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!
For example ------ when it eventually becomes possible for one musician to play a set ... or sets of notes --- patterns/sequences etc (encoded) ---- that could arbitrarily contain information or instructions/requests such as 'I will be doing the mowing next saturday, followed by going to dinner with friends, and now I want you all to all stand up for me, and then kneel down on one knee, and then get up and do some star-jumps' etc. And if all those people listening in can all understand that --- without any prior knowledge about what was going to be 'musically' communicated (or just communicated with these sounds/patterns etc) ...... then that could then be considered as a language. Or .... at a different level ..... something like 'Everybody get ready to go out for a hunting trip, and we will all need to bring etc etc etc, and we will be aiming to catch etc etc etc today'.
Although any analogies between music and language are lame, there is something common that is inherent in both, namely management. In language it is grammar, in music it is functionality.
nahum ------ I assume that activities involving language and music generally involve understanding a foundation (of at least basic rules to be begin with - associated with the particular language or particular music) - a knowledge base, and having acquired some knowledge about using or applying the basic rules (and more - progressing to higher levels, such as intermediate, advanced etc). Proficiency/competency at the activity will depend on the individual's own base ability, and various other factors.
It's not a debate as such. It is about the OP's limited view of classical and jazz styles ------ giving the false impression that classical teaching methods necessarily (always) involves teaching students to play sheet music only. And my opinion is ----- even if it really were the case (in which is it not) --- it's unwise and poor form to have this superiority complex ----- which includes putting 'robot' labels on people (or groups of people). That's condescending and also maybe even under-estimating the ability of people.
If you want to learn jazz then use the jazz curriculum. It is viewed to be superior by the OP.
Just because you can play Bach in all 24 keys, why would you?
If your classical piano teacher is not using a jazz curriculum, get a new teacher!
The real question: why doesn’t everyone use the same piano? I am not a big Steinway fan, but if you can’t play a Steinway, why play at all?
Maybe some of us can play a Steinway, but prefer other brands. If you’re not a big Steinway fan, why do you own one? Play the piano that makes you happy to play.
For example ------ when it eventually becomes possible for one musician to play a set ... or sets of notes --- patterns/sequences etc (encoded) ---- that could arbitrarily contain information or instructions/requests such as 'I will be doing the mowing next saturday, followed by going to dinner with friends, and now I want you all to all stand up for me, and then kneel down on one knee, and then get up and do some star-jumps' etc. And if all those people listening in can all understand that --- without any prior knowledge about what was going to be 'musically' communicated (or just communicated with these sounds/patterns etc) ...... then that could then be considered as a language. Or .... at a different level ..... something like 'Everybody get ready to go out for a hunting trip, and we will all need to bring etc etc etc, and we will be aiming to catch etc etc etc today'.
I think the "music is like language" simile breaks down after a fashion.
For example, in order to communicate in a language, both reader/listener and writer/speaker must understand the grammar and have a sufficient vocabulary.
But in music, a performer can communicate to a listener who is musically illiterate. Things like mood, emotion, rhythm - all can be communicated without the listener knowing the 'rules' of music. A listener can sense when the tonal center shifts, when you modulate to a different key, when you switch from a straight to a swing beat - even without having a knowledge of what these things are. The listener may not be able to verbalize what they heard in the appropriate musical terms, but that doesn't mean you didn't communicate the ideas to them.
I think we sometimes get so wrapped up in music theory we forget that much of it is simply innate to all human beings. It's just a matter of putting labels on what we already know so that we can converse about it with others.
Roland RD-2000 / Yamaha EW400 & Electone / lots o' synths
I think the "music is like language" simile breaks down after a fashion.
For example, in order to communicate in a language, both reader/listener and writer/speaker must understand the grammar and have a sufficient vocabulary.
But in music, a performer can communicate to a listener who is musically illiterate. Things like mood, emotion, rhythm - all can be communicated without the listener knowing the 'rules' of music. A listener can sense when the tonal center shifts, when you modulate to a different key, when you switch from a straight to a swing beat - even without having a knowledge of what these things are. The listener may not be able to verbalize what they heard in the appropriate musical terms, but that doesn't mean you didn't communicate the ideas to them.
BTW, I build the process of teaching improvisation precisely on the intentional synthesis of musical and spoken language ; completely different from how it is described in different textbooks.
I think the "music is like language" simile breaks down after a fashion.
For example, in order to communicate in a language, both reader/listener and writer/speaker must understand the grammar and have a sufficient vocabulary.
But in music, a performer can communicate to a listener who is musically illiterate. Things like mood, emotion, rhythm - all can be communicated without the listener knowing the 'rules' of music. A listener can sense when the tonal center shifts, when you modulate to a different key, when you switch from a straight to a swing beat - even without having a knowledge of what these things are. The listener may not be able to verbalize what they heard in the appropriate musical terms, but that doesn't mean you didn't communicate the ideas to them.
I think we sometimes get so wrapped up in music theory we forget that much of it is simply innate to all human beings. It's just a matter of putting labels on what we already know so that we can converse about it with others.
I'm in full agreement - both as something I naturally intuit and through the observation of the reaction of various of my musically illiterate friends whose response to, and appreciation of, passages even at a granular level, so often corresponds with mine. It's something I find to be quite uncanny.
I think the "music is like language" simile breaks down after a fashion. For example, in order to communicate in a language, both reader/listener and writer/speaker must understand the grammar and have a sufficient vocabulary. But in music, a performer can communicate to a listener who is musically illiterate. Things like mood, emotion, rhythm - all can be communicated without the listener knowing the 'rules' of music.
True OJ!
It does break down after a fashion. For music ---- if there is no prior knowledge about the music ----- no visual details associated with it (such as visually seeing what is creating the music --- no videos, and never seeing the instruments being played etc ------- people can still take it in. If there is a beat ----- then people can probably automatically hear patterns --- such as a beat or rhythm ----- and obviously hear sound dynamics. They may consider it interesting. But maybe also depends on the individual ---- for those that 'hypothetically' have never experienced music before at all. Although ----- in terms of actual meaning ----- the experience --- or whatever the person experiences, will be uncertain ----- because for example, an 'uneducated' person that has no education in society and culture etc won't necessarily understand that a particular set of notes is meant to be linked with a particular mood. For example - a dog or cat listening to music, or looking a a picture will just look puzzled, or have absolutely no reaction at all.
So focusing on music only (not pictures or visual things) -------- not all people (based on a hypothetical uneducated set of people) might statistically respond in a certain way (eg. happy .... or sad etc ----- and even then, I don't know if they would --- as we would need extensive testing done) --- but it wouldn't be put into the category of a language --- as there needs to be some agreed-upon criteria for language ----- from a 'practical' communications perspective.
For a language ---- both sides agree upon what the signals (symbols) actually mean - and there needs to be an adequate number of symbols for both sides to correctly communicate (convey) information that meets criteria associated with a language (ie. criteria associated with the definition of a 'language').
Music doesn't cover the above criteria. Although, for sure ----- it is certainly possible to create a language based on musical note patterns and nuances. It would - just like languages we know about --- takes some time and effort to establish (to develop ----- such as definitions and structure/vocabulary - grammar etc).
Not sure why so many people think Yuja Wang's version is improvised, it is not. It's a combination of the Fazil Say and Volodos arrangements.
I don't know. But if I were a betting person, I would reckon that she knows how to improvise, right?
And - even though the following isn't relating to Yuja Wang ...... and improvisation in general ....... most people that have learned enough 'movements' (or patterns) that one can do within a scale (or within a key) ----- sort of a combination of known patterns with some own choices about how and when to play them ---- can be part of the minimum requirement for 'improvisation', right?
Even choosing what particular notes to use for chords (eg. choosing arpeggio style, and inversion type, and number of notes in a particular chord, and what fancy scale run to use, etc etc) is a part of improvisation. And this is certainly done by musicians of all sorts --- such as playing of classical and/or pop tunes.
Even turning a simple tune - such as some nursery rhyme tune - and making it sound more impressive by applying some classical style improvisation to it (ie. making it shine even more with a impressive dressed up version with more notes and more patterns ----- and even played in real-time) ........ is well ..... improvisation, right?
I should also mention that ------ yes --- what I wrote above in the previous post also includes -- choosing the notes and patterns to add in the correct 'context' ----- as in having some idea about the music, mood, feeling etc. Context. Although ---- I guess there are styles where context is not always focused on ------ in which case, some abstract component. But that probably still counts as improvisation too. Various styles.
SouthPark , When you mentioned "choosing the notes and patterns to add in the correct 'context' ", you didn't mention the most important thing in music, along with rhythm - intonation. I can't blame you - intonation theory was born in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century; and not absorbed in the West. However, I must emphasize that intonation (melodic contour, speech melody) is a common property of both colloquial speech and music; which places music in the category of communicative language - despite attempts not to define it as such. Mood and feeling, which you write about, are expressed, among other things, also through intonation. The question of melodic intonation is considered in my class from the first moment of learning improvisation; and gives a very fast effect. I am not a theorist, but a teacher-practitioner, and I stand behind my every statement.
nahum ------ while I didn't mention it - it doesn't mean that I excluded it. It should be mentioned too. In many of my posts ---- I purposely added nuances. Nuances can certainly be included ---- this includes intonation etc.
Also ---- absolutely - language is based on definitions. It's necessary to have definitions that sender and receiver both understand. And when extended to whole populations ---- more than 2 people can understand. And some agreed-upon amount of codes is needed --- for a language ----- for an adequately practical language. Not just limited to how somebody feels (and mood thoughts etc). But also allowing for many more functions in society (eg. expression of moods/feelings, and giving specific instructions, and carrying out activities, developing and designing technology, structures, solving problems etc ----- lots of elements etc).
…the most important thing in music, along with rhythm - intonation…. intonation theory was born in Russia.
The most important thing? Not in the world of my music. Yes both speech and music go ‘up and down’ but one lies behind meaning and the interlocuter's choice of emphasis, the latter through abstract (though sometimes hackneyed and formulaic) expression.
Quote
However, I must emphasize that intonation (melodic contour, speech melody) is a common property of both colloquial speech and music; which places music in the category of communicative language - despite attempts not to define it as such.
The last clause in that sentence is meaningless. Attempt implies effort. I don’t have to ‘attempt’ to ‘not’ eat 100 boiled eggs at one sitting; such is accomplished without even realising the task exists.
