Re: [Harp-L] Reading Music

[The Iceman <icemanle@xxxxxxx>]

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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>