ROOT POSITION - - OR HOW WE LEARN MUSIC
(© Andras Ranki, 2003) Background paper to introduce
‘How
we learn music’, a one-day workshop at Morley College, London
The questions ‘Z-N-K’
an alternative approach Basic
keyboard skills
Scope
This paper
examines the elements of music that can be learnt, that students want to learn,
that can be taught and that are traditionally taught. It focuses on
the fundamentals of learning music (not on learning the fundamentals),
mainly ‘musicianship’ - and will not touch upon the aesthetic aspect.
There are studies claiming that perception of music
makes use of the dual nature of human thinking mechanisms; the instinctive part
of the process taking place in the right, whilst the logical part in the left
hemisphere of the brain. Although it is not the object of this paper to argue
the physiological validity of above hypothesis, for the purpose of easier
distinction between the two types of processes, the labels (bR) and (bL)
(right or left hemisphere of the brain) shall be used in the paper.
This paper aims, based on the
author’s music teaching experience, to conclude that, though music in its entirety
is perceived/reproduced by the brain’s two hemispheres simultaneously, an
efficient music learning/teaching method should clearly separate and set the
learning tasks to one side or the other at any one time. Both these (bR) and (bL) processes should
use a common interface (iF) of consistent terminology;
that enables the student to interpret one side’s reference in terms of the
other and vica-versa.
Objectives
General objectives
of music learning: to acquire an efficient method
that provides the student the ability to playing, singing or inner hearing
written pieces of music.
Expectations from
music teaching: to help the student to acquire skills that include
sight-reading, aural recognition and understanding the theory of music at a
level appropriate to his instrumental/singing/music appreciation.
Assessing the
achievement of the above objectives (music exams):
Apart from the aural test and the pieces [bR], even the deaf could pass
the rest, the [bL] written exam, with honours.
This traditional assessment implies a closed system of
integrated progress grades, retrospective learning objectives and teaching
methods. The progress grading from simple to complex structures both in theory
and practice raise internal contradictions in the apparently consistent
curriculum. A simple example is that the use of the ‘black keys’ is considered
‘more advanced’ than using just naturals (a totally unfounded argument for
singing, strings or wind). Thus, according to the theory curriculum, playing a
D, A, or E Major triad (root-position) on a keyboard (which, in effect, follows
the natural anatomy of both right and left hands) should only follow the
learning of the ‘easier’ C, F and G Major triads (all white keys, albeit with
less natural hand-position). These contradictions themselves between theory and
its alleged didactic objectives would justify an overall review of the theory
of music – but this present paper only aims to refer to traditional theory from
the aspect of its relevance to learning.
The general lack of a real integration of the methods associated
with this system is clearly seen as most students fall, to an extent, into one
or the other class: having problems with hearing/sight singing (whilst knowing
the theory well) or having problems with musical notation (whilst their
instinctive music-making reaches an advanced level) – in other words, their music studies only result in the amplification of their
initial abilities and shortcomings.
Elements of music
The problem with learning
music arises from the unique nature of time, the medium of
music. Music itself is a sequence of intangible real-time events, whilst
identification or recollection (i.e. the description, analysis or labeling of
the events) of tangible sets may take shorter
or longer time than the events themselves. In the course of listening to, or
playing a piece of music, the musician (music student) associates the tangible
sets to the intangible events, ideally not interfering with the overall timing
of the real-time sequence of events.
independent tangible sets
time-scale
real-time
Whilst the intangible
events1,2,3…n are perceived by (bR), the a), b), c) tangible
data or processes are (bL) sets, and time-independent,
and are the result of previously learnt processes. Experienced musicians have
their skills so developed, that the result is the instantaneous recollection of
past processes – therefore (bL) takes less time, than the
real-time event it is associated with.
Music teaching should lead the student to
this level of instantaneous recollection of tangible sets (e.g. recognition of
a pattern of written music) and its linking to the associated intangible event (e.g.
singing or playing the given note) with the least effort, in the shortest possible time.
Simplified model of learning music:
(bL) (iF) (bR)
logical thought Interface imitation,
motoric
processes links memory
A sight-singing example of and the
traditional model of performing it:
compressed time
real time
break-down path of
the compressed-time thought processes
·
The first note has already been sung (bR);
·
Already heard note’s name (‘Every-Good-Boy-Deserves-Favour’): E (bL);
·
Next note’s name: B (bL);
·
Interval (7 semitones): Perfect 5th (bL)
·
Pitch association (Perfect 5th sounds like: “Twinkle, Twinkle”)
(iF).
·
Pitching (‘inner hearing’) the “Twin1-Twin2“=Perfect
5th (bR)
·
Singing the “Twin2“=B (bR).
Every thought process of this example have to be
mastered first, otherwise the completion of the different steps would take much
longer than the time available before singing B.
Model of an efficient thought process of
pitching the B:
This model shows
how an experienced musician would perform the same task. He would totally rely
on the interface label, as the result of previous
repetitions of all the (bL) and (bR) processes – thus
developing an instant visual recognition of a
perfect 5th, and an instant pitch image associated
with a perfect 5th. It takes practically no time for him. If we
asked, how he did it, he would, most probably, detail the thought processes of
the first model with the additional advice: ‘practice, practice…’. But, in
fact, he had been practicing the association of a
“Perfect 5th” (iF) between one or the other
side. In his mind he had, ultimately, two images only:
Here, he uses the interface “Perfect
5th that is both visually decoded
and associated with the pitch as a result of having practiced them both in the
past.
This result of instant recognition is desirable,
but the means of achieving it is inefficient, unnecessarily long-winded and
its foundation is questionable.
Tonic sol-fa
Tonic sol-fa is a practical approach to learning pitch
with mnemonic interfaces
Guido d’Arezzo could not foresee that his (bR) set of incidentally chosen mnemonics (ut-re-mi…) and its translation
(c,d,e..) shall be considered as the basis of an ‘absolute’ standard – whilst
his truly ingenious teaching method (using graphical and hand-sign interface
links to the sung pitches) has only been revived by Curwen and Kodály, around a
thousand years later. These latter considered their tonic sol-fa as a
means to, ultimately, learn the intervals as the basis of theory (harmony,
counterpoint and analysis).
Tonic sol-fa uses the seven
syllables (‘doh-ray-me…’), as a set of mnemonics to express the seven degrees
of the scale. It exploits the concept that the (interval) structure of a scale
is the same related to any chosen tonic. So much so, that if one (like the
overwhelming majority of us) does not have ‘perfect pitch’, cannot hear the
difference whether a piece is performed in C or Bb Major. However,
he can sing Doh for the tonic, Soh for the dominant – for him, as they
constitute the same interval, the relative pitch is right in both
cases! Learning pitch with tonic-solfa is based on a ‘Pavlovian’
development of conditional reflexes. Thus the (bR) physiological
pitch-sensation (relation to a given doh) is consistently associated with the
same mnemonics (syllable sung) – further reinforced with a (teacher) interface:
a set of hand-signs for the mnemonics. Its efficiency is still unrivalled from
the point of (bR) development.
Tonic sol-fa only uses the (bR), and the mnemonics provide
an (iF) link.
The problem with tonic sol-fa is that, whilst it
solves the more difficult task of learning music (i.e. direct labeling of the
intangible pitch), no convincing method is associated with it to translate the
acquired (bR) skills to the (bL) expectations of theory, for example, with
musical notation. Attempts always try to relate sol-fa to the traditional terms
of theory (e.g. intervals), and, as a result, make the method seem impractical
for ‘serious’ learning.
Fundamental thought processes in
learning music
Progress in learning music
should simulate the natural perception order: the 3 dimensions of the
intangible elements 1.
Rhythm, 2. Melody, 3.
Harmony
Chords
and Harmony
Dimensions
Metre: bar: one cycle
between 2 downbeats [tension-] release to tension [-release], beat:
1 unit of time between up-beat and down beat.
(time signature: the number of beats per
bar.
Rhythm: the start and
duration of sound events [notes or rests] in terms of coinciding or not with
the beats
Pitch: the ‘height’ of
the note assuming a set of relations (tonality): scale: the set of the likely
notes to be used within the given tonality – in alphabetic order. Degrees: the
ordinal number of notes within the scale
Melody: a sequence of
sound events, where the pitch of the notes defined by the rhythm is defined in
terms of the degrees of the scale.
Chord: a frozen moment
of several notes sounding together, where only the relationship between those
notes is considered.
Harmony: ’colouring’ of
melody with different chords.
(Tonal function: the
reinforcement of tension or release by the use of notes in the melody, further
underlining by the use of chords of harmony of the appropriate ‘colour’.)
Myths built in the theory of music
The myth of
‘understanding’ rhythm’
A scholar in the Middle Ages, whether he perceived
or not (bR) how time was divided to form rhythm, knew (bL) that, 3 units (as in the Holy Trinity) formed tempus perfectum,
therefore, 2 units must be imperfectum. But, is our modern explanation
different on ‘why’ 34 is not the same as 68,
just because the terms used (‘simple’ and ‘compound’ times (bL)) seem more objective? The object of rhythm is time, and as such, is
intangible. Beats and the notes of different length in relation to those beats
only exist in time, thus in (bR), whilst a description of those in mathematical
fractions only exists in (bL). The unfortunate practice of blurring the border
between the two leads to the establishment of misconceived expectations (such
as: ‘now, tap two quavers’).
The myth of intervals as a
measure of pitch
In the 18th century, nearly all musicians
had perfect pitch. Their students, however, did not. Therefore, the teachers of
the time invented a method: the intervals. Practically nobody has ever
challenged (or proved) the validity and purpose of this concept, in spite of
the fact, that the originator (the teacher) did not offer an emulation of his
own perception process (as, having perfect pitch, he knew the name
of the new note and associated its pitch with it, and did not measure
the interval from the previous note). The other problem with intervals is that
the name is an indirect (bL) label, and for making sense of it for the (bR), usually a part of a known melody is given as a third stage of
reference. For instance, a Perfect 5th sounds like the
beginning of ‘Twinkle, twinkle, little star’. Therefore, in
sight-singing or aural recognition situation, the student initially associates
‘Twinkle, twinkle, little star’ with a Perfect 5th. Obviously, this
is a long-winded, inefficient method – where, with time, the process with the
distinct tasks is long forgotten. A music student is expected to pitch a Perfect 5th directly, thus establishing a false belief that it is possible.
The myth of
‘hearing the notes’ of a chord
When a student is asked to identify the 3 notes of
a triad in the course of an aural test, he is asked something that would
physically only be possible, if he had 3 ears (on a separate skull each – and
the notes produced in 3 isolated atmospheres). The traditional expectation of
‘hearing out’ the components of a complex sound (the triad) is really based on
the past learning of different chord structures (bL) and on
hearing of different chords (bR) and on a long scan of trial-and error processes. Most
often, the final answer (the chord’s name) never reaches an interface stage
that could be meaningful in real time (in either direction).
The above examples
demonstrate that traditional music teaching uses didactically unfounded,
tedious methods – yet many achieve reading rhythm, sight-singing and aural
recognition. The purpose of searching for alternative teaching methods is to
achieve the same objectives with a more sound foundation (from the student’s
aspect) and with a higher success rate.
Instrumental
skills
The arguments, so far,
focused on learning musicianship (loosely: theory, music
reading/writing, sight-singing and aural recognition) that, according to many
(including the author), should be integrated to learning instrumental
skills. Although the author has experience only in teaching piano
(keyboard), the following generalised findings of discussions with other
musicians/music teachers is most probably true in respect of all instruments
(including singing).
The traditional model of
learning a piece of instrumental music
Built-in inefficiencies of
this model:
- no clear distinction between (bL) and (bR) tasks in the
‘learning’ phase
- The amount of (bL) tasks stop
the (bR) real-time flow (thus leads to practicing a
wrong attitude to rhythm)
- no (bL) control (iF) over the
real-time (bR) ‘practicing’ stage
- the (bR) ‘practicing’ implies
that motoric memory has the overall control
The instrument is
a physical extension of (bR)
A more efficient model for
learning an instrument would be breaking down the process into:
Digesting: the real-time
image of the sound events that is expected as the ultimate output from the instrument
(this may be: e.g. singing [inner hearing] the melody, etc). It is the
end-result of (bL) and (bR) musicianship processes.
Planning: a sequence of (bL) and (bR) preparation steps
particular to the instrument and to the physical implementation.
Example (learning
a piece for recorder): the student
- can sing the melody ((bR) result of
previous musicianship processes)
- identifies (bL) the finger-combinations for the
notes present in the piece
- sings the melody, and moves his fingers –‘dry
practice’: as if he were playing (bR)
- (having learnt, by dry practice)
Performing the piece. In
this way, he learns the piece he wants to play with little or no practice at
all; the only task left for him is to shape it to his liking. In other words:
to enjoy his music making - after all, that is his ultimate objective for
learning music, anyway.
Conclusion
A music
teaching/learning curriculum should
·
be consistent (using thought processes based on the
same principles)
·
be progressive (new elements built on previous ones)
·
clearly address the tasks to the appropriate type of
process (bL) or (bR)
·
use a common set of (iF) labels for both (bL) and (bR) processes
·
simultaneously develop sight-singing, aural recognition,
inner hearing, relevant theory and musical memory (and assume a similar
approach to instrumental/singing skill development)
·
be vectored (follow the order of the dimensions of
natural perception) therefore should include, from the very beginning, both (bL) and (bR) development of the
relevant
o
rhythm,
o
pitch, and
o
harmony patterns.
·
(provide a set of interface processes tailored to the
particular instrument and to the appropriate motoric implementation
PART TWO: ‘ZNK’, AN
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
General principles
The general structure of the curriculum
follows the expectations listed in the conclusion of the previous part.
The particular structure of the curriculum
is based on the objective, that the student must develop both his visual and
aural ‘vocabulary’ to such a level, that the compressed time taken by
recollection/identification of the appropriate pattern is shorter than the
given real time in the flow of music.
ZNK achieves this by
practicing distinct visualisation based on (bL)
structural processes, and practicing the auditive
implementation of the visual pattern (bR) using the same
(iF) terms.
Interface devices
in ZNK:
For the consistent
coding/decoding of (iF) elements a set of terms are
laid down from the very beginning.
Rhythm
Visual
(bL): Picture gallery, with separate halls according to the time signature
(i.e. with the value of one beat; hall of a [crotchet] [quaver] [minim] [dotted
crotchet] etc.)
Auditive (bR): practicing one
or several voice rhythm exercises, melodies and harmonised melodies
Example: (learning crotchet notes, rests and quavers)
- the student taps the beats (bR).
- the student learns the visual image of the
possible patterns lasting one beat (bL). He visualises
‘pictures’ in the ‘hall of the crotchets’ within an imaginary ‘picture
gallery’. [at this stage, the 3 pictures are: crotchet note, crotchet
rest, pair of quavers]. This process should be practiced as pure
visualisation, separately from beating and/or singing.
- the student is presented with a piece (rhythm
exercise) consisting of a sequence of any one of the 3 pictures. He is
expected to tap the beats, follow the music with his eyes picture-by-picture
(not note-by-note) and vocalise (singing ‘pom’) the written
music (bR). He is told, that if he cannot sing the
written music, it does not matter; he can catch up at the next picture (or
the picture afterwards). The exercise is reinforced by repetition.
- at the time of tapping the beat, he can instantly
recognise (bL), which of the 3 pictures is to be
performed during the period of the given beat, and assess whether or not,
and when to sing ‘pom’ (iF),
(bR).
- reinforcement processes (bL):
- visual reconstruction of the piece from memory–
without looking
- re-writing the piece from memory – memorising
the such re-written version
- comparing the (shown) original version with the
(hidden) re-written version by expectation to see what the student
memorised in b)
- repetition of b) and c) if necessary
- singing the pattern from memory (iF) and (bR)
reinforcement
General
objectives:
1. (bL) learning process
(visualisation and naming ‘pictures’)
2. (bR) reading process
(left to right, pictures of whole beat’s length only)
3. (bL) memory development
(remembering a longer sequence of several pictures)
4. (bL) development of
reading (copying) patterns in context, not symbols out of context)
Expected
outcome:
1. The student, by
tapping the beats, should be able to follow through visually any piece of music
consisting of crotchets and pairs of quavers (ignoring pitch for the time
being). He could sing most (or all) of it without stopping.
2. If there are
unknown ‘pictures’ in the piece, the student could ignore them, and pick up
from the next known picture.
Pitch
Method of singing
and ear training: (bR): using a kind of tonic
sol-fa. Visual (iF): unique mnemonic graphic
symbols used in practicing the above.
Note: the 7 mnemonic syllables are different from tonic sol-fa:
Zoo-Vah-Nay-Yaw-Koo-Pah-Tay. Two reasons justified the change of mnemonics: a)
using ‘doh-ray-me’ for relative pitch would confuse students having do-ré-mi as
absolute pitch in their mother-tongue, b) in the mnemonic expression of chords
(see later), the syllables will change, anyway.
Visual (iF): unique mnemonic
graphic symbols used in practicing
[*with the optional help (teacher emulation) of an
audio-visual aid (computer program) displaying unique ‘ZNK’ graphic symbols,
staff notation and playing the different pitches providing both sight-singing
and aural recognition exercises]
Visual (bL): using and
applying the 6 rules [of the diatonic scale] by the application of logical
thought process and visualisation.
Example of sight-singing E-B in ZNK
(for easier reference: E-B in E Major: Zoo-Koo [=Doh-Soh] respectively)
Preliminary exercises
1. singing
(auditive) process: (bR) by imitation of an external
source (teacher or AV. aid) zoo-koo to different given zoo
2. visualisation
(bR)
process:(and verbal reinforcement) of the Zoo-Koo distance on the 5 lines of
the staff (e.g.: if the Zoo is on the middle line [‘zoo clef’], the Koo is on
the top line; or, if the Koo is on the space above the bottom line, the Zoo is
on the space below the first lower leger line, etc.)
The visual
image of Zoo-Koo is always either [zoo-]line to 2 lines up, or [zoo-]space
to 2 spaces up.
Koo
Koo
Zoo
Zoo
3. absolute names:(it is assumed
that the student already knows the ABC-names in treble clef)
4. application
process (bL) of the rule: if
the ‘zoo’ is natural, then the ‘koo’ is natural too. Except, when ‘zoo’ is ‘B’,
then ‘koo’ is sharp
Koo #
Zoo=A,C,D,E,F,G:
B:
5. practicing
process (that is: [bL]-driven
visualisation) of the 7 possible Zoo-Koo
pairs (not singing), cannot take
longer than a few minutes – leading to an instant
visual recognition of “Zoo-Koo” as an [iF]
label.
(bL) visualisation
processes can be practiced anywhere, anytime – as it does not need any external
device. The author usually advises his students to practice those on the Tube
or Bus on their way home. In the course of the visualisation process it is
recommended to exaggerate the (inner) image (for instance the size of
visualised notes could be that of the underground station symbol): as,
according to memory experts, that would leave a deeper impression– thus the
pattern could be recollected/ identified much faster.
6.
identification process of the pattern (iF) both as (bL) E-B= “Zoo-Koo” and
(bR) i.e. what “Zoo-Koo” should sound like.
7.
reinforcement (iF) exercises
already visualised pattern already practiced conversion already familiar pitch image
Practice exercises
8. sight-singing (bR) melodies
(‘pitched’ rhythm) using Zoo-s and Koo-s.
9. re-writing them from memory
(see the process above, re. Rhythm)
10. transposing them from memory
(by changing the Zoo)
General objectives
- (bL) learning process
(visualisation and [A,B,C ‘absolute’] naming of zoo-s, koo-s in different
keys)
- (bR) reading process of
melodies
- (bR) aural recognition af
zoo-koo [and (bL) decoding of absolute name notes]
- (bL) memory development
(remembering melodic patterns) [and (bR) singing of
them from the visualised ’ written’ music ]
- (bL) development of
transposition in context, not in terms of scales
Expected outcome
1. The
student, by tapping the beats, should be able to follow through visually any
melody using rhythm of the level of his knowledge. He could sing most (or all)
of the zoo-s and koo-s without stopping.
2. The
student could instantly recognise zoo-s and koo-s aurally – and decode them to
absolute-name notes if necessary/could play them on their instrument in real
time
3. If
there are unknown notes in the melody, the student could ignore them, and pick
up from the next zoo or koo.
Harmony
The (bR) process development
treats harmony as a ‘colour dimension’ to a melody-note. ZNK’s
monosyllabic (thus real-time) chord mnemonics are composed of two elements:
Everybody hears, in real-time, the two different colours of ‘Long’ and ‘live’ in the
second line of ‘God Save the Queen’. The two chords, according to the rudiments
of music, are: we sing (in the melody) the 3rd. degree (of a Major scale)
is accompanied by a (tonic) Major triad 2nd inversion,
followed by the same melody note, accompanied by a (relative, or
sub-mediant) root-position minor triad. This type of labeling is
extremely tedious, and can only be speeded up to become useful (iF) labeling
through serious efforts, and at a fairly advanced (near-professional) level of
music studies, and, in the majority of cases, never reaches the real-time
identification speed.
But, emulating the actual perception
process, there are two elements only:
a)
the note we
sing (that here, happens to be : ‘nay’ in ZNK), - which we could express as ‘n’;
b)
the ‘colour’ of
that note (‘Long’ or ‘live’) - which we could express as ‘-o’ or ‘-i’ respectively,
either of which we could sing in one
syllable per chord, in real time!
Thus, using such monosyllabic compound labels could
solve the real-time labeling of the real-time event, emulating the dimensions
of perceiving the music. These compound mnemonics in ZNK first use the
consonant of the melody (top)note [nay] followed by a vowel,
expressing the ‘colour’ (the accompanying chord) of the melody-note. The vowel
‘-oo’ stands for Zoo Major triad, and the ‘-ah’ for pah minor
triad. Thus ‘Long-live’ would sound: ‘Noo-Nah’ in ZNK. It is quite easy
to imagine that, singing the Noo-Nah sequence with simultaneous hearing
of the appropriate chords (in different keys) can develop firm Pavlovian
reflexes within a 5-minute practice session. This concept, associated with the (bL) visualisation processes can develop instant chord recognition in the
student (together with the instant knowledge of the [component] notes). The
author knows of no other method for chord recognition with such scientific
foundation and one which has been tried and tested for decades in practice, with
a near-100% success rate.
Example of working with Major triads
(for easier reference: the 3 notes of a Major triad are Zoo-Nay-Koo)
1. (assumed
stage: the student already knows instantly Zoo-Koo as was detailed above, and
also that [Zoo-Nay are line-to-line or space-to-space] and [Rule 2:
if Zoo is natural, then Nay is # except when zoo=C, or F or G;
then Nay is natural too])
2. listening/singing (bR) Major triads by
imitation from an external source (teacher or audio-visual device [computer])
to different given zoo-s
3. visualisation (bL) of (Zoo-) of
Major triads: line-to-line-to-line or space-to-space-to-space
4. (bL)
thought processes and visualisation of the 3 types of Major
triads:
Koo #
Nay # #
Zoo
Triads: B Major C,F,G Major A,D,E Major
5. aural
recognition and sight-singing (bR) exercises of the
different notes of different Major triads
General objectives
1. (bL) learning process
(logical processing, visualisation of chord patterns)
2. (bR) sight-singing/aural
recognition of notes within Major triads
3. (bL) feedback
patterns in melodic reading (of the
‘skeleton’ [Tonic triad] notes of tunes in Major keys)
4. (bL) memory development
(memorising in larger-scale context)
Expected outcome
1.
The student could think of a pattern
and could recognise it without analyzing what context (here, Major triad) would
the component notes make up
2. Even if there are unknown notes in the melody, the student could ignore
them, and return to zoo or nay or koo (skeleton-notes) instantly, when they are
used by the melody.
General process of practicing
An efficient practicing
process (both in musicianship and on an instrument) has the following steps:
- identification of a particular problem area (bL);
- comparing the problem areaA with an already learnt patternB
(bL);
- making a practice plan for progressing from
patternB to areaA (bL);
- executing the steps (bR) [taking out
from the context of the piece];
- practicing the so clarified areaA within
the environment of the context of the piece
Example: (new picture: ‘off-beat quaver’ [second bar, first beat])
- (bL) Problem area: bar 2
(‘how to sing the off-beat quaver?’);
(bL) ‘It is like
(a familiar pattern)
but, by the end of the (bR) practice, the first quaver of the
pattern shall have to be a rest
(bR) practice: whilst
tapping the beats, the student sings the 4 quavers as “pom-pom-pom-pom”- (bL) since the
first quaver will be left out, let us mark it with a different word (e.g.:
“pim”, instead of “pom”
- (bR) repeat the previous
step “pom-pom-pom-pom” (say, four times) then
continue with “pim-pom-pom-pom”
- (bR) repeat the previous
steps “pom-pom-pom-pom” (say, four times),
then “pim-pom-pom-pom” (say, four
times), then leave out the “pim” (whilst,
perhaps, tapping that beat a bit louder):” - -pom-pom-pom”;
- Practice the piece, as is – with the new pattern
safely learnt.
Programmed
courses in ZNK under construction --- here soon!
Back to top
PART THREE: FUNDAMENTS
OF KEYBOARD SKILLS
Although the author strongly
believes, but it is not proven that the method
works at all levels, as his experience is limited
to teaching the first year for beginners (for 5-6 years at Morley College and
Goldsmith’s College in the ‘70-80s).
Problems with traditional methods
A beginner, traditionally, is
loaded with a large number of tasks (recognition of rhythm patterns, hands,
notes, relating those to the keyboard, fingers, hand-position or ‘touch’) –
which is impossible to solve in real time. Nevertheless, students are
encouraged to repeat it until they can manage it [that is called: practicing -
some tutors even try to make the task ‘easier’: practice the hands
separately….] This method implies:
first, your hands
should learn the piece;
then, you can hear
what you play.
The student picks up bad
musical and manual habits – unlearning of which provides a good excuse for
further practicing for years to come.
Learning the
keyboard through an alternative approach turns the process round:
first, you should
learn what you want to do, when you get to the keyborad;
then, you should
play, and enjoy playing and shaping the already known piece.
Anyone,
never having played the piano before, could be instructed to go to the piano,
open the lid, find a pattern of two black keys (around the middle) hit the
white key in-between the two (which we call:D) with his middle finger. He
should be able to do it, without any ‘practice’
From here, the page is under construction
Please come back soon
Thank you for visiting