Orlando Pandolfi wrote: > This brings ups some interesting questions that I > have had for a while now. As one who has taught > both in the US and in Europe, I must say that the > system of solfege, clef reading, and ear training > that formed the basis of musicianship for my > European students was FAR superior that that which > most young musicians get in the United States. -snip- > I often wonder (despite the fact that the valveless > horn had a specific fundamental pitch) why composers > chose not to write the actual pitches in the parts, > but chose to employ a sort of "movable do" concept > in a mostly fixed do world. Why do we have the confusion > (mild though it is) of having some Bb instruments read in > concert and others read transposed.
-snip- To your last question, I answer "convention." You could take this further and ask why our system of notation works the way it does on a more fundamental level - why circles on a grid of lines? The answer can be found in the study of history, but it is of little practical use (although I confess I find it fascinating and even teach it to non-musicians as part of Music Appreciation.) The notation system we have is the notation system we have, and horn parts were, for a lot of good reasons, usually written without key signatures. > I come from a musical family, but most of us didn't get > good solfege training until conservatory. Despite my > fine training and experience as a teaching fellow in > the ear training dept. at a major conservatory, I was > completely humbled by the level of skill (surpassing my > own) of my young students when I taught in Italy. What > has happened to musical training in the U.S., or, was it > ever closer to the "European" school? Too many students > relate a written pitch with a button on the piano before > they "hear" the sound. Doesn't it make more sense to > imagine the sound first? -snip- It was my pleasure to teach Theory and Ear-Training at one of the few places in the United States that follows the European Tradition, the Mannes College of Music in NYC. My understanding is that a similar program is followed at Juilliard and Curtis - not that there aren't more than these three, I'm just not aware of them. I learned there to read in seven clefs, to be able to play an orchestra score at the keyboard, to be able to harmonize a melody, to realize a figured bass, etc. I went to Mannes as a graduate student, and because I didn't know how to do any of these things (my undergraduate degree is from Temple University in Philadelphia), took all the undergraduate ear-training and theory courses along with my Master's degree. It was an honor and a privilege to later be asked to teach there. Most Mannes students took all the required courses simply because they had to - they were not "into" the training they were receiving, but they did what they had to in order to pass their classes, many complaining that they didn't have enough time to practice their instruments because they had so much Theory and Ear-Training to do. A few years after their schooling was finished, these middle-of-the-road students invariably would voice the same sentiment, namely that although their education seemed to them nothing more than a lot of busy work and disconnected, picayune requirements at the time, their colleagues universally remarked on what good musicians they were, and in particular what good sight readers they were. If I were to attempt to summarize the value of a European musical education in a nutshell, it would be this - what is taught is what good musicians do, anyway, which is to be able to look at the score and hear it without first playing it. It's a rather simple end, no different than being able to read a book without reading aloud, but it is a skill which very few musicians possess. It certainly does "make more sense to imagine the sound first." Just my opinion. -S- _______________________________________________ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
