _Principia Mathematica_ is the best way to go about understanding it today!


Fair call! However there needs to be a distinction between the materials themselves, and the methods of understanding them.

There's a rhyme and reason of sorts, behind why a fifth interval is called "perfect" and not "major".


----------



## hindsight (Mar 25, 2013)

Minona said:


> Apart from no key sounds fully settled once established.


As long as you stick to melody alone; once you start introducing anything more than the simplest harmonies, no system holds up for very long.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I can certainly verify the "pompous" and "waffly" nature of textbooks ('gobbledygook', I call it)! Charles Rosen was a particular culprit in this respect. Let me recommend Claude Palisca as a lucid writer on renaissance and baroque music. He taught, at Yale, a fellow member of a previous forum to which I contributed and the man spoke very highly of Palisca. I have a couple of his books on my shelves and they make excellent reading.
> 
> Rote learning can and does work for certain types of learning. For example, learning how parts of speech work - verbs, nouns, adverbs etc (though few students know any of this nowadays). I had to rote learn my seven sharps and flats but these are now all but forgotten, so I have to periodically write them all down again. Unless using this every day (I'm not) it is easily forgotten but age may be a consideration for me now!! Also, 'rules' of harmony are better remembered by rote when one is producing exercises in 4 and 2 part harmony. I am also somewhat bemused by these rules because, essentially, like Latin they are a 'dead language' for the modern musician!! (Polemic Alert!!!)


Charles Rosen is my favourite music writer - though that is a matter of taste and I have heard others who think his writing is awful - I think his insights are many and his writing style very engaging. Nothing is more dull than reading a textbook - facts after facts. And you don't learn very much that way either.

It seems that you are not a musician. Perhaps if you wanted to use all this knowledge then you might be more sympathetic towards the writings of musicians who are, after all, largely writing for other musicians. Knowledge is meant to be used, not learnt.

Your scathing attitude towards 'ingenious insights' is perhaps revealing of this. Those are the main reason to read books on music - all the rest can often be the real waffle. Rules are best understood as insights - insights towards a deeper working of music.

By all means formulate ways for non-musicians to rote learn what they think is the essence of music - but the fact is that music is _insensible_. *Music is not theories - it is sound and emotion*. Books are just there to try, by differing angles, to get you closer to the truths of the matter, which cannot really be comprehended or pinned down by words.

The rules of harmony are excellent examples. If you rote learn them you have effectively learnt an abstract theory. Its use? Very little. The masters don't generally follow any system of rules that does not create so many exceptions as to become meaningless. However they do give you great insight into the workings of harmony and tonality, and thus how music itself works. This helps greatly in composition, analysis and even just music listening. I never learnt the rules of harmony until well after I knew them back to front and had even taught them to my classmates at A-level. I have never been able to read harmony textbooks all the way through because they are usually astonishingly short-sighted and dull. They generally teach rules without much concern for the music itself. I read the Tchaikovsky harmony book thoroughly though because I thought it gave insight into the mind of a great composer I would like to understand better.


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

"It seems that you are not a musician."

I am, but so far in mostly oral traditions of 'world music', so it gives me some insight into learning more by imitating, doing, playing rather than theory and notation. But I do realise that classical theory and notation is essential for western music, I just think it might evolve into a more hands on, visual, clearer system of instruction. 

"Your scathing attitude towards 'ingenious insights' is..."

Well, I put ingenious insights into inverted commas, meaning probably not so insightful -more aimed to impress.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2013)

Ramako said:


> Charles Rosen is my favourite music writer - though that is a matter of taste and I have heard others who think his writing is awful - I think his insights are many and his writing style very engaging. Nothing is more dull than reading a textbook - facts after facts. And you don't learn very much that way either.
> 
> It seems that you are not a musician. Perhaps if you wanted to use all this knowledge then you might be more sympathetic towards the writings of musicians who are, after all, largely writing for other musicians. Knowledge is meant to be used, not learnt.
> 
> ...


It's true I'm not a musician (though I learned piano to start of 8th grade), but I have post-graduate qualifications in Musicology!! Rosen is too syntactically dense and following one "insight" after another without developing the FIRST insight into a 'thesis'. Kind of 'stream of consciousness' (yes, I've been an English teacher too). But thanks for your ringing endorsement. I prefer to think for myself based upon years of analysis of music, listening, thinking and reading.

I've just returned to these comments and I think I can best explain Rosen this way: he writes as if he's SPEAKING. I used to teach my students that WRITING and SPEAKING are two different processes - one spontaneous, the other considered and slower. Well, for me, Rosen writes like a SPEAKER.


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

"...I am also somewhat bemused by these rules because, essentially, like Latin they are a 'dead language' for the modern musician!!"

Well, I'm sure Picasso would have advised any art pupil to learn to draw reality! It teaches the child to see and capture shapes and colours as they are!

Similarly, I suppose harmony and counterpoint are fundamental in that they teach you to hear and create _acoustically_ clear harmonies and combine independent-sounding lines without sacrificing harmony.

With this as a starting point, you will be better placed to create effective _non-acoustically_ clear harmonies and counterpoints. Beethoven is a great example of this. His dissonances are all the more effective because of his clear understanding of consonance and the relationship between I & V.


----------



## hindsight (Mar 25, 2013)

Ramako said:


> Your scathing attitude towards 'ingenious insights' is perhaps revealing of this. Those are the main reason to read books on music - all the rest can often be the real waffle. Rules are best understood as insights - insights towards a deeper working of music.


I think you have attributed this to the wrong poster...


----------



## hindsight (Mar 25, 2013)

Minona said:


> I've looked at some of Hindemith's books. I've got the 'Elementary Training for Musicians' -not so quite elementary for these times!
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I've got a comparitively decent understanding, it's just the gaps and long brain pathways that I think could be avoided. I understand counterpoint and harmony, but I do believe something like 'A Geometry of Music', in terms of its intention, could be written to clarify my understanding.


I suspect such a work is yet to be written.

I cited Hindemith because his statement that "tonality is a natural force, like gravity" resonates very strongly with me. I don't care for all of his ideas, or even much of his music, but his discussion of Combination Tones in 'The Craft Of Musical Composition' in addition to an understanding of harmonics and waveform composition ("timbre") are vital. Hindemith also states "Purity must be neglected or the possibility of unhindered polyphony sacrificed" and goes a long way in the book to demonstrating that this is axiomatic. Although with the hindsight of 80+ years of recorded music in all genres you would have to say that purity is overrated (or undervalued, if the "unsettled" nature of those recordings grates with you).

Disclosure: I have plotted out second-order combination tones for the harmonized major scale in both Equal and Mean temperaments. The book doesn't tell you to do that, but I thought it might enhance my understanding of the principles.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

hindsight said:


> I think you have attributed this to the wrong poster...


No, I actually attributed the post I quoted to the wrong poster - even more stupid! How embarrassing... My apologies CountenanceAnglais.

Just to clarify therefore, my previous post is supposed to be directed at Minona, then, not at CountenanceAnglais, who has a very large amount of music training.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I have collected theory texts whenever I can. Some have good explanations of certain things which others lack.

I think Minona might be a visual thinker, as I am, and this may be part of the problem. Our brains might be wired differently.

For example , I had trouble counting beats or durations. Time measurement gave me big problems. Measures start on "one," not zero. I had to finally read several books on "Zero" and numbers before I figured it out. Finally, I realized that we number and measure durations differently than we measure quantities. Either other people take this for granted, or I'm weird. Since it was never explained to me, I had to figure it out myself. I now realize this is the difference between cardinal and ordinal numbers, but our notation system seems counter-intuitive to this: a quarter note seems to represent an "object," not a duration with a start and finish. It's no wonder that visually-based computer MIDI editing graphs make more sense to me.

Also, time signatures gave me problems until I finally figured out that we have no "3" note unit. Everything is by two's, adding dots. But even so, we can't divide a beat into 3 and put it in a time signature as a "three unit"; we have to go way up into a common denominator of at least 6, or 12. Many aspects of music "lingo" are incredibly frustrating. The best thing to do is get a weirdo like me to explain it to you. And keep reading.

I think Schoenberg might have been like this, too. After all, he was a painter.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Minona said:


> Thanks. My thoughts were based on the size of the books I've studied and understood, and the relatively small amount of real comprehension required in the end. That is not to say that I don't have a good understanding of world music, but compared to the many volumes I've read through, the final crystalised comprehension is smaller than anyone would think looking at the books.
> 
> That's mainly because a working knowledge is not a collection of linear information. Also, I've learned somethings extremely quickly (and clearly!) from demonstrations on Youtube, which is a growing trend, where young people are learning instruments, composing and understanding theory from actual interactions (of sorts).
> 
> ...


Now it becomes almost clear to me that you are speaking of 'self-teaching,' which is often enough possible for many 'simpler' things, but almost always a near disaster (if not a ruthlessly inefficient way to go about it) when one is trying to be autodidact about something as truly abstract as music theory.

Theory is theory, not practice. Most theory textbooks are simply showing us what was successfully done by composers of the past, and it is a mistake to think of any of it as 'rules.'

Any complaints about learning key signatures, mediant, submediant or other like terminology are about as valid as complaining about learning to read an alphabet in order to read or write, or propose that alphabet is 'archaic' and be wishing for something more streamlined and readily comprehensible according to a more modern ('trendy') and 'fashionable' mode of thought.

Theory is a body of work all to the point of getting a handle on musical function in its various modes and contexts. 'Studying' theory without the benefit of a teacher to elucidate and comment upon a skeletal textbook (and they are all 'skeletal', i.e. designed to be used by a student with a teacher at the helm) is perilous, and leads to such questions or propositions as you have made.

Unless the book is clearly written and touted as a 'teach yourself' book, those other complaints about what you have found in the way of books are well off the mark. Those books are written with a teacher as part of the deal, part of the plan.

Along with the current 'anyone can repair / restore / decorate their home marketing, there is a current vogue about music that 'anyone can teach themselves' -- it is a vogue, a fashion, and most of it is pointed toward selling you some alternate book or online course vs. 'old fashioned texts' and working with a teacher.

So now we have floating in the ether of popular notions that music is soooo simple that anyone can teach themselves: 
Music theory
How to play an instrument
How to compose

It has become a vogue, often including the 'student' believing their is a much simpler way (including far less work than it might otherwise take) of achieving the same result as those who have studied for years using textbooks while under the guidance of a trained and expert pedagogue. That of course makes the whole notion very generally popular, and embracing the idea it is really possible, very alluring)

Most of the promoted online 'learn how to' and music tutorials are absolute crap, and exactly worth their price, $000.oo Many another online course for which the victims pay is far overpriced if it is anything above $000.oo.

No need to formulate 'which approach is best,' by result. The results are in and very well known. Those who study music theory from expert musician / teachers learn music theory very readily and well, those who do not, in most cases, do not.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2013)

Ramako said:


> CountenanceAnglais, who has a very large amount of music training.


I suppose by some people's standards, though most of it was at university. My piano playing is 'bog standard', alas. Nothing gives me greater pleasure (apart from listening to music) than researching and lecturing, which I do in my spare time nowadays.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Now it becomes almost clear to me that you are speaking of 'self-teaching,' which is often enough possible for many 'simpler' things, but almost always a near disaster (if not a ruthlessly inefficient way to go about it) when one is trying to be autodidact about something as truly abstract as music theory.
> 
> Theory is theory, not practice. Most theory textbooks are simply showing us what was successfully done by composers of the past, and it is a mistake to think of any of it as 'rules.'
> 
> ...


I concur but, astonishingly, Sviatoslav Richter was mostly self-taught. Naturally, he's a very special case and most auto-didacts just don't have that kind of genius!!!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I concur but, astonishingly, Sviatoslav Richter was mostly self-taught. Naturally, he's a very special case and most auto-didacts just don't have that kind of genius!!!


Of the thousands of great and competent composers and performers, a tiny minority are 'auto didact.'
Gershwin: Learned to play the piano by putting his fingers down where the keys of a running player piano were depressed (rather like an online piano tutorial <g>) and was primarily self-taught as a composer.

Schoenberg: read texts, but consulted with seriously expert musicians around him, studied, briefly, counterpoint with, I believe Zemlinsky... no diplomas, but soon was hired to teach harmony at a music school in Germany. When he emigrated to the U.S. and was hired by U.C.L.A. as a music theory and composition teacher, they slapped an honorary degree on him right quick 

Elgar.

Alfred Brendel: grew up in the lap(s) of musicians and pedagogues, took some lessons through his early teens, after which his 'teacher' was a tape recorder.

They are very few, very far between, and, unlike many of the rest of us with a bit of talent and intelligence, they were extraordinarily talented (genius, anyone?). They are, all and any, often held up by those with much much less the native gifts (and drive) to do what they did, as the perfect example that self-teaching is not only possible, but like quality will be the end result (wishful thinking, anyone?)

There is that now known factor, called 'individuated thinking,' a bit of which is in the content of MillionRainbow's post, i.e. often it takes one of several analogies, each having a different angle or take, to make understanding immediate within the pupil. Classroom teaching, one program, one way, is the exact opposite of individuated thinking and teaching. I was more than fortunate that within my classroom experiences, those teachers knew about individuated thinking, and in any lecture on theory, they had three disparate analogies, altogether having at least one of the three reach just about any student in the hall.

If you are mathematically inclined, the mathematical route will be more attractive. I guarantee you that old saw about music is math is the wispiest thread of a real connection as an analogy, and it is best to think of another way to think about it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Minona said:


> "It seems that you are not a musician."
> 
> I am, but so far in mostly oral traditions of 'world music', so it gives me some insight into learning more by imitating, doing, playing rather than theory and notation. But I do realise that classical theory and notation is essential for western music, I just think it might evolve into a more hands on, visual, clearer system of instruction.
> 
> ...


"Ingenious insight" is ultimately the order of the day, but really can only come about after the basics are learned, 'absorbed' and put into practice enough that they begin to be in place and working at a nearly intuitive level.

Certainly, you are not there yet, and I can easily imagine that your desire, hunger and application towards understanding, and being at a beginner's level, would have you finding those insights less than useful at this time.

Another problem with autodidact, is the studier can jump in anywhere, has no notion of pedagogy or the more 'natural' progression where things are learned cumulatively, ergo by the time you are at 'level ___' those insights are a snap, and very worthwhile indeed.

You may also be reacting to a well-known aspect of the likes of the Charles Rosens of the world:
Rosen was a polymath, his only scholastic study and degrees in French. All the musical study, writing, and performing were a product of his own. Here it is: there is always something horribly self-conscious about the self-taught, a constant insecure chip on the shoulder, a rather irritating need to impress or go out of their way to show they are 'qualified.' Best avoided unless you are a Schoenberg (who suffered some of the personality display as just listed), a Gershwin, an Elgar, etc.

Sounds like you need to 'go with' a very basic pedagogic plan / syllabus, be patient with yourself, do one step at a time, and allow several years, at least, to get there. That is what it usually takes, even for geniuses


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2013)

Regarding your earlier post: I've always thought music was akin to mathematics because both are a 'language system' which involve considerable problem solving. By 'problem solving' I speak here of counterpoint and harmony and the myriad rules which apply to all of that. Which chord can I put here without breaking the rule and disrupting the 'order' of the chords/bars/sequence etc. I studied Theory and passed 7th grade and remember all the stumbling blocks in 2 part harmony - trying to 'solve the problem' according to the rules and make it interesting and musical at the same time. Now, perhaps mathematics goes beyond problem solving at a certain level - I don't know - but from my own (limited) experience it seemed there were these 'problematic' similarities. I remember my "problems" in high school mathematics!! Also medicine is another discipline which is similar - lots of 'rules' and possibilities but, in the end, problem solving. (I remember my late father saying about a particular doctor, "she has an encyclopedic knowledge but cannot filter that knowledge to enable her decide how best to solve the problem".)

Over to you...


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

Funny you should say that. When I was studying harmony for a foundation course, I was still struggling to read music, and I did most of the exercises by deafly following the limited rules we'd been given very closely.

I got top marks in the class without even hearing the pieces! But then, there came a point where we were given more free choices and had to use our ears more and my marks went down.

So, music can be treated mathematically up to a point, but then I don't think it works if you want more 'human' results.

But, you say 'problem solving' ...isn't _that_ creativity? Didn't humans evolve creativity to solve problems affecting our survival?


----------

