 |
|
In this section, I try to answer some of the questions I often receive from students, audience members, and other interested parties. Contents:
On Technique There's a lot of misinformation floating around about the concept of technique. Most people think the term 'technique' is synonymous with a) 'virtuosity', or even 'speed'; or b) 'the proper way to play', usually involving a set way of holding the hands. Both of these definitions are lacking. Let's think, for a moment, about what technique implies outside of the world of music. Consider a few major league pitchers. Do they all throw the ball identically? Obviously not; to say otherwise is ridiculous. What about swimmers? Sprinters? Golfers? It's really quite obvious: in sports, we acknowledge a certain amount of diversity in technical style, based upon differences in motion patterns, body types, and the like. Therefore, Technique is the ability to accomplish a given objective in the most efficient manner possible. Consider what this means to musicians. First, we need to understand that 'technique' cannot be a catch-all phrase to describe every aspect of a player, any more than it can describe both the hitting and pitching of National League pitcher (who most do both in the course of his job). For example, a player might be highly accurate, but lack the ability to play fast scales cleanly. Or perhaps, more commonly, s/he might have the raw ability to play quickly, but without accuracy. In other words, what we think of as 'technique' (in the most ubiquitous sense) involves the simultaneous accessing of multiple skill sets (for example, fast scales with accuracy with good tone). Therefore, technique needs to be quantified--which technique(s), in what context(s)? This is essential--creating a completely solid performance is not a matter of blindly practicing, but identifying what component skills are lacking and improving them. Second, we need to understand that interpretation (or musicality) and technique are not separate entities, but are intrinsically connected. This is because the musical 'objective' we're trying to realize will, by necessity, inform our technical choices. For example, what if two players are playing the same piece (assume it's the 1st movement of the Concierto de Aranjuez, just for the sake of argument), but make different technical choices due to their musical interpretation? Perhaps one plays it at a ridiculously fast tempo, but chooses to slur (i.e., use hammer-ons and pull-offs, also known as legatos) most of the scales, play relatively lightly, and deliberately cuts out a few notes to make passages more manageable. The other takes it far more slowly, plucks everything, makes everything staccato and accented, and is rock solid? Is it really possible to compare the two readings of the piece in technical terms, when the musical decisions played such an important role, and the technique was supportive? Finally, we need to acknowledge that musicians (the more advanced the musician, the more true this is) can and should have individual techniques that are adapted to their own bodies. Musicians are particularly guilty of slavishly adhering to overly general ideas ("My teacher told me to do it this way!" or "I've always done it like this…"), which is probably one of the reasons that the injury rate is so high in music. However, even a cursory study of the most famous musicians puts the face to the lie. Vladimir Horowitz's hands look nothing like Claudio Arrau's, both in terms of positioning and motion*; nor can the difference be conveniently explained by the notion of 'schools' of technique. Rather, it's a matter of immensely talented, hardworking artists adapting over several years in order to realize a unique interpretive ideal in the most efficient manner possible. They don't do this because they're great artists--rather, this is why they're great artists. Moreover, as teachers, we need to concede that our most sacred ideas about technique don't always work for everyone, and that there are not always good answers to the quandary. A common dilemma is when classical guitar teachers have students that cannot or will not grow out their right hand fingernails. Modern classical guitar technique is designed with nails in mind; moreover, when one examines the hands of professional fingerstyle guitarists that perform without nails, one immediately notices differences in the position (especially the relative flatness) of the right hand, which is usually the technical issue that the teacher has with his student. The dilemma is this: Do we encourage the student to play the 'correct' way--with classical guitar technique--because it's what we've been taught? Or, conversely, do we work with what we have, and adapt our teaching to optimize our student's playing right now? This discussion is outside the scope of this article, and each teacher must decide for herself what the best course of action is. To summarize, students who wish to work on technique must: 1. Identify what component or components they need to address in order to accomplish their objective. For example, in playing a fast scale passage, is the problem speed, accuracy, tone, or something else? Is the problem in the left hand? The right hand? Is it a matter of excess tension? Is the problem in linear (horizontal) speed, or in string crossing? Etc. (Note: there will be multiple issues that must be addressed.) 2. Assess the interaction between interpretive and technical choices. For example, how is your overarching musical idea affecting your technical choices, and vice-versa? Can you make better technical choices support your musical decisions? Are you trying to accomplish a specific affect or a mood? Is there another, and possibly better, way of doing so? For example, what if you slowed down 5-10%? Would any listener really notice the difference? Would it make you feel more comfortable? 3. For advanced players only: Pinpoint what isn't working so well within the technical foundation you've been taught, and determine what miniscule tweaks might improve it, even if it hasn't been done before. For example, would holding your hand a millimeter to the left allow you to have a more efficient right hand stroke? Allowing the nails to grow a hair longer? Make sure to do this slowly and carefully, always keeping in mind the problem you wish to address. __________ *If you're interested in exploring this, I highly recommend the DVD The Art of the Piano: Great Pianists of the 20th Century, which contains a great deal of archival footage of performances of many fabulous artists, including close-ups of hands, arms, and torsos. Do you have thoughts on the material above? Contact me to sound off.
Should I be a Music Major? (For students and potential students) This is a question I get quite a bit, so I want to address it in one fell swoop. Please keep in mind that these are simply my own opinions, and it's a relatively simple answer to a complex question. First, the good: If you're creative, willing to work hard, know what you want to do, and can play your horn well, I have absolutely no doubts whatsoever that it's possible to make a living in music. Moreover, I don't believe that you need to major in music to do so, though it might help you (it also might not). Second, the bad: You'll most likely never drive a Lexus. Depending on what area you go into, many of the things that most people take for granted (health insurance, owning a home, going to Barbados for yearly vacations, disposable income) may be more difficult for you to achieve. Do the music major if: Don't do the music major if: A few more points: 1. The main thing here is that you shouldn't go into any low-paying career field (i.e., college major) without first thoroughly researching it. Moreover, you should have a game plan for what you're going to do with your major when you get out. How will it help you? What will you do with it? 2. You might want to explore other options. What about a double major? These can open up other doors, such as eventually going into administration, working for record companies, etc. What about a minor in music? What about taking lessons (most colleges allow non-majors to enroll for lessons with faculty members) and majoring in something else? 3. The overwhelming majority of musicians who are playing at the local clubs, and even the big-name popular music stars did NOT do a music major. If this is your area of focus, you'd be better off spending four years refining your product, learning how to market it, assembling the tools, and playing as often as possible. Remember, a music major is most often a prerequisite for teaching at a primary school, secondary school, or college. 4. You don't need a music major to teach privately, or at a music store. It can help, but it's not essential. 5. Approximately 90% of United States colleges with music programs are geared towards classical music. A few are geared towards jazz. Only a couple are geared towards rock. 6. For guitarists: playing classical music will not typically make you a better rock player, any more than running a marathon will make you a better pitcher. However, playing jazz will make you a better rock player (but only for the first couple of years of study). 7. If you want to be a performer, you need to practice your tail off. Remember, your competition isn't just going to be the students at your school--it will also be the students at Julliard, Berklee, NEC, etc. For that matter, it might be me--as well as people in similar career stages with similar experience. This level of competition is a very real part of the business--try to learn to let it work for you, in order to make you the best player you can possibly be. 8. If you do a music major, especially if you go for advanced degrees, be very, very careful about how much debt you incur. Paying off $90K is one thing if you're a corporate attorney. It's very different if you're a working musician. Trust me on this one. 9. What your ideal lifestyle is when you're eighteen is very different from what you'll want when you're thirty-five. Trust me on this one too, and try to keep it in mind. 10. Students should keep in mind that college advisors, faculty members and even administrators often have vested interests (financial and career) in recruiting students into their programs. Moreover, people who work in colleges are not typically in touch with the current career market. Students should take everything they hear with a grain of salt, and aggressively pursue their own independent research. I can't emphasize this enough. 11. Sometimes you have to simply dive in. It might not make financial sense. But if it's a part of you, you might be compelled to do something crazy, like a music major. This is pretty much what happened to me. Music is a great field, and despite the vicissitudes, I'm usually (not always, but usually!) very, very glad I took the plunge and followed my heart. Be a little afraid. Know all you can. Think for yourself. And go practice. I wish you the best of luck. Do you have thoughts on the material above? Contact me to sound off.
Choosing a Teacher Choosing an appropriate teacher is one of the most difficult tasks facing every student, but it's especially difficult for a beginner. Unfortunately, there are no certification requirements for teaching an applied instrument, so the quality of instruction varies widely. This means that there are fantastic teachers out there, and some extremely poor ones. Here are my suggestions on how to find a good match. Before beginning: -What are your goals? Seeking a good fit: -Where have you performed? / Where do you perform? There are no right or wrong answers to these questions. For example, someone might not have a degree in music, and might nonetheless be a fabulous teacher. However, they should have *some* talking points--perhaps a vast professional history of touring, students who have won competitions, etc. After chatting for a while, you should have some idea as to whether or not the teacher is qualified. After beginning lessons (after 6 months or so): Final thoughts: Be warned that established, highly qualified instructors tend to charge more than untrained college students at music stores. Whether this is worth it to you will probably depend on how much more they charge, the merits of the respective teachers, your personal goals, and your level of seriousness. So far as where to look: I would suggest starting with colleges, since they tend to be far more selective about whom they hire than music stores and community music schools. Many college faculty members (including myself) teach privately. In the event that a faculty member can't accept you as a student, they will almost certainly be able to give you a referral to a teacher in the area who is both respected and qualified. If this isn't feasible, you might try a community music school. Be warned, however, that many community music schools are desperately trying to stay in business, especially in this troubled economy. As a result, these schools aren't necessarily able to recruit and retain the most qualified teachers; this can diminish the quality of instruction. If you go with this option, try to find a community music school that is affiliated with a strong music college or conservatory; for example, the New England Conservatory Preparatory Division, or the Eastman Community Music School. These types of community schools often feature the same faculty that teach in the conservatory/college they represent, in addition to other qualified instructors. This is an excellent option for many students. You also might try a respected private teacher in the area. If you go with this, I would strongly suggest that you get a referral from a trusted musician that knows the area well. It's okay to consider what parents have to say, especially if you're trying to find a teacher for your child--but keep in mind that parents are evaluating whether or not they and/or their child likes the teacher, not whether the teacher is qualified. Personally, I would steer clear of taking lessons in music stores. My experiences with them, both as a teacher and as a student, many years ago, have been uniformly negative. Music stores tend to be exclusively concerned with turning a profit, and will allow just about anyone to teach, provided they can keep the student paying for lessons every month. (To provide an example, I was offered a teaching job at a music store at age 16. I could play a bit, but knew next nothing about theory, technique, or how to teach. Moreover, the job was to teach bass, which I had never played in my life. Needless to say, I declined to accept the position!) I hope these thoughts help you find a long-term, beneficial and satisfying partnership with an excellent teacher, and help you avoid some of the traps that most musicians have fallen into at one time or another… Do you have thoughts on the material above? Contact me to sound off.
|
|||||||
