Re: What is enough theory for amateur musicians?
Lawson G. Stone ( (no email) )
Thu, 12 Dec 1996 09:04:33 -0500
Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> I have a couple of thoughts to share here.
>
> First, someone asked to what extent a professional musician actually thinks
> consciously about scales and so forth. My guess is, depending on the type
> of music they are playing, not a whole lot. Just as I did not think
> consciously about including a verb in this sentence. Actually, that
> sentence illustrates my point even more than I planned, because it was
> probably not a proper sentence because of the words "just as" that may have
> turned it into a disembodied clause of some sort. The point being, I had
> to learn something about grammar to be able to write intelligently, but
> that does not mean I'm always conscious of it any more. And indeed, it is
> possible to communicate in a langauge without really learning the grammar -
> this is how children generally learn to speak. But on the other hand, they
> tend to not be able to produce complex sentences. This could be because
> they have only simple thoughts to express, but it is more likely they will
> use simple sentences to express even relatively complex thoughts. In
> music, there may be complex musical thoughts that will be more difficult to
> express with simple phrases, I don't know. This analogy may be running out
> of steam. But it hopefully provides food for thought.
>
The language analogy is a good one, but the "how children learn" is not.
There is no way ever to repeat the process of childhood learning because
that process is dictated by the evolving physical maturation of the
brain, particularly the corpus colosum that controls traffic between the
two hemispheres. Children learn as they do partly out of an inability to
edit and analyze experience because they lack a separate sense of self.
Adults can simulate the "immersion" experience only in part, and
"theory" whether it be grammar in language or some other analytical
short hand, is the adult's vehicle for assimilating knowledge. The child
has no choice but to experience first, categorize and analyze second.
Adults are able to manipulate that process more flexibly, but do not
have the pre-analytical option in the same way that a child has.
Everybody has a theory about what they do. The question is whether they
can articulate it and whether it is a theory that supports practise, or
impedes it. Reed's theory is clearly that the learning and practise
activities should mirror the playing goals. We will play melodies,
therefore we need to practise melodies. The way to study melodies is to
transcribe successful melodies. From transcription of one's paradigm
players, one can evolve a collection of playing concepts that allow
further growth (a "theory"). This is an inductive process. The more
traditional academic approach is to teach theory and have students
practise small patterns and model solos, working up to performance
quality.
Foreign languages have been successfully taught to adults using both
approaches. The literature of adult education also validates that most
people due to their inherited, genetic brain chemistry and temperament,
will be able to learn more effectively by one of these methods than the
other.
--
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////////////
Lawson G. Stone-Asbury Theological Seminary-Wilmore, KY
////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future.
--Niels Bohr