4 ms·

I've noticed this too in other fields. I wonder if it's because of the internet? There's so many information out there. Not to mention there are so many sources

I've noticed this too in other fields. I wonder if it's because of the internet? There's so many information out there. Not to mention there are so many sources you can look up to study. You can go to YouTube now and look up Tchaikovsky violin concerto and find a ton of videos that one might be able to study. I only played the violin casually when I was young. But I would've loved if I had vast libraries of music, videos, etc. available to me in the 90's. I think I would've been much better. A recent example for me is photography. When I started to learn photography about 5-6 years ago, I was able to find so many resources on the net to improve quickly. You can find so many examples of good photos of every genre these days. It would've been harder 15+ years ago if I had to scour magazines or photo books to find inspirations, or if I wanted to study a certain technique.

analog31 6y ago
Some people have cited the Suzuki method, which became widespread after my time as a student. Naturally the people who mentioned that to me are teachers.
- meowzero 6y ago
  I was taught using the Suzuki book, but not the method. My teacher never told me listen to the record it came with. Of course, it wouldn't have done me any good since I didn't have a record player. One piece my teacher wanted me to learn was Autumn by Vivaldi. I remember listening to my CD of Vivaldi's Four Seasons constantly to hear how a certain part should sound. Now only if I had a video, then I can see how they would've played it. :)
  - analog31 6y ago
    Indeed, the method is not strictly followed in the US. For one thing, American teachers tend to teach reading a lot earlier. But I believe the emphasis on ear training, playing in groups, and starting out learning by imitation, are beneficial. Teachers of my generation were afraid that if you learned by ear, you'd never learn to read.
    - bsder 6y ago
      I'd go further. A lot of "classical" training now basically acknowledges that "reading" just isn't that relevant for a classical musician and wastes time when most of your repertory is memorized. Sure, you need to be able to read enough to get through to the point that you can memorize a new piece. However, you don't need to be able to read at the level of, say, a studio musician who sees new and unfamiliar music every single day.
      - analog31 6y ago
        That's possible. A concert soloist might not need to be a strong reader, but very few of them can make a living doing only that. To get up to a decent income without a day job requires doing a lot of short-term and fill-in music, chamber music, subbing, etc. Maybe I took to reading, to cover for my lack of practice. ;-) I switched to jazz after high school, and am now a double bassist. Though I'm not a full time pro, I've gotten a lot more work than I'd otherwise deserve thanks to being a fluent sight-reader and keeping my reading chops fresh.
varjag 6y ago
There definitely was no shortage of online photography materials in 2006…

analog31 6y ago

Some people have cited the Suzuki method, which became widespread after my time as a student. Naturally the people who mentioned that to me are teachers.

meowzero 6y ago
I was taught using the Suzuki book, but not the method. My teacher never told me listen to the record it came with. Of course, it wouldn't have done me any good since I didn't have a record player. One piece my teacher wanted me to learn was Autumn by Vivaldi. I remember listening to my CD of Vivaldi's Four Seasons constantly to hear how a certain part should sound. Now only if I had a video, then I can see how they would've played it. :)
- analog31 6y ago
  Indeed, the method is not strictly followed in the US. For one thing, American teachers tend to teach reading a lot earlier. But I believe the emphasis on ear training, playing in groups, and starting out learning by imitation, are beneficial. Teachers of my generation were afraid that if you learned by ear, you'd never learn to read.
  - bsder 6y ago
    I'd go further. A lot of "classical" training now basically acknowledges that "reading" just isn't that relevant for a classical musician and wastes time when most of your repertory is memorized. Sure, you need to be able to read enough to get through to the point that you can memorize a new piece. However, you don't need to be able to read at the level of, say, a studio musician who sees new and unfamiliar music every single day.
    - analog31 6y ago
      That's possible. A concert soloist might not need to be a strong reader, but very few of them can make a living doing only that. To get up to a decent income without a day job requires doing a lot of short-term and fill-in music, chamber music, subbing, etc. Maybe I took to reading, to cover for my lack of practice. ;-) I switched to jazz after high school, and am now a double bassist. Though I'm not a full time pro, I've gotten a lot more work than I'd otherwise deserve thanks to being a fluent sight-reader and keeping my reading chops fresh.

varjag 6y ago

There definitely was no shortage of online photography materials in 2006…