Re: [Harp-L] Reading Music



I have never heard the word taxonomy before.  Thanks!  I will probably
keep calling it theory cause I'm stubborn.
Michael

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 1:41 PM,  <sheltraw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Michael
>
> I write this in the spirit of communicating more productively.
>
> For the sake of clarity I would like to make a distinction here between
> theory and taxonomy. Much of what people call music theory is actually
> taxonomy. Theory predicts and it does so in a compact manner. Good theory
> uses no more formality than necessary. No need to go into hyperspace to
> walk next door. Taxonomy describes and categorizes.
>
> So, for example, I would not refer to chord construction as theory. I
> would call that taxonomy. Chord construction call be learned easily without
> reference to notation. I did.
>
> I would refer to some of the well known and rough guidelines for what
> will create dissonance and consonance (dynamic and static) in music
> as theory. However, from my perspective, it appears to be non-compact,
> incomplete.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
>> I understand that you are outlining scales, modes, arpeggios, etc.
>> This may be considered your basic scale, mode, arpeggios which lay the
>> groundwork for basic theory. Nashville system is good for simplified chord
>> changes. It seems, in my mind, to be hard to relate them to each other and
>> enter into an understanding of further theory without the ability to use
>> written notes as a tool.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: michael rubin <michaelrubinharmonica@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: The Iceman <icemanle@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: harp-l <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 8:23 am
>> Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Reading Music
>>
>>
>> Teach the major scales, have them tab it out on chromatic and
>> diatonic.  Teach the modes, tab it.  Teach major and minor arpeggios,
>> tab it.  Play them,  Jam using them.  Have them understand the
>> nashville number system.  Obviously there's more to theory but that
>> will get you a great start and I have taught that to many students
>> without reading music.  Then, if they ever want to read music, they
>> learn it very quickly.
>> Michael Rubin
>> Michaerubinharmonica.com
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:53 AM, The Iceman <icemanle@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> am curious.how may this be accomplished?
>>>
>>> <<I also do not think you need to read to understand and use theory.>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: michael rubin <michaelrubinharmonica@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: The Iceman <icemanle@xxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: harp-l <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 7:29 am
>>> Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Reading Music
>>>
>>> I also do not think you need to read to understand and use theory.
>>> Reading is just an advanced form of tablature.  Theory teaches you how
>>> to choose good sounding notes when playing music.
>>> Michael Rubin
>>> Michaelrubinharmonica.com
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:53 AM, The Iceman <icemanle@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> clarification
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: The Iceman <icemanle@xxxxxxx>
>>>> To: sheltraw <sheltraw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; harp-l <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Sent: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 2:28 am
>>>> Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Reading Music
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> am curious. how may this be accomplished?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <<One need not read music to understand music theory.>> sayeth Bob
>>>> Cohen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: sheltraw <sheltraw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> To: Bob Cohen <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: List Harp <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Sent: Thu, Feb 3, 2011 8:34 pm
>>>> Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Reading Music
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Bob
>>>>
>>>> Please correct me if I am wrong but it appears to me that you are
>>>> conflating reading music notation and music theory. They are two
>>>> different things. One need not read music to understand music theory.
>>>>
>>>> I am not asserting that the ability to read music isn't useful. It is.
>>>> I am asserting that it is often emphasized to an extent which is
>>>> disproportionate to its usefulness.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 3, 2011, at 2:49 PM, sheltraw@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> not available. In the future (due to better data storage and
>>>>>> portability
>>>>>> of communication devices) textual communication may wane in favor of
>>>>>> audio and visual communication.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe, I guess.  The thing is reading words is an entirely different
>>>>> experience from hearing.  Indeed, I've read that the human brain has
>>>>> changed significantly with the advent of the written word. I'm not
>>>>> sure
>>>>> of
>>>>> the implications of swinging the pendulum back to a strictly oral
>>>>> tradition.  Experience has taught me that something in the middle is
>>>>> usually the best.  --Shrug.
>>>>>
>>>>>> One who places priority upon training his ear and ear-to-instrument
>>>>>> connection does not "celebrate ignorance". IMO he has recognized the
>>>>>> essential nature of music and is using and developing his best tool
>>>>>> (the ear) for the analysis and synthesis of music.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is probably a religious issue for you so perhaps, we'll agree to
>>>>> disagree.  But as I see it, the cat's already out of the bag. Reading
>>>>> exists.  It's a very useful tool for understanding and contemplating
>>>>> the
>>>>> music and even more useful when playing with others.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Listen to a piece of music and try to scat sing over it. If you can
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> that then you have all the ears you need. In my experience most of us
>>>>>> can scat without knowing the harmonic structure of the tune and
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> knowing the notes or intervals that we are using in our scat. The ear
>>>>>> and ear-to-vocalization connection is just that good and by the time
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> are 10 years old we have recorded in our musical brains lots of
>>>>>> musical
>>>>>> ideas to draw upon.
>>>>>
>>>>> To a point that's true.  But understanding the theory opens up
>>>>> possibilities that don't naturally occur to most of us--at least to
>>>>> me. I
>>>>> can scat changes with the best of them but my ear will never be good
>>>>> enough for the subtleties without the intellectual bulwark of formal
>>>>> music
>>>>> training.  But, of course, that's my shortcoming, and perhaps not
>>>>> others.
>>>>> I will say that my ears have gotten better since undertaking the
>>>>> discipline of learning to read and of studying harmony.  My playing is
>>>>> starting to change as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I misspoke when I said, celebrate ignorance. Rather I meant
>>>>> illiteracy.  Music isn't a magical mystical form of expression. It's a
>>>>> language. And while there is certainly an absolute necessity to get to
>>>>> the
>>>>> point where we are no longer conscious of the scaffolding, the grammar
>>>>> and
>>>>> syntax as it were, to convey meaning, literacy is assumed as part of
>>>>> the
>>>>> conversation between creator and recipient.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not my intention to convince you or anyone else of my opinion but
>>>>> that's my two cents for what it's worth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>




This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.