Re: [Harp-L] Reading Music

[sheltraw@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Hi Iceman

I'm still not sure what it is that you want to teach about harmony. Do
you want to teach a particular "theory" connected with harmony? If so
then what theory? Can you state it? If it is theory then it should have
predictive value. Do you want to teach an awareness of the different
sounds of intervals that constitute a particular? This would be an
example of what I referred to as taxonomy. Or do you want to teach
something altogether different from these two examples?

You may have noticed that I am not happy with what passes as theory in
music education world. In my world there is a clear difference between
theory and taxonomy.

Cheers,
Daniel



> Daniel,
>
>
> ah, no wonder I never learned taxonomy in music college. It doesn't really
> exist in that world...now I'm back to my original question of how to teach
> theory without using notation.
>
>
> Since you asked for a specific example, I'll choose one ... 4 part
> harmony, one of the foundations for modern chord voicings, also known as
> functional harmony. Bach was a master at this and the result was four
> lines that moved independently in linear fashion, but when approached
> vertically, created chords. It was one basis for our "chord changes"
> today. As you can see, this encompasses both harmonic structure of a tune
> and the harmonization of a melody at the same time.
>
>
> When learning music theory in college, this is considered one of the
> sources for what we do today. It includes voice leading, linear ideas,
> harmonic structure, rhythm and a basic understanding of what makes so much
> of music "work", in a sense. Charlie Parker's solos owed a lot to this
> source and to Bach, for example.
>
>
> In approaching an instrument such as harmonica, which is linear and also
> chordal, this foundation really strengthens and gives good logic to
> approaching soloing and accompaniment. Granted, it is not necessary for
> all those interested in music to learn, but is valuable nonetheless.
>
>
> One could spend years learning by ear what works and what doesn't, or
> spend a much shorter time learning theory for an inherent and deeper
> understanding of how music works. I always seek the shorter path to a
> musical goal.
>
>
> If you can show how functional harmony can be taught without the use of
> music notation, I would be totally enlightened.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sheltraw <sheltraw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: The Iceman <icemanle@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: harp-l <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 1:00 pm
> Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Reading Music
>
>
> Hi Iceman
>
> Just to be clear, the word taxonomy is not, to my knowledge, used in the
> world of formal music education. But it is an appropriate word to use
> here to contrast that which has predictive value with that which simply
> classifies.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
>> Daniel,
>>
>>
>> I've also never heard of taxonomy. I thought that theory would encompass
>> chord structure and harmony.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for adding to my knowledge. This is what harp-l is for, after
>> all.
>>
>>
>> The Iceman
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sheltraw <sheltraw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: The Iceman <icemanle@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: harp-l <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 9:41 am
>> Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Reading Music
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>