So You Want to Teach Music in America?

Good ones..and ones that I bet will have some interesting things to say...Come on people..lets get some REAL expert opinions..Give me names and I'll send the emails tomorrow morning.

"Expert" composers, haha.

Honestly I'm not very interested at all in hearing what they have to say on the topic, but if you can actually get Reich to answer your email that'd be amazing.

I met Reich once. He didn't seem like a very cheery person.

So you don't care what your favorite composers have to say? If you don't value the opinions of whoever you feel are the best composersthen who's?

So you don't care what your favorite composers have to say? If you don't value the opinions of whoever you feel are the best composersthen who's?

Again, I'll state..

Just because I don't feel that it is an essential tool of the composer or an essential skill does NOT mean that i don't think it should be taught. It has value BUT the value that it holds isn't something that everyone can develop. Some people can spend years and years practicing ear training and dictation and fail YET they can write wonderful music. Others can spend years and years practicing ear training and dictation YET write music that in all honesty is bad. So, take what you want from that. It's a potential tool... but of value? I think that's based on the individual(s) in question.

Indeed, it is not a direct relationship, however, it can't hurt. So learn it!

Indeed, it is not a direct relationship, however, it can't hurt. So learn it!

I have. I can identify intervals... can write melodies I hear down (with a lil help from my piano).. I can even identify some notes. Can I do it perfectly? Not yet. Does it help me in my compositions? No.

So you don't care what your favorite composers have to say? If you don't value the opinions of whoever you feel are the best composersthen who's?

I just like the music, it doesn't mean I care much about who wrote it.

Jason I agree with your last statement that you can compose fairly well without the best ears but it is a useful tool. Back to the original topic-I don't think you can be a great ensemble teacher if you don't have very good ears..

SSC, you seem to not be open to learning from...well..anyone? any reason?

SSC, you seem to not be open to learning from...well..anyone? any reason?

Considering you just previously said that my argument was the most ridiculous things you've heard, I'm not sure if you're in a position to say something like this.

What does that have to do with valuing the teaching one of your favorite composers would have to offer. As a composer, isn't that valuable?

Because Brian Eno is too big of a star to contact and Steve Reich has a publicist of sorts (who I contacted) I will add some other composers that are prominent today to the list. Let me know if you want to add any...

I'll add:

John Corigliano

Dana Wilson

Frank Tichelli

John Mackey

Michael Daugherty

John Adams

Jacob TV

Edit: after going through, I have sent the email to about 12 composers who I am sure you will all believe to be prominent. I'll let you know what they say. Even if you don't care what they say, I'm sure it will be interesting.

Wow, 24 hours go by and my thread bloats into 7 pages of debate over ear training and its importance to education or composing.

So, now it's my turn to speak on the subject... because I have interesting thoughts on the topic - yes, they are absolutely interesting, without a doubt.

EAR TRAINING (Dooms-day music playing)

For the run-of-the-mill musician/composer/whatever, ear training can be beneficial.

For the music educator, I happen to believe ear training is a critical skill to have and be able to teach where appropriate and relevant.

After all, any student of mine should at least be given some methods from me on how to begin training their ear. They don't necessarily have to be good at it, but developing that skill will help them become a better, more capable, more independent performer. The student's ability to self-assess is important in education, and it's no different in music. For a composer, assessment is far more subjective. You either like or don't like what you've created, it either sounds right or sounds wrong depending upon what you want. For the performer, though, there is a "right" and a "wrong" note, a "right" or a "wrong" rhythm, a "right" or a "wrong" dynamic, etc.

So, that's how I see Ear Training being relevant. Shocking.

"Useful"? Yes. "Necessary" or "Essential"? Depends.

What does that have to do with valuing the teaching one of your favorite composers would have to offer. As a composer, isn't that valuable?

What they say is or isn't valuable because of WHAT they say, not who they are.

"Useful"? Yes. "Necessary" or "Essential"? Depends.

That's my stance, to some degree. I think however that skills that would fall under "ear training" that ARE practical and necessary are things that you end up picking up from the practice of being a musician. It's the same thing as a violinist that can tell when his intonation is off, it's something you're expected to do well, just like tuning your own instrument. These skills have to do with hearing, yes.

For a composer, same applies. The practice of listening to your own writing already develops your ear the more you do it, and likewise reading and hearing what others do. This is essential and necessary but also unavoidable as you'll pick up this skill the more time you spend interacting with composers, pieces and your own music.

So my problem is with trying to make a baseline curriculum that should apply to everyone when it comes to ear training; I think this is pointless. Everyone's needs are different, and they should practice the things that are actually useful to them. I was forced, as were many others, to take ear training courses that brought me absolutely nothing, yet the best "ear training" that helped me were literature courses and music analysis courses. Sure they didn't have to do with intervals or dictation, but rather with identifying textures, learning composers styles along with reading and hearing music.

I'd much rather get rid of a single "ear training course" and rather make whatever skills are helpful or necessary (violin intonation, etc) part of the instrument course itself, not something extra everyone has to do, regardless of how useful it may be to them or not.

That's my stance, to some degree. I think however that skills that would fall under "ear training" that ARE practical and necessary are things that you end up picking up from the practice of being a musician. It's the same thing as a violinist that can tell when his intonation is off, it's something you're expected to do well, just like tuning your own instrument. These skills have to do with hearing, yes.

I believe these skills you're speaking of are what "ear-training" extracts from the experience of music. Different backgrounds, different approaches, etc.

For a composer, same applies. The practice of listening to your own writing already develops your ear the more you do it, and likewise reading and hearing what others do. This is essential and necessary but also unavoidable as you'll pick up this skill the more time you spend interacting with composers, pieces and your own music.

This is true, but it's also pretty important to remember how these skills may develop to a greater potential when "ear-training" is included. Unfortunately, I can't really "back this up" with anything factual, since I'm not familiar with any music programs that exclude ear-training from their curricula. I even wonder how this could be measurable.

So my problem is with trying to make a baseline curriculum that should apply to everyone when it comes to ear training; I think this is pointless. Everyone's needs are different, and they should practice the things that are actually useful to them. I was forced, as were many others, to take ear training courses that brought me absolutely nothing, yet the best "ear training" that helped me were literature courses and music analysis courses. Sure they didn't have to do with intervals or dictation, but rather with identifying textures, learning composers styles along with reading and hearing music.

I look at it like this... take an untrained (self-educated) musician that has played for several decades and a student who recently graduated from Julliard. Imagine that their aural skills are at some equal level of development. The case is often made that it took the musician decades to develop that skill where it took the student maybe five to ten years, largely because the self-educated musician had to start from square one where the student had to apply ear-training to some level of competence early on. The hypothetical is simply meant to demonstrate the point of ear-training, to advance one's potential for acquiring skills self-educated musicians spend decades trying to master to some degree or another.

I'd much rather get rid of a single "ear training course" and rather make whatever skills are helpful or necessary (violin intonation, etc) part of the instrument course itself, not something extra everyone has to do, regardless of how useful it may be to them or not.

I think this will vary from one school to the next already. Where I attended uni, aural skills were integrated into the theory classes and were taught progressively in the theory course. It was done this way to apply skill development with analytical development and create a more thorough context. It's more often argued that not enough ear-training is incorporated into music courses overall, especially at earlier ages in K-12 education. I certainly wouldn't argue against what you're saying here except to start with an "ear-training" fundamentals course and later apply those skills more specifically to what the student is doing in more specialized coursework.

As I see it now, ear-training is treated like the ancient remnant of a forgotten music curriculum. I hardly see that being constructive, as I find myself relying more and more on my ear-training as I compose and perform. At this point, I can hum an F or a Bb without needing to hear it played first. Eventually I hope to be to the point where I'm so well-trained that I can tell whether or not it is sharp or flat without hearing another instrument or having to whip out a tuner every time I hear a wrong note. But playing Timpani and knowing what an F or Bb should sound like, being able to use either as a referential pitch and not having to rely on a tuner (because I can tune all my other pitches based on the intervals related to the F or Bb) makes me pretty desirable to directors in my area. One continues calling me to play gigs on Easter and Christmas (I think over the principle timpanist of the local professional orchestra) because of my skills at this point. I was supposed to be a substitute for one concert, now the director is calling me first, or so he tells me. I have no reason to think he's lying either.

I don't say all of this to blow my own horn but just to illustrate how a very small part of my ear training (finding a referential pitch and using interval relationships to find others) has actually been very helpful. Being able to recognize harmonic relationships in tonal writing (yeah, we didn't just dictate melodic lines, we would also dictate harmonic progressions in roman numerals) has also helped me significantly understand music I'm listening to before actually even seeing a score. I'm not perfect at it, not by a long shot, but I get a good idea of what I'm listening to in my mind when an idea develops there. And so most of my composing now takes place in my head long before I ever even start working in a notation program or even on a musical instrument. I'm far from an "expert" in aural skills, but I unmistakably understand its significance to me now. I'm glad I have a head start, because there are even professors at uni who probably still struggle because I imagine there would be more than a few who don't keep applying aural skills to what they do and fall out of practice. At least they have a point at which to return because they have the basic level of ear-training, that level of skill some self-educated musicians will spend decades just trying to learn how to develop.

It's no exaggeration either. I know (and respect) many self-educated, amateur musicians who have shared this with me. They appear to value ear-training far more than those of us who have had it... and they have experience to suggest they just might be on to something, too.

I have already got some replies and will post them once I can get back on my computer (out of town for the weekend-using phone)...some interesting thoughts have been presented to me...not all one sided.

The responses are?

Ok, so I have only gotten two responses so far...they responded right away and I was hoping I would get a few more today, but it has not happened. So far, Bernhard Lang replied first. Here is his response: (English is not his first language)

Dear Ben

here come my answers:

Are good ears necessary or extremely helpful to a composer?

yes absolutely, this is a must, otherwise there would be a certailn backlash one day in fromt of any ensemble....

Do you do exercises of any kind regularly to improve your ears?

actually yes some small exercises as often as possible

How much do you rely on a computer or instrument when composing?

yes when finishing the final composition

Would you encourage composers to train their ears? Why?

yes: a composer who does'nt hear worng notes quickly looses the respect of the musicians performing

Any other comments you may have about the matter.

kind regards bernhard lang

and second was Dana Wilson. Those who do not know him, he is a teacher at Ithaca college in New York who is rather big in the band world and has kind of a jazz-classical-world music fusion style. His response is a pretty practical two-sided look at the matter:

Hi Ben,

Nice to hear from you. To answer your questions generally, I feel good ears are helpful and therefore should be "trained" ("sensitized" might be a better word), but the reasons are a bit vague since I don't think there's necessarily a correlation between good ears and musicality.

Perhaps a good way to think of it is mild prescription eye glasses. Before you get them, you think you see pretty well and can negotiate the world effectively, but once you put them on, you see much greater detail. This is the same with ear training: it helps you distinguish detail; it also helps you note what you're hearing so you can replicate it in your own music if you so desire. And the discipline helps you really "hear" as you're writing yourself.

Having said that, the use of a computer or keyboard is not necessarily a "weakness." As we know, Stravinsky wrote at the piano and the results were pretty impressive. I often write at the piano--sometimes to check what I'm writing, but sometimes just because I love being bathed in the physical sound. Sometimes, I'll play back the computerized score to check my sense of large-scale pacing, even though I usually have to try to ignore the actual sound that's coming out moment to moment.

I hope this helps.

Best,

Dana Wilson

They know what they're talking about!

I have never even heard of either of them. I wouldn't really get my opinions from teachers though. Not that I disagree with them BUT... well.. they have to get a paycheck. And in this country, you will not find any college/university/community college that does not have an ear training course. I agree there needed... but, you should talk to composers/musicians not teaching - that way you don't have to be concerned with the possibility of bias driven answers.

I have never even heard of either of them. I wouldn't really get my opinions from teachers though. Not that I disagree with them BUT... well.. they have to get a paycheck. And in this country, you will not find any college/university/community college that does not have an ear training course. I agree there needed... but, you should talk to composers/musicians not teaching - that way you don't have to be concerned with the possibility of bias driven answers.

:blink:

Are you kidding Jason? You really think they're going to bias their answers because of their teaching paychecks? You must have a really cynical view of Academia.

No, not a cynical view. That's just one of the top points about gathering information. Educators will be biased either way. You have to eliminate the possibilities of bias.

Really, I would ask composers. Not people involved in education unless they're only involved in teaching composition, not "general theory."

But whatever, the point is people who are good at it are going to recommend it because it's also silly to think they'll admit they wasted all that time on a skill that isn't so useful. Instead they'll probably champion it harder, regardless of what they may really think.

That said however, the guy's opinion is that it can help. Also we're never talking about what KIND of ear training, as I mentioned previously I'm against specific things like dictation and recognizing intervals and in favor of listening and reading music actively, analyzing, etc. Things I think have genuinely help me with composition specifically. In light of that, yeah, but again it's obvious that the more experience you have with music in general the better you'll get at picking up details. Those "glasses" he talked about develop on their own for most part and I don't think some things work as well as others in accelerating it.

I don't know about Lang, but Dana Wilson teaches only composition to my knowledge. His answer is pretty honest I think.

No, not a cynical view. That's just one of the top points about gathering information. Educators will be biased either way. You have to eliminate the possibilities of bias.

No offense, but this is absolutely cynical. You flat out say educators WILL BE BIASED, which in and of itself is a bias by the way. Furthermore, you cannot eliminate the possibilities of bias, only account for them. Just because a bias exists does not necessarily make the opinion of the individual invalid or less trustworthy. Just making sure this is pointed out...

But whatever, the point is people who are good at it are going to recommend it because it's also silly to think they'll admit they wasted all that time on a skill that isn't so useful. Instead they'll probably champion it harder, regardless of what they may really think.

No, I don't think that's the case at all. I'm not very good at it, but I find it very useful. It may be that your attitude toward ear-training is skewing your perspective on this... did a mean old theory teacher bludgeon you every time you sang the wrong pitch or something? I could see that influencing my opinion of ear training.

That said however, the guy's opinion is that it can help. Also we're never talking about what KIND of ear training, as I mentioned previously I'm against specific things like dictation and recognizing intervals and in favor of listening and reading music actively, analyzing, etc. Things I think have genuinely help me with composition specifically. In light of that, yeah, but again it's obvious that the more experience you have with music in general the better you'll get at picking up details. Those "glasses" he talked about develop on their own for most part and I don't think some things work as well as others in accelerating it.

I'm not sure that's really the case for everyone, though. I agree with you that there are constructive and destructive approaches to ear-training and, depending on the skill level of the students in your class, one approach may not be as appropriate as another. But that aside, every little bit helps. Do you have any evidence that ear-training is "detrimental" to musicianship? That would be worth discussing.