[Smt-talk] Keyboards for theory classes?

Thu May 8 06:58:07 PDT 2014

As a pianist who has spent many years studying the difference between a pianist's notion of the sound of the instrument and its abstracted use as the provider of pitch in theory class, I give an example of what is involved.

Beethoven's "Spring" Sonata came up in a recent casual chat with a dear friend and theorist/composer colleague. He mentioned the incredible modulation in the slow movement. The moment he pronounced F#minor (which he described as "really" G-flat minor) I pronounced D major.

The difference in our experience is that I hear the minor measure, spelled as it is to give the violin its A, as a pivot between piano heaven (all black keys) and violin heaven (D major). It is not simple for instrumentalists to process such transitions (of which there are many) acoustically after having learned about pitch relationships without the resonance factor.

Use electronic keyboards, by all means. It is more honest than letting on that a piano is a piano.

Nancy Garniez
Mannes College The New School for Music
Extension and Preparatory Divisions

http://nancygarniez.blogspot.com
www.tonalrefraction.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Schubert, Prof. [mailto:peter.schubert at mcgill.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 06:31 PM
To: smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Keyboards for theory classes?

As an ex-guitarist who once feared the "bias" towards the keyboard, I havecome around to the view that the keyboard is the only way to deal withmost theory study. I sympathize with Hali's worry about the student'sdistance from the production of sound, which is why I am a fanatic about"play'n'sing." Listening to recordings and composing at the computer aremostly useless for my students.Peter SchubertSchulich School of MusicMcGill University555 Sherbrooke St. W.Montreal, QC H3A 1E3(514) 398-4535 x00281On 14-05-07 1:12 PM, "Fieldman, Hali"  wrote:>Colleagues, >>I've been following this discussion with great interest. I'm another of>those -- a large number, apparently -- non-pianists. I played flute>professionally for many years; I love the piano and its repertoire and>always wanted to play, but for various reasons that didn't happen. A>great deal of damage later, I can no longer play the flute either. What I>have done is to find recorded repertoire -- almost all from the art-music>side of things -- and used Garage Band to create a library of hundreds and>hundreds of examples -- timbres, textures, the effect of using different>parts of the range in writing for voice and for winds, various design>features agreeing and not with harmonic boundaries, models of all sorts of>phrases, forms, etc. I use these in class, for assignments, for extra>practice material. This allows me to approach many topics first by ear,>and working from the music itself allows classes to find the right>terminology for what they're hearing, rather than starting with a>terminology that we then support with examples.>>As far as it goes, this seems to work well for my students, and I've seen>increasingly impressive results. But it also has an enormous drawback,>which is that it is still a physically passive engagement with the>material. So too is the use of computer software, for instance, and other>means of mechanically producing and manipulating sound without in some>real, embodied way also experiencing the process of production. It's>perhaps no wonder that musical manifestations of things like strain and>effort, interruption of momentum, working at the edges of possibility,>etc., often seem to bounce off, out of reach not only of audiences but>also of our students.>>This last could steer the conversation in a different direction>altogether, and that's not my intent here. But I will ask -- or at least>wonder "out loud," as it were -- if it might be to some extent the>widespread use of the piano, itself, that contributes to what I'm>describing here as the physical remove from the production of sound. Not>that pianists don't play! But it isn't necessarily harder to play a high>note, or an especially low one, on the piano; not an especial challenge to>place that pianissimo G#3 (in tune!) at the end of Barber's Knoxville,>like it is for a flutist. For me it is hard to imagine that Schumann>could have conveyed even a portion of the grief/anger/bitterness/irony>many of us hear in "Ich grolle nicht" had it not been written to strain>both ends of a good tenor's range. Usw.>>Having said all of that, I would so much rather that students do have to>deal, somehow, with making sound; and if the best practical option for>that is through the keyboard, I'm all for it. Rick Cohn reminded us in a>recent post that imagination is our best instrument, bar none; so>certainly we can find ways to help our students "feel" the things that>composers might mean by the ways they shape sounds. Getting them to>attach their bodies more immediately to the task of making sound is, I>think, our underlying charge.>>Warm regards to all,>>*****>Hali Fieldman, Ph.D.>Associate Professor and Coordinator of Music Theory>Conservatory of Music and Dance>University of Missouri -- Kansas City>>>>>>>>>On 5/7/14 1:02 AM, "Justin London"  wrote:>>>Dear colleagues,>> >>As one of those guitarists-with-no-keyboard-chops (and one of those>>music-psychology-theorists to boot), there are many things I might say in>>response to the keyboard discussion so far. But I will limit myself to>>two points, which, while I doubt will change anyone¹s mind about whether>>or not to use keyboards in the theory curriculum (and to what extent), I>>hope will at least get us thinking a bit more broadly.>> >>The first has to do with the efficacy of keyboard skills/practice for>>aural skills, as it has been claimed that keyboard players have better>>ears. This may well have been observed‹I trust Donna Doyle on this‹but>>not, perhaps, because it is the piano practice per se. It is well>>established from studies in musical memory and pitch perception that>>familiarity with particular sounds/timbres enhances our recognition and>>reproduction abilities. I don¹t have perfect pitch, but I do have very>>good pitch memory for E-A-D-G-B-E when played on a guitar, in the>>requisite octaves (that is, a kind of highly context specific sort of>>perfect pitch). Similarly, performance in musical memory tasks is better>>when one hears a melody played one¹s own instrument; this has been>>documented with various musicians on their primary instruments. So,>>here¹s the rub for aural skills and the piano: if we give our melodic and>>harmonic dictation tests from the piano (and especially if we play chord>>progressions in characteristic keyboard voicings), then (a) pianists will>>have a natural advantage, as they are far more familiar with the sound of>>the piano and its characteristic harmonies, and (b) any practice a>>non-pianist has at the piano will enhance their aural skills when they>>are assessed in this way. It would be interesting to see if the piano>>advantage still holds if, for example, one gave all of the melodic>>dictation examples (both drills and tests) for an entire semester on the>>violin. >> >>And it may be even more simple than the timbral familiarity of the piano:>>keyboard harmony is a way of getting students to spend (more) time>>learning melodic and harmonic patterns and structures, so they will>>(naturally) tend to do better recognizing those patterns and structures>>in scores and by ear. Suffice to say, there are numerous ³potential>>confounds² and ³hidden variables² in claims that the various benefits of>>keyboard skills are simply due to the keyboard itself.>> >>My second point, and here I am in great sympathy with Stephen Soderberg,>>is that the emphasis on keyboard skills, harmonic praxis, and musical>>repertoire gives our students a very skewed understanding of how music>>works. The piano is a very weird instrument, but because of its>>ubiquity, we don¹t notice that its fixed pitch and temperament,>>characteristic attack and decay, spectral uniformity, and other>>characteristics make it unlike most other instruments and instrumental>>and vocal ensembles. As a result, broad aspects of our student¹s (and>>perhaps our own) musical understanding (consonance and dissonance, chord>>voicing, voice leading, articulation, etc., etc.) become warped due to>>the very peculiar acoustics and ergonomics of the piano. The piano is a>>magnificent achievement of 18th and 19th century technology, giving>>musicians a polyphonic instrument with great tonal and dynamic range.>>These days, however, musicians can and do do a lot more, using the full>>range of technologies available to them when they compose, record, and>>perform their music. Might we also think about bringing some of these>>technologies into our classrooms, and exploit the doors of musical>>understanding that they can open for our students(?)>>>>Best,>>Justin London>>>>*************************************************>>Justin London>>Professor of Music (and other stuff), Carleton College>>Department of Music>>One North College St.>>Northfield, MN 55057 USA>>+1 507-222-4397>>>>Affiliated Researcher, Centre for Music and Science, University of>>Cambridge>>Visiting Professor (2014), University of Jyväskylä, Finland>>jlondon at carleton.edu>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________>>Smt-talk mailing list>>Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org>>http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusicthe>>o>>ry.org>>_______________________________________________>Smt-talk mailing list>Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org>http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheo>ry.org>>_______________________________________________Smt-talk mailing listSmt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.orghttp://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140508/3fad1949/attachment-0003.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
As an ex-guitarist who once feared the "bias" towards the keyboard, I have
come around to the view that the keyboard is the only way to deal with
most theory study. I sympathize with Hali's worry about the student's
distance from the production of sound, which is why I am a fanatic about
"play'n'sing." Listening to recordings and composing at the computer are
mostly useless for my students.

Peter Schubert
Schulich School of Music
McGill University
555 Sherbrooke St. W.
Montreal, QC  H3A 1E3
(514) 398-4535 x00281

On 14-05-07 1:12 PM, "Fieldman, Hali" <FieldmanH at umkc.edu> wrote:

>Colleagues, 
>
>I've been following this discussion with great interest. I'm another of
>those -- a large number, apparently -- non-pianists.  I played flute
>professionally for many years; I love the piano and its repertoire and
>always wanted to play, but for various reasons that didn't happen.  A
>great deal of damage later, I can no longer play the flute either.  What I
>have done is to find recorded repertoire -- almost all from the art-music
>side of things -- and used Garage Band to create a library of hundreds and
>hundreds of examples -- timbres, textures, the effect of using different
>parts of the range in writing for voice and for winds, various design
>features agreeing and not with harmonic boundaries, models of all sorts of
>phrases, forms, etc.  I use these in class, for assignments, for extra
>practice material. This allows me to approach many topics first by ear,
>and working from the music itself allows classes to find the right
>terminology for what they're hearing, rather than starting with a
>terminology that we then support with examples.
>
>As far as it goes, this seems to work well for my students, and I've seen
>increasingly impressive results.  But it also has an enormous drawback,
>which is that it is still a physically passive engagement with the
>material.  So too is the use of computer software, for instance, and other
>means of mechanically producing and manipulating sound without in some
>real, embodied way also experiencing the process of production.  It's
>perhaps no wonder that musical manifestations of things like strain and
>effort, interruption of momentum, working at the edges of possibility,
>etc., often seem to bounce off, out of reach not only of audiences but
>also of our students.
>
>This last could steer the conversation in a different direction
>altogether, and that's not my intent here.  But I will ask -- or at least
>wonder "out loud," as it were -- if it might be to some extent the
>widespread use of the piano, itself, that contributes to what I'm
>describing here as the physical remove from the production of sound.  Not
>that pianists don't play!  But it isn't necessarily harder to play a high
>note, or an especially low one, on the piano; not an especial challenge to
>place that pianissimo G#3 (in tune!) at the end of Barber's Knoxville,
>like it is for a flutist.  For me it is hard to imagine that Schumann
>could have conveyed even a portion of the grief/anger/bitterness/irony
>many of us hear in "Ich grolle nicht" had it not been written to strain
>both ends of a good tenor's range.  Usw.
>
>Having said all of that, I would so much rather that students do have to
>deal, somehow, with making sound; and if the best practical option for
>that is through the keyboard, I'm all for it. Rick Cohn reminded us in a
>recent post that imagination is our best instrument, bar none; so
>certainly we can find ways to help our students "feel" the things that
>composers might mean by the ways they shape sounds.  Getting them to
>attach their bodies more immediately to the task of making sound is, I
>think, our underlying charge.
>
>Warm regards to all,
>
>*****
>Hali Fieldman, Ph.D.
>Associate Professor and Coordinator of Music Theory
>Conservatory of Music and Dance
>University of Missouri -- Kansas City
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 5/7/14 1:02 AM, "Justin London" <jlondon at carleton.edu> wrote:
>
>>Dear colleagues,
>> 
>>As one of those guitarists-with-no-keyboard-chops (and one of those
>>music-psychology-theorists to boot), there are many things I might say in
>>response to the keyboard discussion so far.  But I will limit myself to
>>two points, which, while I doubt will change anyone¹s mind about whether
>>or not to use keyboards in the theory curriculum (and to what extent), I
>>hope will at least get us thinking a bit more broadly.
>> 
>>The first has to do with the efficacy of keyboard skills/practice for
>>aural skills, as it has been claimed that keyboard players have better
>>ears.  This may well have been observed‹I trust Donna Doyle on this‹but
>>not, perhaps, because it is the piano practice per se.  It is well
>>established from studies in musical memory and pitch perception that
>>familiarity with particular sounds/timbres enhances our recognition and
>>reproduction abilities.  I don¹t have perfect pitch, but I do have very
>>good pitch memory for E-A-D-G-B-E when played on a guitar, in the
>>requisite octaves (that is, a kind of highly context specific sort of
>>perfect pitch). Similarly, performance in musical memory tasks is better
>>when one hears a melody played one¹s own instrument; this has been
>>documented with various musicians on their primary instruments.  So,
>>here¹s the rub for aural skills and the piano: if we give our melodic and
>>harmonic dictation tests from the piano (and especially if we play chord
>>progressions in characteristic keyboard voicings), then (a) pianists will
>>have a natural advantage, as they are far more familiar with the sound of
>>the piano and its characteristic harmonies, and (b) any practice a
>>non-pianist has at the piano will enhance their aural skills when they
>>are assessed in this way.  It would be interesting to see if the piano
>>advantage still holds if, for example, one gave all of the melodic
>>dictation examples (both drills and tests) for an entire semester on the
>>violin. 
>> 
>>And it may be even more simple than the timbral familiarity of the piano:
>>keyboard harmony is a way of getting students to spend (more) time
>>learning melodic and harmonic patterns and structures, so they will
>>(naturally) tend to do better recognizing those patterns and structures
>>in scores and by ear.  Suffice to say, there are numerous ³potential
>>confounds² and ³hidden variables² in claims that the various benefits of
>>keyboard skills are simply due to the keyboard itself.
>> 
>>My second point, and here I am in great sympathy with Stephen Soderberg,
>>is that the emphasis on keyboard skills, harmonic praxis, and musical
>>repertoire gives our students a very skewed understanding of how music
>>works.  The piano is a very weird instrument, but because of its
>>ubiquity, we don¹t notice that its fixed pitch and temperament,
>>characteristic attack and decay, spectral uniformity, and other
>>characteristics make it unlike most other instruments and instrumental
>>and vocal ensembles.  As a result, broad aspects of our student¹s (and
>>perhaps our own) musical understanding (consonance and dissonance, chord
>>voicing, voice leading, articulation, etc., etc.) become warped due to
>>the very peculiar acoustics and ergonomics of the piano.  The piano is a
>>magnificent achievement of 18th and 19th century technology, giving
>>musicians a polyphonic instrument with great tonal and dynamic range.
>>These days, however, musicians can and do do a lot more, using the full
>>range of technologies available to them when they compose, record, and
>>perform their music.  Might we also think about bringing some of these
>>technologies into our classrooms, and exploit the doors of musical
>>understanding that they can open for our students(?)
>>
>>Best,
>>Justin London
>>
>>*************************************************
>>Justin London
>>Professor of Music (and other stuff), Carleton College
>>Department of Music
>>One North College St.
>>Northfield, MN 55057 USA
>>+1 507-222-4397
>>
>>Affiliated Researcher, Centre for Music and Science, University of
>>Cambridge
>>Visiting Professor (2014), University of Jyväskylä, Finland
>>jlondon at carleton.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Smt-talk mailing list
>>Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>>http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusicthe
>>o
>>ry.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>Smt-talk mailing list
>Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheo
>ry.org
>
>

_______________________________________________
Smt-talk mailing list
Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org