4 ms·

That feels like a rather misleading analogy, as learning to read sheet music is the cornerstone of music pedagogy.

by TylerE 3y ago

zozbot234 3y ago
The analogy is quite on-point. In the 18th-century conservatories that trained scores of outstanding composers[0] the "cornerstone of music pedagogy" in the early years was singing, making up little embellishments or variations on existing melodies (these were called passaggi or diminutions) and using solfège (or rather an early variety thereof, based on the hexachord) to reverse the process and discover the deeper, simpler melodic structures underlying existing pieces. In later years the best students would be sat at the keyboard and taught to improvise entire pieces from a bassline. Paper was very expensive, so sheet music was little used: wax tablets would be used as a scratchpad when needed. Merely playing written-out pieces was seen as sub-par, something for those who couldn't attain the more highly valued skill of actual improvisation. That whole skillset is all but lost now, long supplanted by a hyper-competitive culture of supposedly 'virtuoso' performance. It survives to some extent in organ playing, and the jazz tradition as a whole may or may not be an offshoot of some popularized ("folk") variety of it. [0] See Robert O. Gjerdingen Child Composers in the Old Conservatories: How Orphans Became Elite Musicians. (2020) Oxford University Press.
- defrost 3y ago
  re: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37746694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37746694 I've no idea why your comment was flagged and moved to [dead] - it seems fine as a comment to me. That said: > you're still talking about performing existing pieces from a very well-defined canon My first comment in this thread could not have been "still talking" - and I contrasted two things, - reproductive orchestra performances by people trained in composition and improvisation two of whom considered themselves unable to read music (responding to the person above me) and an "entertainer" considered by many to be a real musician (that's a whole thing in itself, isn't it) who also can't read, composes his own music, and improvises around his own work during nearly every performance. I'm actually siding with yourself, the formalities in both mathematics and music are important and useful but they aren't fundemental for a great many with talent in those fields - they can intuit they way through to a large degree and teaching based on intuitve methods can make great inroads when introducing new students to these subjects. Formalities can come later (or drilled in parallel), they have their place - but having a 'feel' for these subjects carries a great deal of weight, if not more.
  - zozbot234 3y ago
    I disagree with what you say about 'formalities' in math, since they're practically the whole subject. It's a question of how they're taught, not whether to teach them. Not teaching the formal part and leaving it all to 'intuition' amounts to letting misconceptions fester with no feasible way to correct them. Even in music, a successful composer or improviser needs to know a lot about viable patterns and rules of thumb, and this knowledge would've been conveyed explicitly as well as by example. (These are not really 'formalities' in a strict sense but they're the closest thing in that domain.)
    - defrost 3y ago
      You might be imagining you think I said about formalities in mathematics, they're more or less essential in making something rigorous and passing it on to others but you'll find that many prolific mathematics start with intuitions, invent their own informal notations, and move toward a formal expression only when some new direction or concept is almost complete. Maths proceeds faster with those who have been passed good intuitions about lengths, symmetries, and other concepts - these are the fundemental groundings. The formal notations follow to add rigor and to assist in the reasoning and formal proof. With no intuition and only formal methods all you have is Coq: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq > Even in music, a successful composer or improviser needs to know a lot about viable patterns and rules of thumb, and this knowledge would've been conveyed explicitly as well as by example. There are entire schools of music that are conveyed entirely by example with no formal music theory whatsoever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgBgQQXoUw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgBgQQXoUw8 Even individuals on remote islands born blind and left handed can make music with no training, no music theory, and only a right handed guitar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyppTLuJm14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyppTLuJm14
polotics 3y ago
No it's not!!! For starters look at the Suzuki method! Also life stories of many great musicians tells us they learnt by listening and playing along, a lot.
- TylerE 3y ago
  I'm looking at my copy of Suzuki Violin Book 1. Sheet music starts on page 5, and is universal thereafter.

That feels like a rather misleading analogy, as learning to read sheet music is the cornerstone of music pedagogy.

by TylerE 3y ago

That feels like a rather misleading analogy, as learning to read sheet music is the cornerstone of music pedagogy.

The analogy is quite on-point. In the 18th-century conservatories that trained scores of outstanding composers[0] the "cornerstone of music pedagogy" in the early years was singing, making up little embellishments or variations on existing melodies (these were called passaggi or diminutions) and using solfège (or rather an early variety thereof, based on the hexachord) to reverse the process and discover the deeper, simpler melodic structures underlying existing pieces. In later years the best students would be sat at the keyboard and taught to improvise entire pieces from a bassline. Paper was very expensive, so sheet music was little used: wax tablets would be used as a scratchpad when needed. Merely playing written-out pieces was seen as sub-par, something for those who couldn't attain the more highly valued skill of actual improvisation. That whole skillset is all but lost now, long supplanted by a hyper-competitive culture of supposedly 'virtuoso' performance. It survives to some extent in organ playing, and the jazz tradition as a whole may or may not be an offshoot of some popularized ("folk") variety of it. [0] See Robert O. Gjerdingen Child Composers in the Old Conservatories: How Orphans Became Elite Musicians. (2020) Oxford University Press.

defrost 3y ago
re: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37746694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37746694 I've no idea why your comment was flagged and moved to [dead] - it seems fine as a comment to me. That said: > you're still talking about performing existing pieces from a very well-defined canon My first comment in this thread could not have been "still talking" - and I contrasted two things, - reproductive orchestra performances by people trained in composition and improvisation two of whom considered themselves unable to read music (responding to the person above me) and an "entertainer" considered by many to be a real musician (that's a whole thing in itself, isn't it) who also can't read, composes his own music, and improvises around his own work during nearly every performance. I'm actually siding with yourself, the formalities in both mathematics and music are important and useful but they aren't fundemental for a great many with talent in those fields - they can intuit they way through to a large degree and teaching based on intuitve methods can make great inroads when introducing new students to these subjects. Formalities can come later (or drilled in parallel), they have their place - but having a 'feel' for these subjects carries a great deal of weight, if not more.
- zozbot234 3y ago
  I disagree with what you say about 'formalities' in math, since they're practically the whole subject. It's a question of how they're taught, not whether to teach them. Not teaching the formal part and leaving it all to 'intuition' amounts to letting misconceptions fester with no feasible way to correct them. Even in music, a successful composer or improviser needs to know a lot about viable patterns and rules of thumb, and this knowledge would've been conveyed explicitly as well as by example. (These are not really 'formalities' in a strict sense but they're the closest thing in that domain.)
  - defrost 3y ago
    You might be imagining you think I said about formalities in mathematics, they're more or less essential in making something rigorous and passing it on to others but you'll find that many prolific mathematics start with intuitions, invent their own informal notations, and move toward a formal expression only when some new direction or concept is almost complete. Maths proceeds faster with those who have been passed good intuitions about lengths, symmetries, and other concepts - these are the fundemental groundings. The formal notations follow to add rigor and to assist in the reasoning and formal proof. With no intuition and only formal methods all you have is Coq: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq > Even in music, a successful composer or improviser needs to know a lot about viable patterns and rules of thumb, and this knowledge would've been conveyed explicitly as well as by example. There are entire schools of music that are conveyed entirely by example with no formal music theory whatsoever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgBgQQXoUw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgBgQQXoUw8 Even individuals on remote islands born blind and left handed can make music with no training, no music theory, and only a right handed guitar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyppTLuJm14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyppTLuJm14

polotics 3y ago

No it's not!!! For starters look at the Suzuki method! Also life stories of many great musicians tells us they learnt by listening and playing along, a lot.

TylerE 3y ago
I'm looking at my copy of Suzuki Violin Book 1. Sheet music starts on page 5, and is universal thereafter.