|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 13 new of 37 responses total. |
davel
|
|
response 25 of 37:
| 
Mar 12 14:39 UTC 2002 |
The use of classical themes in pop culture certainly is an important factor.
But my own experience is that playing serious classical music in band &
orchestra, and (yes) high school music-appreciation courses, can provide
important exposure to kids who really never have any other exposure to speak
of, and it makes a difference.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 26 of 37:
|
Mar 14 17:38 UTC 2002 |
The school music programs that I was referring to as having washed off
me were in elementary school. There were music classes, which
basically consisted of singing anemic arrangements of American folk
songs and patriotic songs to the accompaniment of an out-of-tune
upright, and general school assemblies to hear visiting musicians give
a talk and demonstration. Quartets of strings, winds, and brass, from
the local symphony orchestra, came one each year for three years, but I
don't remember anything about what they played.
I did take high-school music appreciation and learned a lot (and
learned even more from a harmony class), but I took them only because
I'd already discovered music, and my interest would have remained as
strong, if less tutored, if these courses did not exist.
The point is, at high-school level they're electives. At least in
California, nothing except English, civics, and swimming are legally
mandatory. These courses won't reach anybody who doesn't already know
they're interested.
Now band and orchestra, that's perhaps a different matter, though I bet
they teach some students only to hate the music they play. But that's
limited to those with a vocation for performing. I have neither talent
or interest in that: what I want is to listen. But I ran into a mind-
set that assumed that the two interests automatically went together.
Only later did I find that wasn't true: concert-goers and record-
collectors who are passionate about music, but completely ignorant of
performing, are very common, and that's where I fit in. And then I
married a soprano who loves to sing but has little interest in sitting
there listening to other people singing.
|
davel
|
|
response 27 of 37:
|
Mar 14 23:04 UTC 2002 |
When & where I went to high school, a 1-semester music-appreciation course
was a requirement. Art appreciation was the other semester.
As far as grade school, your description isn't too far off of my school's
program in the primaries. Upper elementary had rather more. I don't think
there was much there to raise interest in classical music as such. But I
think the goal there was to develop what talent the student had & try to
engender plain enjoyment of making music, basic knowledge of music notation,
etc. The fact that the teachers were very enthusiastic helped. In 5th & 6th
grade, I think at least 15 minutes or so of every school assembly - at the
beginning of the assembly - was handed over to the vocal-music teacher to get
us all singing. I'm sure that was found to be an effective way of getting
everyone settled down to paying attention to the people up at the front, but
getting a group that big (must have been a couple of hundred, maybe twice
that) all singing together on something fun to sing has an impact you lose
in smaller groups.
|
keesan
|
|
response 28 of 37:
|
Mar 15 00:12 UTC 2002 |
All I recall from elementary school music was that we sang Tis of Thee every
day and once a week, or maybe once a month, for half an hour sang things like
I Saw Three Ships A Sailing. My brother and I went to weekend piano and music
theory classes to learn music. I think they may also have made us sing
Christmas carols at least one year because I remember my mother complaining
about this. Our class of 41 had one Christian in it. Plus the teacher.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 29 of 37:
|
Mar 15 20:14 UTC 2002 |
(Where did you go to elementary school?)
I think you only need to look at popular music to see that formal education
has nothing to do with the appreciation of "difficult" or "interesting" music.
Sure, Britney Spears doesn't require much thought to listen to. But there
are kids listening to jazz, or to post-rock bands like Radiohead, or to
experimental electronica like Squarepusher -- that's all stuff that takes some
close listening and thought to really digest. And nobody teaches anyone how
to listen to that stuff, with the possible exception of jazz in some really
arty schools. People pick it up because they're motivated to, and because
they think it's interesting.
"Classical" music was the same way, once. It was pop music -- vaguely geeky
upper-class pop music for people who had the time to digest it, but still pop
music. If nobody's listening, it's because they're not motivated, not for
lack of lessons.
|
keesan
|
|
response 30 of 37:
|
Mar 15 22:54 UTC 2002 |
I grew up on Boston. Jim says he got interested in classical music because
that is what they played with all the cartoons. Lone Ranger.
|
coyote
|
|
response 31 of 37:
|
Mar 19 15:28 UTC 2002 |
I think some formal training can help with some of the more difficult
classical works... I certainly had never listened to Crumb, Scelsi,
Nancarrow, or Berio before I began taking composition lessons.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 32 of 37:
|
Mar 21 15:49 UTC 2002 |
Well, fair enough. Neither had I. But I don't think anyone listens to Victor
Wooten or Les Claypool unless they're taking bass lessons, or Steve Vai unless
they're taking guitar lessons, or... I mean, Nancarrow is a composer who
composers are into, Les Claypool is a bassist who bassists are into, and so
on. But you don't need training or special interest to see the appeal of
Mozart, any more than you need training to listen to the Ramones. They're
both catchy, easy to follow, cool if you're into that sort of thing, and
totally dull if you're not.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 33 of 37:
|
Apr 2 00:10 UTC 2002 |
The music has to catch your ear first: it has to have emotional
appeal. Otherwise there's no point in, or motivation for, learning
more about it.
Once you've trained your ear, which is not necessarily an intellectual
process, you can use that as a stepping stone for more difficult work.
Learning the technical matters of how the music is constructed is a
great thing, but it comes after, not before, learning to appreciate it.
What is useful with classical, however, and which does help
appreciation - at least it did with me - is non-technical form
analysis. I describe this as a road map of the music, so that you know
where you are, so that a long work doesn't seem like just one thing
after another and hey, wait a minute, didn't we hear that theme once
before?
I wrote a map-guide in just that form to Tchaikovsky's Romeo & Juliet,
as part of a general explanation of sonata form, which is up on my
website at http://www.stanford.edu/~dbratman/sonata.html - comments
welcome.
|
md
|
|
response 34 of 37:
|
Apr 2 03:23 UTC 2002 |
I agree with your idea that learning technical matters comes after, not
before, learning to appreciate music. Also, your idea that "non-
technical form analysis" is useful as a road map is right on. That
used to be the main focus of what was called "music appreciation" once
upon a time.
|
md
|
|
response 35 of 37:
|
Apr 2 03:24 UTC 2002 |
[And I enjoyed your web page about Tchaikovsky's R&J.]
|
davel
|
|
response 36 of 37:
|
Apr 2 14:41 UTC 2002 |
What md said in #34. Don't have time to more than glance at your web page
now, but it looks really good at a glance. R&J is one of my favorites, too.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 37 of 37:
|
Oct 7 03:23 UTC 2002 |
I've just dumped it to the printer, after keeping this item 'new' for six
months. :)
|