2017 was our 20th year online!

Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments.
Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Shop our online store for music lovers
SEARCH
Piano Forums & Piano World
(ad)
Best of Piano Buyer
 Best of Piano Buyer
(ad)
Faust Harrison Pianos
Faust Harrison 100+ Steinway pianos
(ad)
Wessell Nickel & Gross
PianoForAll
Who's Online Now
40 members (Boboulus, clothearednincompo, drumour, cygnusdei, David Boyce, bkem101, chopin_r_us, brennbaer, dhts, almo82, 7 invisible), 1,062 guests, and 753 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
(ad)
Estonia Pianos
Estonia Pianos
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,010
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,010
Originally Posted by ghosthand
Originally Posted by pianoloverus
Originally Posted by ghosthand
Second, the golden rule is that you should not address more than ONE issue at a time. If you try to fix fingering, notes, dynamics, rhythm and tempo at the same time you will most likely crash and burn, and the result will be poor. So, what to do then? Answer: learn in such small portions that you CAN focus on just one of these issues.
While this might apply to pianists in their first few months of study it is not how most people with early intermediate and above skills learn music and it is not recommended except perhaps for near complete beginners.

When one is reading a piece either for the first time or any subsequent times one should try and play both the notes and rhythms correctly. Most everyone will make some mistakes and/or have to work out the notes, rhythm, fingering, or technical difficulties of difficult passages separately but the basic reading should include the notes and rhythm.

If one cannot make a reasonable attempt to play both the notes and rhythms correctly I think one is attempting pieces that are too difficult and should spend more time studying pieces where the note reading and rhythm are easier.

In any exam type system, the sight reading component expects both the notes and rhythms to be sight read simultaneously. Until reading this thread I cannot remember a single instance when someone recommended that the notes and rhythms be learned separately.


Perhaps you did not read everything I wrote? I said that if you cannot do them together (means: if it is too difficult to fix in sight-reading) you should begin by just tapping and singing the rhythm. When you have it, you can work with figuring out the keys. Example: you are looking at Chopin's Revolutionary Etude for the first time. Is it wise to demand full speed and perfect eveness at once with that one? Or even just perfect eveness?

1. Anyone who is read to learn the Revolutionary Etude would never learn the notes and rhythms of a piece separately.They might have to learn the notes or rhythms of some particularly difficult sections of
a piece separately.
2. Your "full speed and perfect evenness" has nothing to do with the idea of reading music with an attempt to play the notes and rhythm correctly at the same time. Someone learning the RE would normally begin at a slowish speed and attempt to follow the basic rhythm(not the same as perfect evenness).
3. If you cannot make a reasonable attempt to learn the notes and
rhythm together, unless you are near a complete beginner, you are probably attempting a piece that is too difficult for you.

(ad)
Piano & Music Accessories
piano accessories music gifts tuning and moving equipment
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,498
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,498
Originally Posted by pianoloverus
Originally Posted by ghosthand
Second, the golden rule is that you should not address more than ONE issue at a time. If you try to fix fingering, notes, dynamics, rhythm and tempo at the same time you will most likely crash and burn, and the result will be poor. So, what to do then? Answer: learn in such small portions that you CAN focus on just one of these issues.
While this might apply to pianists in their first few months of study it is not how most people with early intermediate and above skills learn music and it is not recommended except perhaps for near complete beginners.

When one is reading a piece either for the first time or any subsequent times one should try and play both the notes and rhythms correctly. Most everyone will make some mistakes and/or have to work out the notes, rhythm, fingering, or technical difficulties of difficult passages separately but the basic reading should include the notes and rhythm.

You keep saying that, and you also seem to ignore where, for example, a teacher has written of doing so differently in order to help a student, or where in more advanced music people do alter rhythms for strategic purposes. If you are against somebody stumbling along for weeks with uncontrolled rhythms, of course - nobody would condone that. But that is not what is being talked about.

If you are saying that working in small sections, and on separate issues, is only for beginners, then you have been taught differently than I, and talked to different people than I have. In my understanding, this is also the strategy for advanced musicians when they come to difficult parts, or want to suss out better ways of playing it.

I am not an advanced piano student. I am still very much a learner. I am going to risk sharing something I did recently in practice - I record snippets of practising. Maybe something real, even by a student who is still very much learning, can help illustrate the ideas.
1. This section of music has an alternating sequence of dim7 to C#m, another dim7 to F#m. I was weak in the dim7's esp. with the "hole in the middle" and "changed" the music by playing only every 2nd measure, that had the dim7-C#m ..... altering how the music actually goes. This was first day, first half hour.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dealxxbx0ubl6br/19.05.20a%20dim7%20Csharpm.mp3?dl=0

Later the same was done with the dim7-F#m, and still later, these were combined.

Later I tried playing it "as written" incl. for note values, though half speed, once minus pedal, once with pedal. In the "minus pedal" you will hear an uneven rhythm. Once pedal is added, you hear an even rhythm.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t7lgoypgc2cd63p/19.06.02a%20R%20m49%20timing.mp3?dl=0

The desired accents weren't in there, and I couldn't make them happen just by knowing that's how it should sound. I then learned to play it with "altered rhythm" - (not as written) - first in triplets, then paired triplets (6's) here.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r6o0phlviup14cc/19.06.02c%20R%20m49%20timing.mp3?dl=0

I also reversed the pairing
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5304sp3pwvcy7r/19.06.02d%20R%20m49%20reverse%20start.mp3?dl=0

I had not been able to "force in" the accented notes just by knowing how they should sound. But through these rhythms, it helped the hands "fall" the right way.

There are "real" intermediate or advanced students who will do a much better job, and I can give no guarantee that any of this is correct. But the point is that I have learned that one can take music apart, alter it, put it back together again, and it can be a faster way of getting at what you finally want it to sound like, than if you always stay strictly in "how it's written". I first started inventing such things on my own while still a violin student, feeling enormously guilty about the "sacrilege" to music - and later discovered that there are similar strategies that actually get used. But it's not a "blind stumble-along for weeks" type of thing.







Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,940
B
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
B
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,940
Originally Posted by keystring
I am a bit perturbed disappointed, seeing that Ghosthand's carefully put together post seems to have been cherry-picked by a couple of people, with smaller bits taken in isolation and critiqued. This may be because of how things are often read nowadays, where one is used to little bytes of info. The problem with this byte-reading is that things interrelate - in music things interrelate - in music practice they interrelate. If you cut it up that way, you lose the sense of what has been said.

As you're obviously referring to me, let me reassure you that I'm not into byte-reading. I don't even know what a 'byte' is.

As for your "music things interrelate", that's exactly what I'm talking about in my last post. Music has rhythm and melody. (Sometimes only rhythm). That's why it's so important to figure out the rhythm of a melody. But if you've already heard the melody played by someone else, you don't need to figure it out. You already know the rhythm because you've heard it. Not by counting beats after figuring it out from the score and the note values, not by tapping, no need to bother. Just like you already know the rhythm of Happy Birthday. But how many people can write out the rhythm, let alone the whole ditty? Do they know what its time signature is?

I'm really surprised that you, of all people, who repeatedly criticized the way you yourself weren't taught the basics in post after post, and thread after thread, and blaming that on all your subsequent problems, choose to pick on me for criticizing this very problem in what another poster was advising.

How - and why - would anyone need to bother about getting the rhythmic profile of a melody from the score (i.e. writing in the score where the beat falls, then clapping/tapping it - and then, after figuring out the melody - again from the score - humming it in time while tapping the beats) if he relies on having heard it from someone else, time after time?

Quote
For example, the "melody" bit had to do with humming the melody while tapping out the rhythm of the other hand as a learning device. That is a pretty good strategy among various strategies. If you simply isolate the bit of how that melody should be learned in order to hum it, you have taken away the main point.

The point is that if you already know the rhythm of the melody, you don't need to figure it out from its note values in the score, and where the beat falls. As I've already said.

Remember what I said about learning the basics? And getting the basics right?

I'm really perturbed that you seem to ascribe different values to others than what you wish for yourself, assuming you're not just doing it for the sake of picking on me - yet again. Not for the first time, I'm getting the very strong impression that if I'd said I was a music teacher, you'd have taken my advice on board - and learnt from it.


"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,498
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,498
Originally Posted by bennevis
As you're obviously referring to me, let me reassure you that I'm not into byte-reading. I don't even know what a 'byte' is.

I was not referring to you. I referred to several posts by more than one person. I, too, am iffy about the "listen to how it sounds"part. What bothered me was that there was only criticism, and none of the larger points or larger picture being seen. The melody thing came together with the "sing the melody while tapping the rhythm" idea which was the main idea. This may have some merit. Or - the idea of tapping out a rhythm, or chanting a rhythm, as a separate thing. What do you think about that part? smile

As said, I'm iffy about the "listen to how it sounds" part myself.

The one that bothered me more was the other person's criticism of the section that talked of working on small sections, tackling one task at a time - as though it were wrong. It is one of the essential things I have learned to do, and it is not, imho, just a thing for "beginners" as was suggested (not by you).

Bytes are small units of information in computer programming. (I learned a little bit back in the early 1980's lr later 1970's when it was incredibly primitive.)

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,940
B
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
B
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,940
Originally Posted by keystring
The melody thing came together with the "sing the melody while tapping the rhythm" idea which was the main idea. This may have some merit. Or - the idea of tapping out a rhythm, or chanting a rhythm, as a separate thing. What do you think about that part? smile


That is exactly what I'd do - after figuring out the rhythm of the melody from the score, and writing in where the beat falls.

I'd tap my foot (on the beat, not on the melodic notes) while singing the melody, to ensure that the melody was strictly in time. When I was singing in a choir, I did that when practising music that has tricky rhythms, like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXEl-ukhjb8


"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,498
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,498
Originally Posted by bennevis
As for your "music things interrelate", that's exactly what I'm talking about in my last post. Music has rhythm and melody. (Sometimes only rhythm). That's why it's so important to figure out the rhythm of a melody. But if you've already heard the melody played by someone else, you don't need to figure it out. You already know the rhythm because you've heard it. Not by counting beats after figuring it out from the score and the note values, not by tapping, no need to bother. Just like you already know the rhythm of Happy Birthday. But how many people can write out the rhythm, let alone the whole ditty? Do they know what its time signature is?

I may have missed the trees for the forest here because I was intent on the overall concept of humming the melody while tapping out the rhythm. I think I actually agree with you on this point. I don't see why one could not learn to figure out how the melody sounds by studying the notes and rhythm (incl. note values) as a first step. If this (listening to how the melody sounds) were done for only one piece, then maybe no harm done. But if it becomes a habit and crutch. then an essential skill is missed.

In fact, what delayed a lot of basic skills when I had my first ever lessons, as a violin student, it was my ability to pre-hear melody - usually predictable - which delayed and even stopped some basic skills from ever coming in (until it was finally caught.)

Quote
The point is that if you already know the rhythm of the melody, you don't need to figure it out from its note values in the score, and where the beat falls. As I've already said.

I understood the idea to be that of tapping out the LH rhythm, while humming the RH melody. I have in fact done this myself from time to time (either hand).

Quote
Not for the first time, I'm getting the very strong impression that if I'd said I was a music teacher, you'd have taken my advice on board - and learnt from it.

There are quite a few people calling themselves music teacher who maybe shouldn't. I don't go by titles. In regard to learning from your advice, were I at a level of learning how to read music, maybe 10 - 15 years back, maybe. wink Our ideas are probably not that far apart, only that I was focusing on other aspects.

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,498
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,498
Originally Posted by bennevis
That is exactly what I'd do - after figuring out the rhythm of the melody from the score, and writing in where the beat falls.

I'd tap my foot (on the beat, not on the melodic notes) while singing the melody, to ensure that the melody was strictly in time. When I was singing in a choir, I did that when practising music that has tricky rhythms, like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXEl-ukhjb8

Love it! (The music) And yes!

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,010
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,010
Originally Posted by keystring
Originally Posted by pianoloverus
Originally Posted by ghosthand
Second, the golden rule is that you should not address more than ONE issue at a time. If you try to fix fingering, notes, dynamics, rhythm and tempo at the same time you will most likely crash and burn, and the result will be poor. So, what to do then? Answer: learn in such small portions that you CAN focus on just one of these issues.
While this might apply to pianists in their first few months of study it is not how most people with early intermediate and above skills learn music and it is not recommended except perhaps for near complete beginners.

When one is reading a piece either for the first time or any subsequent times one should try and play both the notes and rhythms correctly. Most everyone will make some mistakes and/or have to work out the notes, rhythm, fingering, or technical difficulties of difficult passages separately but the basic reading should include the notes and rhythm.

You keep saying that, and you also seem to ignore where, for example, a teacher has written of doing so differently in order to help a student, or where in more advanced music people do alter rhythms for strategic purposes. If you are against somebody stumbling along for weeks with uncontrolled rhythms, of course - nobody would condone that. But that is not what is being talked about.

If you are saying that working in small sections, and on separate issues, is only for beginners, then you have been taught differently than I, and talked to different people than I have. In my understanding, this is also the strategy for advanced musicians when they come to difficult parts, or want to suss out better ways of playing it.

1. Playing in rhythms is done for technical reasons and has nothing to do with the main idea of this thread, i.e. not learning the notes and rhythms together for the most part. Playing in rhythms is done after one has learned the notes and correct rhythms.
2. All pianists have to sometimes learn notes and/or rhythms separately occasionally but that is not what this thread is about and no one would disagree with that approach.
3. I have never said working in small sections or on separate issues is only for beginners. What I have said in almost every one of my posts on this thread is that if one has to do this for basically the entire piece as was mentioned by the OP, then one is working on a piece that;s inappropriately difficult.

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,498
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,498
Originally Posted by pianoloverus
Playing in rhythms is done after one has learned the notes and correct rhythms.

The word "learn" is a funny word when the discussion is playing music. In my actual practice, I do not always start with the notes and rhythm. I don't know if you had a chance to listen to the recordings in my previous thread. I started that section arhythmically, and did not even play all the notes. The music goes dim7 C#m dim F#m dim7 C#m dim F#m etc. descending in inversions. I played: dim7 dim7 dim7 dim7 .... then dim7 C#m dim7 C#m dim7 C#m etc. I made no attempt at that point to play in the correct rhythm, or the correct notes. The point of this was to get a better handle on dim7's pianistically, to reinforce some theory in a practical manner .... regardless of being a good reader.

I did not play the notes, or the correct rhythms, as a first thing. Did I "know" what they should be ultimately? Yes.

I used to do what you are proposing. I find this much faster, more effective, and ultimately solid. I think this kind of flexible thinking can be applied from the very beginning.

I think the point is not to do anything haphazardly, and know why you are doing at any time, for what purpose, and TEST it continually. What do you think?
Quote
What I have said in almost every one of my posts on this thread is that if one has to do this for basically the entire piece as was mentioned by the OP, then one is working on a piece that;s inappropriately difficult.

If you're staying with the OP's first post ........... maybe. I'm saying "maybe" because we don't actually know what the OP is doing: only what we can sort of surmise. I know how off some teachers were about what I was doing, if I talked about it, until they actually heard how I worked, and over a period of time.

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,010
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,010
Originally Posted by keystring
Originally Posted by pianoloverus
Playing in rhythms is done after one has learned the notes and correct rhythms.

The word "learn" is a funny word when the discussion is playing music. In my actual practice, I do not always start with the notes and rhythm. I don't know if you had a chance to listen to the recordings in my previous thread. I started that section arhythmically, and did not even play all the notes. The music goes dim7 C#m dim F#m dim7 C#m dim F#m etc. descending in inversions. I played: dim7 dim7 dim7 dim7 .... then dim7 C#m dim7 C#m dim7 C#m etc. I made no attempt at that point to play in the correct rhythm, or the correct notes. The point of this was to get a better handle on dim7's pianistically, to reinforce some theory in a practical manner .... regardless of being a good reader.

I did not play the notes, or the correct rhythms, as a first thing. Did I "know" what they should be ultimately? Yes.

I used to do what you are proposing. I find this much faster, more effective, and ultimately solid. I think this kind of flexible thinking can be applied from the very beginning.

I think the point is not to do anything haphazardly, and know why you are doing at any time, for what purpose, and TEST it continually. What do you think?
Quote
What I have said in almost every one of my posts on this thread is that if one has to do this for basically the entire piece as was mentioned by the OP, then one is working on a piece that;s inappropriately difficult.

If you're staying with the OP's first post ........... maybe. I'm saying "maybe" because we don't actually know what the OP is doing: only what we can sort of surmise. I know how off some teachers were about what I was doing, if I talked about it, until they actually heard how I worked, and over a period of time.

1. What you described at the beginning of the thread was deciding to practice some arpeggios or chords before starting on the piece since you saw that the piece contained them. This is certainly reasonable but has nothing do with what I've been saying or what the OP said.
2. There's no "maybe" about what the OP does. This is explained in their first post:
"As a beginner, I cannot see how I could avoid learning wrong. When learning a new piece, I cannot see how it would be possible to play it immediately correctly, both notes, rhythm, technique and dynamics, even if I would play at a very slow tempo. So I don't even try, but I start with the notes. I try to also take the length of notes into account, but if I need two seconds each for four eighth notes, I am not going to sit and wait for eight seconds with my finger on the key for the half note. When I more or less can play the notes, I try to integrate rhythm. Only when I can do this, more or less (still making mistakes though), I can start to think about technique."


Last edited by pianoloverus; 06/10/19 03:59 PM.
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,498
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,498
You have quoted a student's description of what the student thinks he/she is doing. There is a lot missing in that description. These are words. I don't know if you teach. One doesn't assume one knows anything until working with someone, observing, etc. Also, this may very well have evolved. We have been discussing OTHER THINGS, and you keep making generalized statements about what is correct - in general - about practising - what is not correct - in general - about practising. This can put students into a box in regard to possibilities.

I have given actual examples - sound files - where the things you are saying as a rule - are not applied - not in that order. These are other possibilities. The rules you cite are too restrictive (imho).

Joined: May 2015
Posts: 8,909
Silver Subscriber
8000 Post Club Member
Offline
Silver Subscriber
8000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 8,909
Originally Posted by keystring
You have quoted a student's description of what the student thinks he/she is doing. There is a lot missing in that description. These are words. I don't know if you teach. One doesn't assume one knows anything until working with someone, observing, etc. Also, this may very well have evolved. We have been discussing OTHER THINGS, and you keep making generalized statements about what is correct - in general - about practising - what is not correct - in general - about practising. This can put students into a box in regard to possibilities.

I have given actual examples - sound files - where the things you are saying as a rule - are not applied - not in that order. These are other possibilities. The rules you cite are too restrictive (imho).


IMHO
Your reply has ventured off a long way from a beginning student who learns the notes and then the rhythm. There is no reason for a beginning student not to play the rhythm as written, is there? No polyrhythms, no uneven faster runs of 16th or 32nd notes to worry about making even. Seems straightforward what this beginning student is doing/not doing. Discussing ‘other things’ obscures the original problem and a solution; learn the rhythm at the same time, or even before, the notes. You do not want to ingrain Incorrect rhythm by ignoring it while you learn the notes. Everything else is geared to a more advanced student.

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,010
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 31,010
Originally Posted by dogperson
Originally Posted by keystring
You have quoted a student's description of what the student thinks he/she is doing. There is a lot missing in that description. These are words. I don't know if you teach. One doesn't assume one knows anything until working with someone, observing, etc. Also, this may very well have evolved. We have been discussing OTHER THINGS, and you keep making generalized statements about what is correct - in general - about practising - what is not correct - in general - about practising. This can put students into a box in regard to possibilities.

I have given actual examples - sound files - where the things you are saying as a rule - are not applied - not in that order. These are other possibilities. The rules you cite are too restrictive (imho).


IMHO
Your reply has ventured off a long way from a beginning student who learns the notes and then the rhythm. There is no reason for a beginning student not to play the rhythm as written, is there? No polyrhythms, no uneven faster runs of 16th or 32nd notes to worry about making even. Seems straightforward what this beginning student is doing/not doing. Discussing ‘other things’ obscures the original problem and a solution; learn the rhythm at the same time, or even before, the notes. You do not want to ingrain Incorrect rhythm by ignoring it while you learn the notes. Everything else is geared to a more advanced student.
Yes.

And I think the OP's comments about how they learn music are perfectly clear, and the idea that it's only what they say and therefore we can't assume it's what really is going on is unreasonable.

One of the "OTHER THINGS" discussed was practicing in rhythms but that was brought up as a supposed example of not following the rhythm when learning a piece. As you pointed out and I've said several times already practicing in rhythms is not related to the OP's post because it's not relevant to beginners and it's method of solving technical problems after the notes are learned.

The OP discussed not wanting wait for some seconds while holding a long note in their very first post as an example of not following the rhythm. I can't imagine any serious teacher would endorse this approach.

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,498
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,498
Originally Posted by dogperson
Your reply has ventured off a long way from a beginning student who learns the notes and then the rhythm. There is no reason for a beginning student not to play the rhythm as written, is there? No polyrhythms, no uneven faster runs of 16th or 32nd notes to worry about making even. Seems straightforward what this beginning student is doing/not doing. Discussing ‘other things’ obscures the original problem and a solution; learn the rhythm at the same time, or even before, the notes. You do not want to ingrain Incorrect rhythm by ignoring it while you learn the notes. Everything else is geared to a more advanced student.

My own example is of course with more advanced music. But the approaches of not always starting immediately with the rhythm - as a short stage - is one that I have seen applied to beginner students in particular. Otherwise I would not have mentioned it.

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,498
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 18,498
But Pianoloverus has a point, if the practice was as it might have been per the opening post. With that I am bowing out gracefully. smile

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,272
J
Unobtanium Subscriber
6000 Post Club Member
Offline
Unobtanium Subscriber
6000 Post Club Member
J
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,272
Originally Posted by LarryK

I believe notation was invented by monks because they were having difficulty remembering all of the music they had to sing. I often wonder what famous pieces would sound like if they had never been written down but had accumulated errors by being passed down orally from generation to generation.


Yes, about the year 1000 this guy came up with the idea of horizontal lines, much clearer than the shaped squiggles used previously to indicate higher or lower notes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_of_Arezzo

There's a flip side to the accumulation of errors from playing by ear: There's more to music than notation can contain. Computer notation programs can play precisely what's in the notation.... Does anybody like to hear it that way?


-- J.S.


-- J.S.

[Linked Image] [Linked Image]

Knabe Grand # 10927
Yamaha CP33
Kawai FS690
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 2,734
L
2000 Post Club Member
Online Content
2000 Post Club Member
L
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 2,734
Originally Posted by JohnSprung
Originally Posted by LarryK

I believe notation was invented by monks because they were having difficulty remembering all of the music they had to sing. I often wonder what famous pieces would sound like if they had never been written down but had accumulated errors by being passed down orally from generation to generation.


Yes, about the year 1000 this guy came up with the idea of horizontal lines, much clearer than the shaped squiggles used previously to indicate higher or lower notes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_of_Arezzo

There's a flip side to the accumulation of errors from playing by ear: There's more to music than notation can contain. Computer notation programs can play precisely what's in the notation.... Does anybody like to hear it that way?


-- J.S.


I agree, there is more to music than what is in the notation which is why I take lessons from teachers who know the repertoire well, and have a good idea of how a piece should sound, and who can read the notation. I think you want both things. We have YouTube, with its thousands of videos, to help us discover different recordings but I don’t rely on that to teach myself how to play a piece. I like to start with the written notation and puzzle it out myself.

We have books written hundreds of years ago. I’m sure an oral tradition of telling the stories contained in those books would not be as detailed or accurate over the centuries.

Last edited by LarryK; 02/01/20 09:12 AM.
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 9,824
9000 Post Club Member
Offline
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 9,824
Originally Posted by JohnSprung
Originally Posted by LarryK
I believe notation was invented by monks because they were having difficulty remembering all of the music they had to sing. I often wonder what famous pieces would sound like if they had never been written down but had accumulated errors by being passed down orally from generation to generation.
Yes, about the year 1000 this guy came up with the idea of horizontal lines, much clearer than the shaped squiggles used previously to indicate higher or lower notes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_of_Arezzo

There's a flip side to the accumulation of errors from playing by ear: There's more to music than notation can contain. Computer notation programs can play precisely what's in the notation.... Does anybody like to hear it that way?

-- J.S.

Hey John, good to see you back. I worried when you disappeared all of a sudden on retirement. Hope it was because retirement was being too fun to check in, and not for any health reasons! 😉


[Linked Image]
across the stone, deathless piano performances

"Discipline is more reliable than motivation." -by a contributor on Reddit r/piano
"Success is 10% inspiration, and 90% perspiration." -by some other wise person
"Pianoteq manages to keep it all together yet simultaneously also go in all directions; like a quantum particle entangled with an unknown and spooky parallel universe simply waiting to be discovered." -by Pete14
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
What's Hot!!
Pianos - Organs - & Keyboards, Oh My!
Our Fall 2021 Free Newsletter is Out , see it here!
---------------------
Selling my Hammond & Leslie!
---------------------
My first professionally recorded piece
---------------------
Visit Maine, Meet Mr. Piano World
---------------------
Posting Pictures on the Forums
-------------------
Forums RULES & HELP
-------------------
ADVERTISE on Piano World
(ad)
Pianoteq
Steinway Spiro Layering
(ad)
PianoDisc

PianoDisc
(ad)
Piano Life Saver - Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad)
Mason & Hamlin Pianos
New Topics - Multiple Forums
Farewell Cassie, we hardly knew ye
by c++ - 10/23/21 08:49 PM
What is this piano?
by Gleb1 - 10/23/21 05:55 PM
Lesson cost in Worcester, MA area
by casualappraiser - 10/23/21 05:02 PM
What do you think of Alan Fraser?
by ranjit - 10/23/21 03:01 PM
Download Sheet Music
Virtual Sheet Music - Classical Sheet Music Downloads
Forum Statistics
Forums42
Topics209,716
Posts3,141,667
Members103,092
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
Please Support Our Advertisers

Faust Harrison 100+ Steinways

Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver

 Best of Piano Buyer

PianoTeq Bechstein
Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

Virtual Sheet Music - Classical Sheet Music Downloads



 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
| Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | MapleStreetMusicShop.com - Our store in Cornish Maine


© copyright 1997 - 2021 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5