Are there structured mandolin courses?

[JonZ]

Many great jazz pianists and violinists crossed over from classical, so there is nothing harmful about advancing through those structured exercises. We know more today about how to learn most effectively, but those exudes are still worthy of study.

I would like to see improvisation brought into the “standard methods”, especially for children. It just seems more fun, and more likely to be how the typical person will enjoy music with friends.

[catmandu2]

Yes I think children would benefit from a flexible model of pedagogy.

I asked "why" regarding the training of classical musicians. I'm not familiar enough with the current milieu - do composers and symphony directors generally find conservatory-trained musicians inadequate to execute new repertoire? I've heard several such comments by various "new" composers.

With all the new music, and ensembles that perform new material like Balanescu, Ethel, et al. - can't recall names now of the newer ones I've been hearing - seems like trends would be to integrate improvisation-based training into curricula.

[sblock]

Ah - we get to the core of it, then. Classical musicians aren't creative, yes? And they don't need to be, since they're in a musical world where "no premium is put on musical creativity."

I'm glad we got that settled.

I never said that classical musicians can't be creative, so please don't put words in my mouth. You are neither being fair nor accurate. Great virtuosos, like Yo-yo Ma (cell) and Itzhak Perlman (violin), are superbly creative -- and these are just two of many examples. They have mastered nearly all aspects of their instruments.

I did say that orchestral and ensemble playing of classical music does not tend to place a premium on creativity. I stand behind that assertion, because it's a fact. To be a solid orchestra player, you need great technique, superb sight-reading skills, a fabulous sense of timing and rhythm, the ability to follow instruction well (from the conductor), the ability to memorize, and the ability to play well with others, as a team. These are all significant skills, and they are not especially easy to learn. It take special skills and lots of practice. Auditions for orchestras try to test these same skills, in fact.

But CREATIVITY?! No, sorry! Not needed. You do not need to know how to create new music. You seldom, if ever, improvise. And unless you're the conductor in an orchestra, the musical interpretation and phrasing is not generally up to you, either! In fact, individual creativity is frowned upon, because it destroys aspects of the teamwork required for orchestral playing. And even under the best of circumstances, creativity in performance is limited to soloist interpretations, and the occasional cadenza. Musical creativity in classical music is mostly confined to composers, arrangers, and conductors. And great composers are among the most creative people who have ever lived, in my opinion.

I don't see why this fact should rile you, because it should not be particularly controversial. Other types of music tend to be much more demanding when it comes to creative aspects. Jazz is but one example.

It is also a fact that some classical teaching methods rely on 18th and 19th century instruction books, which are not based on modern pedagogy. Today, you would not think of teaching English or mathematics to young children in school from a 19th century textbook, when modern texts do a far better job of this same instruction. But once children can already read, or know certain fundamental math skills, then the whole world of great 19th century literature and modern math is open to them. I hope this analogy helps you to better understand my point. Many types of structured teaching methods used today for classical training are totally antiquated. They still have their vocal supporters (obviously!), but they are not the best ways to learn, nor do they do anything to encourage creativity, being regimented. We can do better.

[JonZ]

I meant “etudes”.

[JeffD]

Many types of structured teaching methods used today for classical training are totally antiquated.

Modified and augmented perhaps, but hardly antiqued.

They still have their vocal supporters (obviously!), but they are not the best ways to learn

I think many educational professionals would disagree in part or entirely with this.

nor do they do anything to encourage creativity, being regimented

Isn't that like bemoaning the fact that a hammer doesn't help remove screws? Different tools, different exercises, different things to practice, do in fact encourage creativity. Again - structure doesn't limit creativity. Limiting creativity limits creativity.

[DougC]

Ah - we get to the core of it, then. Classical musicians aren't creative, yes? And they don't need to be, since they're in a musical world where "no premium is put on musical creativity."

I'm glad we got that settled.

Got to laugh now. Thanks August!

I think the negative talk about classical method comes from it's method of teaching creativity as one of the last courses, which assumes the student now has all the technical skills to use. Trouble is that most players fail or drop out before the end and never see the creativity lesson. New methods put the lesson up front with the rest of the stuff, a much more satisfying way I suppose, even though the student has no technical ability he / she can 'be creative'.

[August Watters]

New methods put the lesson up front with the rest of the stuff, a much more satisfying way I suppose, even though the student has no technical ability he / she can 'be creative'.

Yes. Missing from this discussion up until now has been any mention of decades' worth of educational reform in the way music, including classical music, is taught. Example: regardless of musical style, improvisation is a central educational objective identified by the National Assn for Music Education.

If you looked hard enough I'm sure you could still find a piano teacher who raps students' knuckles with a ruler, but honestly, the authoritarian classical music teaching methods being described in this thread have little in common with anything I saw in my years of college music teaching.

[August Watters]

“My freedom thus consists in my moving about within the narrow frame that I have assigned to myself for each one of my undertakings. I shall go even further: my freedom will be so much the greater and more meaningful the more narrowly I limit my field of action and the more I surround myself with obstacles. Whatever diminishes constraint diminishes strength. The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees oneself of the claims that shackle the spirit.”

--Igor Stravinsky

[JonZ]

I don’t think that teaching improvisation has filtered down that much into “common practice”, at least not in the classical world. I remember it being a feature of Suzuki when I first heard about it, but our teachers eliminated that part. My kids had several violin teachers through the years and none taught improvisation. The teachers themselves could not improvise and taught how they were taught. My son learned to improvise from a saxophonist and trumpeter. His violin technique is a little weak, but he plays bebop like a demon.

There may also be a bit of a “tiger mom” culture in piano and strings that takes music deadly seriously and is suspicious of fun creeping into the endeavor.

My kids went to a conservatory high school with a full classical orchestra, and none of the classical players could improvise with any skill. However, there was a Japanese piano prodigy who switched to jazz and became quite good on both piano and guitar, and a Chinese violin prodigy who started jamming with my son and picked up on improvisation quickly.

I think the dean of the music department is trying to move towards the classical musicians doing more improvisation, but it is challenging when their instrument teachers can’t do it.

[Beanzy]

Things may be different regionally.
My son has just done the second SWMS residential course this year for composers and musicians.
It was almost completely about improvisation on themes. I only mention it as it definitely put some of the young participants outside their comfort zones, however all seemed very well equipped to deal with live improvisation with themes being fired at them without warning or preparation in the end of residential concert. The age range was 12-18.

In his time at school the only real let-downs he has had in his music education have come from lack of structure from mentors, leading to drift and under-preparedness, when it could have been avoided with a more stuctured approach. As a learner it can really help to know whether you’re on track to cover your objectives, leaving you confident that you can explore outside the box without compromising the main objectives you have set.

[sblock]

Things may be different regionally.
My son has just done the second SWMS residential course this year for composers and musicians.
It was almost completely about improvisation on themes. I only mention it as it definitely put some of the young participants outside their comfort zones, however all seemed very well equipped to deal with live improvisation with themes being fired at them without warning or preparation in the end of residential concert. The age range was 12-18.

In his time at school the only real let-downs he has had in his music education have come from lack of structure from mentors, leading to drift and under-preparedness, when it could have been avoided with a more stuctured approach. As a learner it can really help to know whether you’re on track to cover your objectives, leaving you confident that you can explore outside the box without compromising the main objectives you have set.

It is heartening to hear this. Perhaps we are beginning to see a sea change in the way classical music is being taught?

[JonZ]

From an economic standpoint, the old model classical orchestras and ensembles are dying out. So there is a recognition that new models need to be developed. A violinist has to think of himself more as an entrepreneur than a member of an orchestra with a salary and benefits. They have to figure out how to play stuff that will get a lot of clicks on YouTube.

[sblock]

“My freedom thus consists in my moving about within the narrow frame that I have assigned to myself for each one of my undertakings. I shall go even further: my freedom will be so much the greater and more meaningful the more narrowly I limit my field of action and the more I surround myself with obstacles. Whatever diminishes constraint diminishes strength. The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees oneself of the claims that shackle the spirit.”

--Igor Stravinsky

Overbroad claims like this, which appear fresh and radical on their surface, are, in fact, complete and utter nonsense on a so many levels. This quote is reminiscent of the hackneyed expression "Whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger." On its surface, it sounds brave and headstrong, redolent with freedom. But on closer inspection, it's simply not true! Whatever doesn't kill you can actually cause you to become weak and infirm. It can make your life miserable.

It is NOT TRUE that the imposition of constraints "frees one of the claims that shackle the spirits." If you don't understand that, then think about being imprisoned in solitary confinement for many years. This type of mistreatment does not tend to unshackle the spirit. On the contrary, it drives most men mad. Of course, I picked an extreme example simply to point out the absurdity of this claim. "Limiting [one's] filed of action" and "surround[ing oneself] with obstacles" is not some general recipe for success, and its is NOT TRUE that "whatever diminishes constraint diminishes strength." Not in general, anyway. Freeing the oppressed, to pick but one example, diminishes their constraints, but it does not diminish their strength! On the contrary, freeing the oppressed increases their strength!


Stravinsky was a great composer. He was not a great philosopher, however, nor a great thinkler (in my opinion). And this statement, probably made for shock effect, is pretty ridiculous, once you start thinking hard about its deeper implications.

[Beanzy]

I think it’s definitely different than it used to be.
But we should credit those who taught our current middle-age & older teachers.
The 60s revolution gave us a lot more freedom to think & explore outside the box.
Maybe we just had to wait for the Mrs Buggins, knuckle-rappers to die off, so those who survived them could proceed?

[Beanzy]

I think the Stravinsky quote is excellent as long as you understand it.
The constraints he speaks of are ones he chooses in order to give himself focus and define the parameters of his endeavours.
In the same way that a skeleton gives a frame on which the muscles can exert themselves and exercise themselves to peak fitness.
Or like a polar explorer who chooses to go on foot. He constrains himself by having to drag his sled of supplies, rather than have them parachuted in, wear clothing that will insulate, but also limit movement etc. The very act of chosing a destination is the first constraint, refinement and testing the limits of those constraints is a core part of artistic development for many.

[JonZ]

Stravinsky is talking about self-imposed constraints. Take the opposite extreme: “Whatever I want to do at any given moment shall be the perfect choice.” It is hard to imagine making progress.

Basically, constraints are criteria; they are how you define your goals. Imposing constraints on yourself does not rob you of freedom. Stravinsky even makes it clear that he changes his constraints among his various endeavors.

[catmandu2]

Stravinsky is talking about self-imposed constraints. Take the opposite extreme: “Whatever I want to do at any given moment shall be the perfect choice.” It is hard to imagine making progress.

Basically, constraints are criteria; they are how you define your goals. Imposing constraints on yourself does not rob you of freedom. Stravinsky even makes it clear that he changes his constraints among his various endeavors.

If we didn't have some constraint against us, we wouldn't know we're human. (Thus, the efficacy of a program )

Like all dialectics involving institutions, movement may not be as rapid as we'd like. In the meanwhile, hire the teacher with the teaching chops.

*And, as always - understand institutions. I think this would be the most helpful advice I could give anyone, anywhere.

[JonZ]

I have to admit, though, that Stravinsky isn't being clear about the relationship between self-imposed constraints and freedom. If you are choosing to impose constraints on yourself or not, it would seem you have the same amount of freedom.

[JeffD]

Overbroad claims like this, which appear fresh and radical on their surface, are, in fact, complete and utter nonsense on a so many levels. This quote is reminiscent of the hackneyed expression "Whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger." On its surface, it sounds brave and headstrong, redolent with freedom. But on closer inspection, it's simply not true! Whatever doesn't kill you can actually cause you to become weak and infirm. It can make your life miserable.

It is NOT TRUE that the imposition of constraints "frees one of the claims that shackle the spirits." If you don't understand that, then think about being imprisoned in solitary confinement for many years. This type of mistreatment does not tend to unshackle the spirit. On the contrary, it drives most men mad. Of course, I picked an extreme example simply to point out the absurdity of this claim. "Limiting [one's] filed of action" and "surround[ing oneself] with obstacles" is not some general recipe for success, and its is NOT TRUE that "whatever diminishes constraint diminishes strength." Not in general, anyway. Freeing the oppressed, to pick but one example, diminishes their constraints, but it does not diminish their strength! On the contrary, freeing the oppressed increases their strength!

I disagree with most of this.

From my blog:

" ..., gigantic creativity and great beauty occurs working within the rules, within expected norms, and trying to find unexpected beauty in unexplored territory between the rules, and selective and surprising violation of expectations. This is not the same as saying there are no rules. Pushing the envelope does not mean there shouldn’t be an envelope. One of the identifiers that something artistically great has happened is that the accomplishments of the artist result in the envelope being questioned or expanded, lines get moved. Convention, and expectations are forever changed.

Where is the beauty if it doesn’t matter what you do?"

- - - Updated - - -

I have to admit, though, that Stravinsky isn't being clear about the relationship between self-imposed constraints and freedom. If you are choosing to impose constraints on yourself or not, it would seem you have the same amount of freedom.

Excellent point.

[JonZ]

If you choose to limit your freedom, you still have the same amount of freedom!?!?!?

This sounds like marriage.

[Bertram Henze]

Since the topic seems to be derailed already, I can wholeheartedly inject the simple truth:

Of course there are mandolin courses, four of them, to be precise:
- the G course
- the D course
- the A course
- the E course

And this is well-structured albeit not limiting anybody's creativity.

[August Watters]

How about this, for evidence of constraints-as-source-of-creativity:

Someone on the internet says something preposterous. You want to scream and curse. But knowing that this response will probably cause the moderators to ban you from the conversation, you instead use your creativity to craft a reasoned response, in the process creating something that might actually have value and lend weight to the rhetorical position you've already staked out. Convinced?

[catmandu2]

If you choose to limit your freedom, you still have the same amount of freedom!?!?!?

This sounds like marriage.

Who ever said life wasn't paradoxical?

[SincereCorgi]

People seem to be ignoring that Stravinsky was a composer, which is different from being a performing classical musician who limits themself to interpreting written music. Composers are screenwriters, classical musicians are actors. I don't think the quote has any particular bearing on the merits of structured instrumental methods.

One thing from my own experience with structured methods and teachers was how much of the methods we skipped. I would feel like I was 'missing out' by skipping exercises and chapters, but the teacher had sensibly decided that there was no reason to waste time on busywork material that I wasn't weak on. I was too naive to know. You have X hours of practice time in a week- you can play scale etudes in G major, or you can work on the last movement of the Mozart clarinet concerto.

There's a lot of great stuff for any instrument in the Arbans trumpet book, but they don't give you a medal if you play every page.

[JeffD]

You have X hours of practice time in a week- you can play scale etudes in G major, or you can work on the last movement of the Mozart clarinet concerto.

Yes and no.

I have discovered etudes as prescription drugs. Having trouble with third position, play Wohlfahrt #31 or whatever, working on glide strokes, Calace #72. For every ailment there seems to be one or two etudes that focus in on the specific muscles and coordinations needed to "get it down".

Etudes as general practice, perhaps not as important. Etudes to practice to fix specific things, invaluable.


I guess one way to look at it is to ask, do I want to play mandolin, or do I want to play this tune on the mandolin. While there is a lot of overlap between the two outlooks, and certainly the audience can't tell the difference, but in terms of how you approach things there is a difference in emphasis.