So You Want to Teach Music in America?

<br>Well, that's assuming all Debussy did was sit in front of his score without any piano or anything else there. I'm quite certain he had a piano there with him as he composed - the vast majority of composers from the late 18t century onwards did. Same can also be said that he developed those textures and lush harmonies due to his extreme knowledge of music theory. <br><br>"Knowledge of music theory" doesn't help him to know what it sounds like<br>Many of his scores use more notes/lines than could be played at the piano<br>Hearing them on piano-1 sound does not justify the mastery of orchestration that goes along with his music and is another equally difficult skill that requires inner listening<br>

If we look at today's population, only about 3% of those students taught ear training end up using what they learned. It would be hard pressed to say that that 3% was comprised solely of composers! Yes, it's a good skill but it's not really important in the arena of composing music. Take history for example, Mozart is but one of a handful of composers (and I do mean a handful, as in 3 -  4!) who is known to have exception abilities that generally fall in the ear training/transcribing by hearing category. Other composers are well known for using a piano (Beethoven, Liszt, Brahms, Schumann, Debussy, the list goes on and on.) It's not that they didn't 'hear' ideas in there head - they all most likely did. But aside from hearing an idea - you also have to be able to have the imagination to realize where it can go and what its potentials are. Ear training won't help you with that. As for the crack on 'Knowledge of music theory' in regards to Debussy, Debussy is well known to have exhibit a markedly masterful understanding of harmony and theory. Theory can help one organize the ideas in there head - and I would venture to say that a thorough knowledge of theory is essential to being able to develop ones ideas to their fullest potential.

NOTE: I'm not disagreeing that ear training has its merits - I fully believe it should be taught to students. I'm just stating that as a compositional tool for every composer, it has severe limitations. As anyone who has taken an ear training course can attest, not every one can pick it up. The statistic above that states 3% is fairly true - and based on my own experiences in being a student of ear training and watching my classmates flounder at it.

If we look at today's population, only about 3% of those students taught ear training end up using what they learned. It would be hard pressed to say that that 3% was comprised solely of composers! Yes, it's a good skill but it's not really important in the arena of composing music. Take history for example, Mozart is but one of a handful of composers (and I do mean a handful, as in 3 -  4!) who is known to have exception abilities that generally fall in the ear training/transcribing by hearing category. Other composers are well known for using a piano (Beethoven, Liszt, Brahms, Schumann, Debussy, the list goes on and on.) It's not that they didn't 'hear' ideas in there head - they all most likely did. But aside from hearing an idea - you also have to be able to have the imagination to realize where it can go and what its potentials are. Ear training won't help you with that. As for the crack on 'Knowledge of music theory' in regards to Debussy, Debussy is well known to have exhibit a markedly masterful understanding of harmony and theory. Theory can help one organize the ideas in there head - and I would venture to say that a thorough knowledge of theory is essential to being able to develop ones ideas to their fullest potential.

NOTE: I'm not disagreeing that ear training has its merits - I fully believe it should be taught to students. I'm just stating that as a compositional tool for every composer, it has severe limitations. As anyone who has taken an ear training course can attest, not every one can pick it up. The statistic above that states 3% is fairly true - and based on my own experiences in being a student of ear training and watching my classmates flounder at it.

3%??? you are allowed to make up stats?

Debussy is well known to have exhibit a markedly masterful understanding of harmony and theory

That is part of ear training

And back to the original point---teaching! if you are teaching an ensemble you damn well be able to pick out what section is doing what wrong, etc.

3%??? you are allowed to make up stats?

Be honest, Ben. How many of your students who you teach ear training to actually pick it up? How many retain the knowledge? I would venture to say that my proposed 3% is too high!

That is part of ear training

Prove it! Present a text that states that Debussy undertook proper ear training courses and those courses helped him become a master of composition.

it is completely and I mean completely irrelevant whether or not Debussy took ear-training courses to prove that without a great inner-ear his compositions could not have been made...Do you know any composers personally that composed before computer times (aka before the past 20 years) ? Every one that I know that has composed with pen and paper has amazing ears.

"And at the same time, a composer can still be awesome even if they're DEAF, really. It doesn't matter at the end if the composer had a good ear or not, just what they actually wrote."

This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read! You are right, they can be awesome when they are deaf (ahem Beethoven) because they have good ears! Beethoven knew what his material sounded like even though he couldn't hear it! that is called ear-training!

?

Beethoven is just one example. But someone who doesn't have hearing since birth can still write music. Will they hear it? No. You will though, and you can find it good or bad regardless of their personal disability. It has nothing to do with the end product itself as far as you're concerned. The guy could have studied theory to the point he's writing from formulas, not actually hearing anything. Then what? He has a "good ear?"

Or how about computers that put together those formulas and produce music that sounds like X or Y composer? Do they have a good ear too?

If that was the most ridiculous statement you ever read, then I'm not sure what definition of ridiculous you're going by.

it is completely and I mean completely irrelevant whether or not Debussy took ear-training courses to prove that without a great inner-ear his compositions could not have been made...Do you know any composers personally that composed before computer times (aka before the past 20 years) ? Every one that I know that has composed with pen and paper has amazing ears.

I only know of a few in the past 20 years who use solely pen and paper. Most that I've known use at least a piano or there instrument to help. I think a good example historically is to think of those anecdotes from the composers of the past. Again, only a small handful mention them sitting and transcribing their music down from their heads verbatim. The remainder, such as Beethoven, used a piano alongside their pen and paper. Look at Beethoven's sketch pads - full of scratched out notes, etc..-that's proof right their that he didn't just write his music down from memory. He struggled to make sure that what he wrote down was what he wanted.. and the piano, as his sketch pads and notebooks and witness testimony attests to.

And to draw back to Beethoven again, in his death period.. his works became far more adventurous. The reason wasn't do to the fact someone could play an Augmented 3rd and he could recognize it.. but instead because he knew the theory AND knew how to 'hone' his ideas. The simple fact that Beethoven was even able to compose,while deaf, really does stand in stark contrast to the argument that being able to aurally hear music = the ability to compose music.

Well, it is the way ear training is taught according to a very rigid ciricculum of primarily Western/Central European music samples. I agree it is a good grounding to relearn the basics and intermediate concepts of music in a different way - through active listening. BUT, if you learn to read music and then use to study scores while listening to the music you can end up doing the same thing just in a far less structured manner. Also, to play instruments which you control the intonation you are training your ear to some degree.

Specifically about ear training it is the method and degree of complexity that is appropriate. For conductors, I'd say it is paramount to have an ear which can read a a Mahler score. So the ear training has to be rigorous (though not done in the traditional college institutions) and thorough. For composer, the ear training can be done in various ways but it must have rigor and organization. For example, far too many composers jump into too difficult scores or are too impatient. The study of the score for Reich's Octet, Mahler's 9th are lifelong pursuits.

Guess what is one of several ways to train your ears? Write your own music and hear it performed. We are lucky to have music notation and midi these days. It offers at a least an elemental idea of what your write and how it matches your aural imagination/conception. Writing music in accordance to stylistic models is also excellent because you are "matching " a sound with this. This mean employing the appropriate chords, melodic contours and rhythms etc so your own work follows a past style.

The way ear training is taught I find limited. Using a piano with equal temperament and having the pitches banged out is limited by the piano's timbre, the temperament used and the artificial isolation of elements (a necessity this last one which must be remedied by sight singing).Ok, it isn't that bad but not much better than that - especially the reliance on a piano to "train" your ear. It is like showing varieties of pumpkins and squash to teach someone what are ALL the vegetables produced in the US.

Also, music theory - which school? Read the first few pages of David Lewin's work and you will think you are reviewing your elementary calculus and wonder is this really music theory. What about Schenkerian analysis? What about piston's Harmony book versus Adler & Schachter's? Except for Lewin's books, most theory is hopelessly descriptive where the authors chooses their own dictionary of adjectives, adverbs and verbs. It CAN be useful if the person is familiar with the lingo but of limited use to composers and performers. I place lewin's book as an exception because he is successful wedding mathematics with music and keeping the focus on only what is in the piece and how it works.

Will they hear it? No. You will though, and you can find it good or bad regardless of their personal disability. It has nothing to do with the end product itself as far as you're concerned. The guy could have studied theory to the point he's writing from formulas, not actually hearing anything. Then what? He has a "good ear?"

No...then he has made the best of his disability...not able to ever know what it even is..I hardly call that a great talent

Beethoven was great BECAUSE he was a great composer and had good enough inner hearing to compose while deaf..

Show me a composer who you REALLY think is great that cant hear (why would they want to write music?) or show me a great computer random generated composition....one that you REALLY think is great.

Also, I am NOT saying that piano, computer, instruments arent great tools and that you cant use them to help...but a good ear is equally or greater in value

PS. All People with AMAZING ears do not make them all great composers and vice versa.

For those whom you think they could wriute masterpieces from their heads easily, get the Henle urtext of Mozart sonatas and piano music and check the the London Notebook sketches and hear his "masterpieces". Many are elementary outlines of a harmony set in some banal rhythmn and a melodic line. Possibilities yes but nothing to brag about even for a decent composer. I am not saying it isn't possible BUT it is astoundingly rare for great or any composers write a finished, fantastic piece from begininng to end without revisions and drafts. As you compose you do come closer to writing a "finished" product.

I am not saying any of those statements composerorganist...simply that without a great inner ear/tonal and rhythmic imagination, one can not compose well

Show me a composer who you REALLY think is great that cant hear (why would they want to write music?) or show me a great computer random generated composition....one that you REALLY think is great.

My point is still quite valid. You can like or dislike music produced by someone who can't hear what they're doing and has no way to. If you're not informed of this bit of information, I can pass along ANY kind of music as example and you have no way to know if they're deaf or not unless I explicitly tell you. Then what, you'll change your mind to account for it? Or you'll go in with the preconceived notion that the music is inferior, as clearly you are rather markedly biased on the topic as it is.

That's moving the goalpost, plain and simple.

Also, I am NOT saying that piano, computer, instruments arent great tools and that you cant use them to help...but a good ear is equally or greater in value

...

I am not saying any of those statements composerorganist...simply that without a great inner ear/tonal and rhythmic imagination, one can not compose well

Really now?

I didn't know you were made head of the committee who decides which way is best when composing or which tools are the most useful.

I ask then:

What is the best way to develop a good ear?

What level of accuracy should your ear have to be a good composer?

And more fundamentally, what things should a composer be able to hear (internally and externally) to compose well? And why those things?

PS. pardon if I overinterpreted and misinterpreted you remarks. I think I pick upon your implicit prejudices. I do think a good ear is beneficial to a composer. But I cannot define clearly what makes a "good ear"and how exactly it improves the composer. I feel my composition/performing improves from ear training but I never could tell you exactly how. The one aspect, rhythmic dictation and practice, I can explain. By tapping and saying the rhythmic patterns in front of someone else familiar with rhythmic exercises and knowledgeable about them forces me to be more accurate with and cognizant of the rhythmic aspect of my compositions.

Pitch is trickier. I learn much from listening repeatedly with great concentration to more contemporary music (as well as classics) without a score (as it is very difficult to find). I could not tell you the exact exact intervals and harmonies but the FORM became clearer to me and the devices used to extend phrases. Note though the repeated listening is not in huge chunks of time but smaller units whose frequency increases and then diminishes when my ear seemingly cannot hear new things. This in particular was true with the Schoenberg Woodwind Quintet and focusing on one De Vitry piece which I translated through my own filter into the first mvmt of my Wind Trio.

I am not saying any of those statements composerorganist...simply that without a great inner ear/tonal and rhythmic imagination, one can not compose well

I will be blunt. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Tchaikovsky.. or any of the 'Great' Composers ever had good ears - or even ear training (Mozart may have under his father, but there's no evidence to suggest that.) Take Berlioz, for example, his hearing was severely hampered by chronic ringing in his ears! Given that, is it possible to list ear training as one of the top 5 tools/necessary training for composers? I'd say no. Should it be something that composers and all other musicans learn? I'd say yes. There are a ton of different techniques that are far more important to composers than being able to identify whether an interval is a 3rd, Minor 3rd, a C, or a C#. And as I said before... of all the students that learn ear training, a small majority of those retain it long enough to be of any use whatsoever.

...to compose well?

Assuming we have any idea what "composing well" means here. I certainly don't give a scraggy about writing like Beethoven, deaf or not.

I will be blunt. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Tchaikovsky.. or any of the 'Great' Composers ever had good ears - or even ear training (Mozart may have under his father, but there's no evidence to suggest that.) Take Berlioz, for example, his hearing was severely hampered by chronic ringing in his ears! Given that, is it possible to list ear training as one of the top 5 tools/necessary training for composers? I'd say no. Should it be something that composers and all other musicans learn? I'd say yes. There are a ton of different techniques that are far more important to composers than being able to identify whether an interval is a 3rd, Minor 3rd, a C, or a C#. And as I said before... of all the students that learn ear training, a small majority of those retain it long enough to be of any use whatsoever.

So how do you determine that the interval you just heard in your head was a minor third? Or how about when you hear a chord or tune in the street and want to use it as an idea, how would you write it down? You don't have a piano (or a recorder) with you, so how would you write it down? Dictation and ear training work hand in hand and are essential for any musician, regardless of whether he's a composer or player.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Tchaikovsky.. or any of the 'Great' Composers ever had good ears - or even ear training (Mozart may have under his father, but there's no evidence to suggest that

Ok...You people can sit here and talk about what is quality music and not, blah blah blah. However, let me make a few things clear:

Ear-Training is NOT simply interval recognition and the like...I don't even mean they need to be formally trained in the area.

You don't HAVE to have great ears to compose well, but it sure helps in hearing complex structures and consistently composing complex music accurately...

Now to your statement Jason...let's just look at ONE example..

Mozart:

In Rome, he heard Gregorio Allegri's Miserere once in performance in the Sistine Chapel. He wrote it out in its entirety from memory, only returning to correct minor errors—thus producing the first illegal copy of this closely guarded property of the Vatican.(from wikipedia which we know is oh so reliable :blink: but also in every music history textbook ever written)

That is called excellent tonal memory and ears

So how do you determine that the interval you just heard in your head was a minor third? Or how about when you hear a chord or tune in the street and want to use it as an idea, how would you write it down? You don't have a piano (or a recorder) with you, so how would you write it down? Dictation and ear training work hand in hand and are essential for any musician, regardless of whether he's a composer or player.

Well, for me, if a melody or chord (why a chord would just be playing on the street is odd... but ok) were playing on the street and I wanted to use it as an idea... the method I use is to continuously hum the melody until I get home and then sit and identify what notes they are by the piano - I don't have perfect pitch, so I couldn't tell you if a note played is an A or G. The rhythm would then be made to match what I heard. I don't have the ability, despite being trained three times at Ear Training - to dictate from what I hear, sadly. If I did, I'd be amazingly happy!

So how do you determine that the interval you just heard in your head was a minor third? Or how about when you hear a chord or tune in the street and want to use it as an idea, how would you write it down? You don't have a piano (or a recorder) with you, so how would you write it down? Dictation and ear training work hand in hand and are essential for any musician, regardless of whether he's a composer or player.

You..can just remember it until you get an instrument, piano, etc. Since you're a composer you should already have access to at least SOMETHING. I don't know of many composers living in islands in the middle of the pacific with no access to anything ever, do you?

This is more about memory than recognizing intervals. And seriously now, if you can't keep a melody in your head for at least some hours (and you can't record yourself singing it, either) then that's a bigger problem than not recognizing intervals.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Tchaikovsky.. or any of the 'Great' Composers ever had good ears - or even ear training (Mozart may have under his father, but there's no evidence to suggest that

Ok...You people can sit here and talk about what is quality music and not, blah blah blah. However, let me make a few things clear:

Ear-Training is NOT simply interval recognition and the like...I don't even mean they need to be formally trained in the area.

You don't HAVE to have great ears to compose well, but it sure helps in hearing complex structures and consistently composing complex music accurately...

Now to your statement Jason...let's just look at ONE example..

Mozart:

In Rome, he heard Gregorio Allegri's Miserere once in performance in the Sistine Chapel. He wrote it out in its entirety from memory, only returning to correct minor errors—thus producing the first illegal copy of this closely guarded property of the Vatican.(from wikipedia which we know is oh so reliable :blink: but also in every music history textbook ever written)

That is called excellent tonal memory and ears

Yes, and earlier I mentioned that. However, that's Mozart. He's one of the handful of composers I mentioned as being able to perform such an activity. Beethoven isn't known for doing that, neither was Stravinsky, or Schubert... I could go on. The point is, some people can do it - others cant. Does that make the others inferior composers? I tend to say no. Does it show that ear training doesn't really assist a composer in mastery of his/her craft? I'd say yes. Does that mean that ear training shouldn't be taught? I'd say no.

also...again...Beethoven-composed while deaf-obviously great ears

rather than rant about this..how about this:

everyone list their top five favorite living composers-the ones you think could be remembered for years...I will shoot an email to each of them explaining our debate and see what they have to say about their thoughts how valuable a skill it is to a composer and musician...I'll help you...one composer who I think is great that claims to have "terrible ears" is John Mackey. However, I bet he says that it is a good skill. Eric Whitacre has stated several times that he uses no instruments and composes completely with pen and paper

Harbison

Bernhard Lang

Steve Reich

Brian Eno

also...again...Beethoven-composed while deaf-obviously great ears

rather than rant about this..how about this:

everyone list their top five favorite living composers-the ones you think could be remembered for years...I will shoot an email to each of them explaining our debate and see what they have to say about their thoughts how valuable a skill it is to a composer and musician...I'll help you...one composer who I think is great that claims to have "terrible ears" is John Mackey. However, I bet he says that it is a good skill. Eric Whitacre has stated several times that he uses no instruments and composes completely with pen and paper

Again, I'm not saying it isn't a bad skill... I'm just saying it's not an essential skill. Every composer has different means at how they write music. Some don't even use pen and paper and rely solely on recording, others use just pen and paper, some use pen and paper and computer, and others still use computer. Some use a piano, some don't. Some use a violin, some don't. Some use a guitar, some don't. See my point? Just because one out of 9000 composers use solely pen and paper - and rely on being able to notate identical to what they 'hear' in their heads - doesn't make it a skill that is use by the other 8999 out of 9000 composers. See my point?

Well, for me, if a melody or chord (why a chord would just be playing on the street is odd... but ok) were playing on the street and I wanted to use it as an idea... the method I use is to continuously hum the melody until I get home and then sit and identify what notes they are by the piano - I don't have perfect pitch, so I couldn't tell you if a note played is an A or G. The rhythm would then be made to match what I heard. I don't have the ability, despite being trained three times at Ear Training - to dictate from what I hear, sadly. If I did, I'd be amazingly happy!

That's exactly what ear training and dictation are for, to gain that ability to transcribe and/or perform something on the fly. Go learn it! You will not regret it in the long term (though much in the short term, unfortunately).

That's exactly what ear training and dictation are for, to gain that ability to transcribe and/or perform something on the fly. Go learn it! You will not regret it in the long term (though much in the short term, unfortunately).

Actually, as I said. I've been taught ear training three times. Each time, I've passed it (once in Middle School, then High School, and then in college!) Do I use it regularly enough to retain it? No. Am I able to identify certain intervals by hearing them? Yes. Does it help me in composition? No.

Eric Whitacre has stated several times that he uses no instruments and composes completely with pen and paper

No wonder all his stuff sounds like clusters.

/satire