After observing at a school and spending some time talking to area band directors this week, I have come to ask myself a question: Should the goal of instrumental music ensembles be to perform music at the highest level possible?
Traditionally, it seems the answer has been yes. I have only ever very rarely been at an ensemble rehearsal in which the entirety of teaching time was not spent rehearsing pieces. In some senses, this seems obvious. A quality ensemble is many things: recruiting tool, point of pride for a school, point of pride for students. However, from underneath all the piles of contest certificates, I sometimes wonder if we are asking ourselves if we are truly teaching our students to be independent musicians.
In my own experiences and in speaking with others, the emphasis in ensembles is always on technique, rhythm, balance, and intonation. These are important skills, but it was and still is rare that I am asked to corrected phrasing or expression when playing in a wind ensemble. From a young age, we teach our students that playing the right notes at the right time is paramount. The results are clear. Our bands are very good at this. But are our students truly musicians or merely experts at executing the band director's instructions?
In order to be a good ensemble musician, one first must at least have some ability to be an independent musician. How can we expect players to understand how their one part fits into the texture of the piece and adjust to play with sensitivity if we gloss over the basics such as how to shape a solo melodic line? Yet many high school players I have heard who can play some technically difficult material more or less lack this musical skill. Ultimately, a lot of band performances probably sound good because the director is able to break down the musical interpretation and teach students to execute these elements in isolation on their own parts. The students may not fully understand the significance of what they are doing.
Our teachers are largely good musicians. They could teach their students to be good musicians. I think the issues may be time and focus in many cases. One director I know said he spent 20% of his total time on rehearsing and 90% of that on technique, but expressed that he felt that he had no other choice because he was obligated to perform with the marching band every week and needed to provide a product. Many concert bands operate the same with regard to concerts and competitions. The whole class becomes oriented around this collective product.
My own experiences and the words of others have led me to think that I might want to consider running my own ensembles in a way that is oriented around the process rather than the product. I want to learn to not get so hung up with the tiny percentage of time my band spends on stage, but rather to use as much of my total time as possible to connect with students in significant way. It is more important that my students learn to be musical and independent than that the group gets a I in competition, and I owe it to students to find a way to teach this.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Post 2/11
One issue that we have been covering recently is that of sight vs. sound in teaching music, especially concerning beginners. The idea is that we handicap our musicians by forcing them to learn notation first and then sound. This leads to underdeveloped aural skills.
I certainly don't deny that our standard education has been too notation-centric. I know my own ability to translate my audiation into technique in the flute is severely lacking, probably in part because I never learned that way as a beginner. However, I have also experienced the multitude of frustrations that come from dealing with those who have amazing aural skills but lack the ability to function outside of what they hear. I have often found that while these musicians have a fantastic aural sense for melody and homophonic harmony, they often struggle with counterpoint and keeping rhythmic integrity in the context of counterpoint. And some of them never learned to read music, making it all the more difficult to explain to them how counterpoint fits together.
My conclusion is that we want our musicians to be, for lack of a better word, as ambidextrous as possible with regard to their senses. We want our musicians to have good ears, but also good eyes, an internal pulse, and a feel for what they are doing even when sonic or visual feedback is limited.
As a musician, I constantly find myself in situations where using my ear alone is not enough for musical success. In large ensembles such as concert bands or orchestras, I cannot hear my own playing well without overplaying to stick out of the texture, so I must know the feeling of playing with a good tone, even when I cannot fully hear to judge my tone. Likewise, I must be able to watch the conductor and separate this from what I hear if the conductor is trying to add rubato or change the tempo. And of course, for imitative entrances, a strong internal pulse is needed. As many a band director has said, if you wait to hear when you are supposed to enter, you will be late.
While music is ultimately an aural phenomenon, a musician needs to be able to use all his senses in pursuit of music-making, and when one or more are not fully available due to the circumstances, must be able to use those that are available. In the long term, if we want to educate complete and versatile musicians, we must keep this goal in mind.
I certainly don't deny that our standard education has been too notation-centric. I know my own ability to translate my audiation into technique in the flute is severely lacking, probably in part because I never learned that way as a beginner. However, I have also experienced the multitude of frustrations that come from dealing with those who have amazing aural skills but lack the ability to function outside of what they hear. I have often found that while these musicians have a fantastic aural sense for melody and homophonic harmony, they often struggle with counterpoint and keeping rhythmic integrity in the context of counterpoint. And some of them never learned to read music, making it all the more difficult to explain to them how counterpoint fits together.
My conclusion is that we want our musicians to be, for lack of a better word, as ambidextrous as possible with regard to their senses. We want our musicians to have good ears, but also good eyes, an internal pulse, and a feel for what they are doing even when sonic or visual feedback is limited.
As a musician, I constantly find myself in situations where using my ear alone is not enough for musical success. In large ensembles such as concert bands or orchestras, I cannot hear my own playing well without overplaying to stick out of the texture, so I must know the feeling of playing with a good tone, even when I cannot fully hear to judge my tone. Likewise, I must be able to watch the conductor and separate this from what I hear if the conductor is trying to add rubato or change the tempo. And of course, for imitative entrances, a strong internal pulse is needed. As many a band director has said, if you wait to hear when you are supposed to enter, you will be late.
While music is ultimately an aural phenomenon, a musician needs to be able to use all his senses in pursuit of music-making, and when one or more are not fully available due to the circumstances, must be able to use those that are available. In the long term, if we want to educate complete and versatile musicians, we must keep this goal in mind.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Post 2/4(late)
As I am beginning to think about method books for the review we will perform in this class, I can't help but think about another method book that I have been exposed to but which was not on the list of choices for review: Froseth's "The Individualized Instructor."
While the selling point of the books seem to be billed as the "individualized" exercises in which students can choose to play simplified accompaniments for songs that are too difficult, I was impressed by the presentation of information. Unlike many other method books, songs are immediately presented to students as they know them. This means that "Hot Cross Buns" uses quarters and eighths rather than whole and half notes. This is both more interesting and attainable for the students. Students can use their prior knowledge to learn the music theory rather than be restrained by it while playing "March of the Whole Notes" on two notes.
Additionally, lots of information is presented, but in a concise manner and in relation to the songs. Songs include graphic and standard descriptions of key, tonality, and meter, making it easy for the instructor to work these in to songs the students are playing rather than "Accent on Theory" or special sections in other books. The books also include rounds, instructions to learn a song one knows by ear, and duets very quickly in order to facilitate playing without music and ensemble skills.
Thinking back on my own experience as a beginning student, I wanted to get the instrument in my hand and play songs. I was willing to practice extra and do things like figure out the endings to incomplete songs in the books on my own so I could have that experience. While obviously learning to count whole notes and rests is important, it wasn't what I was excited about. The "Individualized Instructor" books tap into this and use students' interest in playing songs to structure the information they need to learn as beginning instrumentalists.
While the selling point of the books seem to be billed as the "individualized" exercises in which students can choose to play simplified accompaniments for songs that are too difficult, I was impressed by the presentation of information. Unlike many other method books, songs are immediately presented to students as they know them. This means that "Hot Cross Buns" uses quarters and eighths rather than whole and half notes. This is both more interesting and attainable for the students. Students can use their prior knowledge to learn the music theory rather than be restrained by it while playing "March of the Whole Notes" on two notes.
Additionally, lots of information is presented, but in a concise manner and in relation to the songs. Songs include graphic and standard descriptions of key, tonality, and meter, making it easy for the instructor to work these in to songs the students are playing rather than "Accent on Theory" or special sections in other books. The books also include rounds, instructions to learn a song one knows by ear, and duets very quickly in order to facilitate playing without music and ensemble skills.
Thinking back on my own experience as a beginning student, I wanted to get the instrument in my hand and play songs. I was willing to practice extra and do things like figure out the endings to incomplete songs in the books on my own so I could have that experience. While obviously learning to count whole notes and rests is important, it wasn't what I was excited about. The "Individualized Instructor" books tap into this and use students' interest in playing songs to structure the information they need to learn as beginning instrumentalists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)