Should a Serious Mandolin Player Learn Classical?

[JonZ]

It is interesting to compare pedagogy for mandolin and violin. As my son has encountered various violin teachers in many genres, it has been a constant that if you are going to be a serious player in any genre, you have to develop good classical technique. They all say, basically, keep your classical teacher, and add another teacher for the genre that interests you. Most recently, a pianist who is teaching him jazz theory said, "You have to learn everything: sight reading, theory, technique. The days of guys who just played by ear are pretty much over."

In mandolin, not so much.

On the other hand, you have people like Thiele and Marshall who appear to embody this "all encompassing" approach.

Thoughts?

[JeffD]

"You have to learn everything: sight reading, theory, technique. The days of guys who just played by ear are pretty much over."

In mandolin, not so much.

I absolutely think that is true, in mandolin as much as anywhere else. I think the last generation was able to get where they are perhaps without some of the theory and reading skills etc., but never again. Chris Thile, Sierra Hull, etc., can do it all. And at that level of success, that level of ability is going to be needed.

The competition level is so high, I think what ever you can't do, there is someone who can, and he or she will get the gig.

[JeffD]

They all say, basically, keep your classical teacher, and add another teacher for the genre that interests you.

I think that though it is slim, the chances of a violin student having a career in classical music is higher than that of a mandolin student.

So perhaps we can have more debate about what techniqes to learn to get where. In violin, I belive that clasical techique gives you the most flexibility to play the other styles, so it is still a good foundation. I don't know if the same is true for mandolin classical technique.

[catmandu2]

Jon, while in music--as in everything else--the state of the art is ever increasing in technical and stylistic capacity, the question is too general to answer definitively. What are the goals? What is meant by "serious player"? And, what does "learn classical" mean?

I imagine some players are quite serious, yet whose playing ambitions might be relatively narrow, and whose technical facility--while no doubt being enhanced generally by technical study in classical pedagogy--may not require such. Some folk styles, for example, may not be predicated on either the technical repertoire of skills nor the theoretical aspects involved in technical study in the "classical" or jazz idioms

Personally, I pursued strict classical pedagogy (guitar) for the first 15-20 or so years in my playing. The technical fundmentals I acquired allow me to apply skills and concepts to any idiom I pursue. But the theoretical and practical skills I've developed derive more from jazz study

If the goal is to do as much with music as possible, no question that classical and jazz pedagogy are of immense value (possibly "essential"). If a person is going to play cajun, ITM, maybe bluegrass, other folk styles--the ROI of "serious" classical and jazz pedagogy may be somewhat relatively diminished. Of course, any study that builds technical capacity can't be bad. In a "technically sophisticated" genre (maybe bluegrass), no doubt "classical" pedagogies will assist with develpping skill. But IMO harmonic and stylistic wherewithal are the "next steps"--and in fact more extensive than technical fundamentals. It's common for "classical" players to drill technical exercises as needed for given repertoire demands. Is this what you mean by "learning classical"?--pursuing some of the exercises, concepts, practice techniques, ergonomics, etc. rather than "serious" immersion in the idiom--repertoire--which implies something else

Does "learning classical" mean immersion in traditional pedagogy?, or merely applying some principles? Finally, can a mandolin player be a "serious" player and play only folk styles not requiring extensive technical command and literacy of advanced harmonic form?

[JeffD]

That is interesting. Jazz study certainly will get you your vitamins and minerals. Most serious jazz people are theory hounds.

Sometimes I really wish I liked jazz.

[Pete Martin]

Sometimes I really wish I liked jazz.

A friends quote

"Jazz, it's better than it sounds"

[Pete Martin]

I think a student can seriously study any music.

[John Flynn]

It's different strokes for different folks. It depends on what your goals are. If you want to play classical, then of course that's what you need to do. If you are going to play the violin as a "fiddle" or the mandolin in Irish Trad, blues, bluegrass, rock, old-time, etc., it is not nearly as much a priority.

I used to play with a great old-time/bluegrass fiddler who started out on classical violin. She said, "About the time you start being a good fiddler, you realize you are doing just about everything your violin teacher told you was wrong." There is a violist with the St. Louis Symphony who is now a fairly well known old-time fiddler. I talked to his fiddle instructor once and she described teaching him as "a process of un-learning."

I recently tried to get into classical mandolin. I started rehearsing with a mandolin orchestra and got a bona-fide classical mandolin instructor. I took it very seriously for several months. I think if I had kept up the effort for about three years or so, I might have been OK at it. But I finally realized a few things about myself, that apply only to me, but self-awareness may be the most important kind of learning we do in life. I learned:

• Classical folks are great musicians, very dedicated and generally great, considerate, helpful people. I have rarely felt so welcomed and supported by any group of musicians. I ironically encountered less snobbery that I have with other genres.
• Classical is HARD, even for a lot of experienced classical musicians. You really have to be dedicated.
• I consider myself a solid intermediate player in the "folk genres" I mentioned. I do read music a bit and I do know theory fairly well. However, I found myself way, way down in the beginner category, and completely overwhelmed, in classical.
• I play for fun and fulfillment. I can do that in the folk genres now. It would have taken more time than I probably have left to live to get there in classical.
• I like playing by ear. I don't like reading music, even though I can to some degree. I don't see any shame in playing by ear. Music is sound, for heaven's sake, not ink! I get more joy from figuring out a tune aurally than by reading notation or tab.
• I can still do a world of learning in the folk genres, enough to keep me happily busy for the rest of my days.
• My favorite mandolin players, the ones I like to listen to, are primarily ear players.

Mike Marshall was mentioned by the OP. I am now enrolled in his Academy of Bluegrass Mandolin Program. I know he is can do nearly anything on mandolin and knows almost everything about music, but his AOB program only touches on theory and note reading. It is not the main thrust at all. BTW, it is by far the most rewarding learning experience I've had on mandolin.

[JeffD]

The real issue is the future. Can someone become a world class mandolin player, in the bluegrass of the future or any other genre including classical, popular, jazz, folk, without learning everything?

"You have to learn everything: sight reading, theory, technique. The days of guys who just played by ear are pretty much over" means that you may have been able to get "there" by ear before, but not anymore.

We are talking about professional level - Marshall, Thile, Hull, as well as the mostly classical stars like Lichtenberg, the recently departed Alison Stephens etc. Not the avocation level that many of us enjoy, however lucrative it may be.

Can a mandolin student with professional aspirations afford to avoid learning to read music, or avoid music theory.

[catmandu2]

I imagine, these days, when a person undertakes beginning study with a competent instructor--even in a "folk" program--that instructor is likely to employ technical aspects derived from "classical" pedagogy--ergonomics, exercises, theory and reading (at least to some extent)--and impart these as "fundamentals" regardless of stylistic preferences of both student and teacher. Beginning pedagogy is fairly standardized; these aspects are common to playing across most genres--that is, learning fundamental technique enables playing generally. If a player pursues playing in the "classical" idiom--depending upon the playing situation one pursues within the idiom--practice regimens will vary somewhat. Orchestra players practice relevant exercises and rehearse scores. Jazz players practice technical execution and theoretical concepts

Part of any pedagogy should include tone production and efficient ergonomics. To what extent further aspects of theory, reading, improvisation, and advanced technical exercises are incorporated will depend on the direction of the player

From what I've read from you Jon, I suspect you may have somehting in mind as to "general" musicanship and player ability. After a year or two of basic "classical" study, one really must begin to focus on some area of specialty in order to devote the requisite time to develop--in order to advance most efficiently. If one is to be an orchestra player, one generally practices elements relevant to the score for which one anticipates auditioning. Depending on "what" and "where" you're playing, your exercise regimen will be refined appropriately

If you want to do it all--I recommend ear training above all. It's all good, but for my money--I like to be able to rely on my ears, for they're the fastest means to the end, for me. If you want to be able to read a score or a chart someone hands you--better practice that. Technical execution is one thing--the vehicle of delivery; what you execute is more a function of the music. The question, I suspect, is: "how do you get to the music"..?

[Randi Gormley]

If all learning is relevent, then of course you have to learn it all. Getting good at it all is entirely different. Jon's assumption is that we WANT to play it all and play it all brilliantly.
I find myself content to be a strong intermediate player of ITM, although I would, of course, like to get better. Pedagogy doesn't help me there. Knowing why my husband's A-minor-diminished-seventh chord works (or doesn't) when I'm playing a jig is not necessary for me to play in session. Being able to sight read (which I do fairly well) doesn't let my mandolin triumph over the uilleann piper sitting beside me or the bodhran behind me. There are no solo improvisional riffs in ITM, just additional diddly bits I can toss in on the occasional down beat. My music sounds pretty stark when compared with the professionals (or when you compare it with jazz or bluegrass) but it fits what I do. I'm a pure amateur and have no delusions of giving up my day job to make a name for myself in music of any kind. I'm lucky if I can make a local name for myself in my own profession, and I've been doing it for more than 35 years!
As for the professionals, I do agree that the bar is being set higher all the time and if you want to compete on that level, you have to be able to compete all the way. Competition is about advantage anyway, and learning classical pedagogy and technique gives an advantage nobody wants to ignore. But I will make a plea on behalf of the non-traditional musician (the one-genre wonder or the ear-learner). When "real" music gets too sophisticated, too perfect, too confining, it becomes a museum piece and any advancement will come from the ranks of the untrained who hear a different sound. That's been the pattern so far, at least as much as I understand it. My opinion, of course, fwiw.

[JeffD]

As for the professionals, I do agree that the bar is being set higher all the time and if you want to compete on that level, you have to be able to compete all the way. Competition is about advantage anyway, and learning classical pedagogy and technique gives an advantage nobody wants to ignore.

I think that is Jon's original point.

But I will make a plea on behalf of the non-traditional musician (the one-genre wonder or the ear-learner). When "real" music gets too sophisticated, too perfect, too confining, it becomes a museum piece and any advancement will come from the ranks of the untrained who hear a different sound.

The idea is that perhaps this is less possible than it was in the past. I don't know. Certainly its not impossible. But with things like on line music schools and access to music, there is less isolation where someone like this can develop. One competes on the world stage right from the beginning.

I think its more possible with something like mandolin, whose music and boarders are not as clearly defined as violin. But increasingly less so.

[John Flynn]

I imagine, these days, when a person undertakes beginning study with a competent instructor--even in a "folk" program--that instructor is likely to employ technical aspects derived from "classical" pedagogy--ergonomics, exercises, theory and reading (at least to some extent)

I can only say two of my experiences provide sharp counterpoints to that statement. My favorite mandolin player, who was also my instructor for many years and the person I would still most like to play like, doesn't read music or tab, only knows theory in the practical, hands-on sense, not the pedagogical sense, and claims to have never done a musical "exercise" in his life. He just plays. But I learned a lot from him, so he is in some sense a "competent instructor."

By contrast, the classical instructor I had for a while claims that a lot of the famous players today, including some big names that have been mentioned in this thread, do not follow classical pedagogy. Keep in mind this guy started as a hard-core classical player with a classically trained instructor and he has over 50 years experience in the genre. According to him, things like posture, pick choice, the holding of the instrument, the position of the hands and the attack of the pick on the strings, that these celebs are teaching today are major departures from classical pedagogy, going well beyond mere "personal preference." So I asked the obvious question, "Then, how did they get to be so good?"

He said, "That's not the question. The question is how much better could they have been if they had been doing it right all these years!?" Now, I am just reporting that conversation, not representing it. My opinion is that in the long run, whatever works, works. But to say that the big names today are grounded in classical technique, and basing their teaching on classical technique, seems very much open to debate.

[catmandu2]

I'm not sure those are sharp contrasts John. Even theoretical knowledge--acquired in a practical, hands-on sense--is "theory"; theroretical instruction does not need to be done with paper and pencil only. I certainly acquired years of theory from playing and learning from folks "showing me stuff"

I would be surprised if the instructor you cite did not practice any type of exercises, or assist you with such. Did you simply, and only, play tunes?

Knowing the names of the chords is not a bad idea either (this is theory--"at least to some extent"); the instructor may even show what the note looks like on a staff (reading). But John, do you really think many beginning instructors start right off with tunes, even without explaining some "context"--how to sit, hold it, or how to pick and fret "efficiently"...? I'm sure there are plenty who teach more "informally." But if pedagogical sytems--methodology--facilitates anything at all, it is communication--a method for an instructor to impart assistance to the student

[JonZ]

I am not trying to make a point. I was just curious about the similarities and differences in how violin and mandolin are approached.

[catmandu2]

I am not trying to make a point. I was just curious about the similarities and differences in how violin and mandolin are approached.

Oh. Well there are tremendous differences, generally--certainly in the US; one comes from the orchestral tradition--one from more folk tradtions

[mando.player]

I am not trying to make a point. I was just curious about the similarities and differences in how violin and mandolin are approached.

I think the approach to each instrument is driven by their prevalence in the world at large. Violin has a much deeper reach in the real world and as such has a well defined curriculum for teaching and "appraising" students. That level of detail isn't there for the mandolin. That can be a good thing and a bad thing. On the positive side, students aren't funneled into a specific method of learning, which I suppose could stifle learning or grow tiresome. The downside is that students and their instructors (if you can find one!) are left to fend for themselves. It's a mixed bag. As a purely recreational player, I've enjoyed finding my way. With that being said, my playing would most certainly be at a higher level had I went through a more formal and focused method of learning.

I also play guitar, which has helped in locating educational materials. For instance, I'm waiting on the mother of all books on 3-note chords for guitar (Three-Note Voicings and Beyond, Randy Vincent). As I work through this material I'm hoping to transfer it to mandolin at the same time. My goal is to further my jazz studies on mandolin by being able to back myself up on guitar (BIAB for bass and drums, self on rhythm guitar and mandolin). I'll be learning the theory twice, which helps it sink in. My end goal is to apply that theory twice (recording Real Book standards) which helps it stick.

I'd surely learn the mandolin faster if all of these materials existed in mandolin form. But as they say, the journey is half the fun.

[John Flynn]

I would be surprised if the instructor you cite did not practice any type of exercises, or assist you with such. Did you simply, and only, play tunes?

Well, yes, that's exactly the way it was. There were no exercises, ever. The teaching was, "I play this...then you play it the same way." I did that for about 5 years. I learned that the technique was inherent in the way he played the tunes. I realized that he was teaching "a sound," not a process or a theory. I'm not saying it's the only or even the right way to teach, but it was an important lesson. For instance, I had struggled for years with tremolo. Instructors would say, "Well, you just start out slow and build up speed." Didn't work for me. I would always reach a "speed barrier." This instructor showed me a tune that just sounded soooo cool with tremolo, don't even remember what was now. It just wasn't same without the tremolo. I just had to make that SOUND. Then it just came to me all of sudden and I could do it at will in any tune.

BTW, I found out later that a lot of classical music in the traditions of India are commonly taught this way. No exercises, no notation, no academic theory. Sometimes the instructor doesn't even show you on the instrument. He SINGS it. He sings "da-dada-DAH" or whatever. Then you play "da-dada-DAH" on the sitar, or whatever. It is pure aural tradition. So our "classical pedagogy" is not the be all and end all.

[catmandu2]

Modeling can constitute much of the process. But the Indian classical music system is much different: notes--and even the percussion sounds, the rhythms, the forms--are given "names" from the outset. The "theoretical" aspects are transmitted in an entirely different manner than "traditional" Western pedagogy, but the aspects are transmitted nonetheless. IME, the two systems are so different that a comparsion cannot be made for use here. Perhaps they do not use paper and pencil, but the system is HIGHLY standardized, codified, and formally disseminated --as much or even more than "Western" systems.

Regarding "an absence" of exercises in Indian classical music--are you kidding?

Regarding your teacher and experience: even if you just "play the tune" over and over until it sounds "just right"...is this not a drill, an exercise? The idea behind methodologies consisting of isolated technical approaches is intending to make the process of learning (disseminating/receiving) more efficicent. I don't doubt that many instructors appraoch it far less optimally

[John Flynn]

Modeling can constitute much of the process. But the Indian classical music system is much different: notes--and even the percussion sounds, the rhythms, the forms--are given "names" from the outset. The "theoretical" aspects are transmitted in an entirely different manner than "traditional" Western pedagogy, but the aspects are transmitted nonetheless. Perhaps they do not use paper and pencil, but the system is HIGHLY standardized, codified, and formally disseminated --as much or even more than "Western" systems

I agree. I think what we are both talking around is that there are different kinds of pedagogy for different types of music, rather than a "pedagogy vs. non-pedagogy" as implied by the OP. So Western classical, some Eastern classical genres and all kinds of folk genres have their own methods that are quite different, but all impart many of the same things. This seems self-evident in the observation that generations of people start out in those genres and become successful in them, time after time. I think the real debate implied in this thread is whether in the future, will all great players, in all genres, have to be grounded in the Western classical pedagogy? Personally, I think not. In fact, I think the lines of classical teaching have already been blurred by many of the great players. Sure, there will always need to be a methodology to facilitate learning. But what we see to today is an evolving hybrid that will ever continue to change.

There are many paths to every destination and many destinations to every path. Sorry, I didn't mean that to sound as much like "Master Po" as it probably did!

[catmandu2]

... will all great players, in all genres, have to be grounded in the Western classical pedagogy?

No


I think the discussion is more about formalism vs "structuralism" (for lack of better terms). Certainly, the "Western classical" system is big on formalism

[bobby bill]

A serious mandolin player should learn classical if that is what he wants to play. The aspects some folks are associating with classical (sight-reading, technique, theory, development of tone) are relevant to most any genre, although I know there are purists in some genres who act like stinky cheese walked in if they catch someone sight-reading.

But there is not one "classical way" either. I used to practice Czerny (rote technical keyboard exercises) for an hour like taking a tablespoon of castor oil before getting to the fun stuff. I came to UT as a harpsichord major 37 years ago and one of the first things my new teacher did was throw out the exercises. If there was a little section in a piece that was difficult - well, there's your exercise. I guarantee that if one can play all the pieces in Bach's Well Tempered Clavier, there is little reason to sit around and play scale exercises . . . and the former is a lot more fun. There is more than one was to skin a cat and I believe this is what catmandu is saying in the previous post.

[greg_tsam]

JonZ often posts thought provoking questions but I'm not sure what he's getting at here. All he really said in his OP was if you're going to be any good at any genre of violin then you need classical training and learn "everything". If you're going to play mandolin, forgetaboutit.

Then he mentions Thile and Marshall and asks for thoughts thus provoking a interesting but convoluted discussion thread on the M/C, which is great. I like it. But JonZ never said anything. He's providing fodder for discussion.


I've never taking any training and play by ear and read tabs. All my learning is from watching others in real life or videos with the rare occasion gleaning something out of books. I play in a Contradance band and everyone is classically trained and reads music except me. In rehearsals I sit amazed in wonderment by 10 different people playing 10 different instruments, all taking a solo, and all playing each note exactly the same, note for note.

Then comes my turn.

I play the first time through "straight" just like them but, often, on the 2nd time through I improvise the melody slightly and sweeten it up. The first time doing this there were 10 people searching their sheet music desperately trying to figure out where I got those notes and where I was in the music.

I thought I did something wrong but started laughing when it came to me. They can't improvise. One of them tried a song or two later, got scared after ONE measure and went back to reading. She's a really talented violinist who is graduating the masters music program at the University of Houston. I know she got scared b/c we laughed about it afterwards.

One thing classical training doesn't do is teach improve.

I think we put too much emphasis on certifications and correct technique and this approach and that approach. To think one must have learned everything in every genre to be anything in one genre is absurd. B.B. King plays single notes. Elvis Presley was a bubblegum pop star. Lady GahGah actually knows piano and sings. Justin Bieber...err...makes my point even clearer that you don't have to know it all to make it professionally and to succeed and make money.

Although there is a world of competition out there, music shouldn't be about competition. The business of music is something else entirely. It should be about the art of expressing emotion through sound. Connection. Unicorns, puppy dogs and bunny rabbits.

So, now I'm rambling...

It is interesting to compare pedagogy for mandolin and violin. As my son has encountered various violin teachers in many genres, it has been a constant that if you are going to be a serious player in any genre, you have to develop good classical technique. They all say, basically, keep your classical teacher, and add another teacher for the genre that interests you. Most recently, a pianist who is teaching him jazz theory said, "You have to learn everything: sight reading, theory, technique. The days of guys who just played by ear are pretty much over."

In mandolin, not so much.

On the other hand, you have people like Thiele and Marshall who appear to embody this "all encompassing" approach.

Thoughts?

[catmandu2]

Bill!

[bobby bill]

I like the skin on that cat just fine (not so sure about the tongue).

Everyone has a story about the brilliant classical musician who cannot play Twinkle Twinkle by ear. Like every urban legend, there is a nugget of truth (sometimes a very small nugget). But there is nothing anti-classical about learning to play by ear. It is just that it has been historically underemphasized in a lot of music curricula. And that's a shame.