Living in Japan, I'm amazed at how different the attitude towards teaching theory is compared to the UK-oriented system I grew up with.

Theory was all rote memorization of some kind of mystical knowledge for me, because I didn't have the aural skills to make the theory "work" for me (and is it OK to be a musician and be happy with poor aural skills???). On the other hand, if you leave theory so late that your practical skills are very advanced, it could be hard to convince yourself that you need theory (and do you???). I wonder where the middle ground actually lies!

Anybody got strong feelings on this topic? I'd be interested to hear...

This is an interesting question - because most of the pupils I teach come to me because they want to play - not because they want to write stuff down.

I compromise in most cases by sneaking theoretical stuff into lessons "orally" - but i am aware it doesn't sink in quite as well as when they have to write it down!

Perhaps my view is coloured by the fact that I didn't really enjoy working through those theory books either. I am in the process of looking for some other theory books that others have recommended. In the meantime, I try not to let students get too near to grade 5 without doing some theory - otherwise the catch-up job is a bit off-putting (unless you want to change to a board that doesn't require gr5 theory, or you do an alternative requirement of course). I do inherit students of around grade 5 from time to time who have done no theory at all - and that can be a bit of a problem.

But I don't insist on theory exams right from the start.

In haste - lessons start soon - I look forward to an interesting thread ...

Maggie

Interesting to know, then, how and when it is taught and introduced in Japan. You do not say..

It is very difficult to separate theory and practical in the early stages at least.
You have to know note names, time and keys signatures, time values, performance directions.
I start more 'formal' theory only after we have covered a reasonable amount orally.

It is almost certainly easier to cover more theory along with practical for piano than for melody instruments.

I do the theory quite sneakily as well in the early stages. They only find it hard work if they think it is like school, so getting them to write a piece of music they've made up is fun and you can cover pretty much all of G1 theory by doing that, just getting them to concentrate on a different bit each time. Notes, intervals, timing, performance directions.

Then I'll show them the paper and they think its easy so want to do it.

I start using the books properly at around about G3.

-

Of course Sbhoa is absolutely right - pieces can't be properly taught without understanding, and there has to be discussion about clefs, time-signatures, construction of bars, note-shape, rhythms, keys, chords and modulations, form and style.

I think Sbhoa made a very good point too about it being easier for players of keyboard instruments. Harmony is so much more "visual" - even beginners can understand and play chords.

Students learn in many different ways and with widely differing learning styles, and I find huge variation in the degree to which "oral theory" is effective. With some, "sneaking it in" alongside works well and they barely notice it. But there are some who find it quite easy to absorb information through doing and discussing, but who don't necessarily find it easy to write it down, or to give accurate answers to questions. They can understand and read perfectly well the signs and symbols, and often have good aural skills, but perhaps don't memorise names easily. Not a great problem perhaps if you don't want to do formal theory. It's possible to play well if the understanding is there. You don't need to know the names of crotchet and quaver to be able to hear the rhythm in your head - but that gets in the way if you want to take theory exams!

And sometimes it can be quite an eye-opener when teaching a child who doesn't easily absorb information orally to discover how little has actually gone in and been remembered through discussion and learning of pieces - and it's only by doing actual written excercises that they really focus and understand. For these -if they are to progess, some formal theory is fairly necessary, even if exams aren't needed.

Just a few thoughts.

Maggie

Then there are the ones who actively choose NOT to take in what you tell them....

I have trouble understanding that one, especially with those who have chosen to learn.
I have doubts about their interest if they are not prepared to take notice.

QUOTE

Then there are the ones who actively choose NOT to take in what you tell them....

oh yes! I have one or two who, when I start to discuss and ask questions about a piece they are doing, (theory in disguise..) actually switch off, I'm sure. I can sense it happening. I can feel I'm losing them. I don't know if they all do it deliberately, or just can't concentrate. (Maybe it's me - boring old ### but it is only a few: most seem to take things in ok).

The teenager I referred to as Jay in another thread (getting through to a student) is one of these. The only way to keep her focussed seems to be to have her playing for as much of the lesson as possible. Maybe in this case doing theory as a project in itself would work better - I don't know!

Maggie

QUOTE (sbhoa @ Oct 16 2004, 10:21 AM)

It is almost certainly easier to cover more theory along with practical for piano than for melody instruments.

On the other hand, it may be more important, in the longer term, for the player of a single line instrument to have a good understanding of theory, since s/he is more likely to find her/himself sight reading in an ensemble. The two major inadequacies I notice in the less experienced musicians trained in the UK are poor ability to translate notation into internal sounds - this applies to both pitch and rhythm - and inability to hear the total sound of a group while playing within it. These are primarily questions of aural training rather than theory, but theory can help with the first. As a first step in sight singing (by the method used by [some?] English cathedrals) I give my friends a sheet linking intervals to tunes they know. It actually shows many spellings of each interval, but anyone with a good grasp of theory should be able to identify an interval however it is notated. Theory should also help students to recognise the time values of rests: a surprising number among my acquaintances are much weaker at this than at recognising note values.

It is true in my experience that keyboard players have a much better understanding of theroy than 'single-instrument' musicians.
What I find amazing among the wind, brass and string players is their blinker approach to other instruments and what they are playing. They just know enough theory to read and play their instrument and they're happy with that.
Which is fine except when you want to veer off the exact sheet music. How many musicians forget their theory and look blank!
For example, I played in a group without a singer, and one day a singer came to join us. Could we change the key from whats written just to suit her range? No chance! Could we try a piece that we didn't have the music for but which the singer knew well? Mutiny!
We were once playing Happy Birthday (in G major, from sheet music!) when the cake came out with candles lit - the lights were unexpectedly put out for the duration of the song - and the musicians stopped dead just as if their power had been cut!!
Because they couldn't see the sheet music! I still laugh at that!
My view is - many musicians learn theory to get through exams, but it never gets much further than that, which is a shame.

-

Silverpianist, the picture I've built up of theory teaching in Japan so far is...

"Solfege" - sight-singing, pitch and rhythm recommendation seems to start very early, partly because people believe that perfect pitch can be taught up to age 3, and substantially improved by teaching up to around age 7. If I had realized that this area existed, I would have started son here rather than with an instrument, since singing is so basic...

"Music grammar" - called "gakuten" in Japanese. This seems to be primarily aimed at piano students, and involves improving reading and understanding of written music. Aimed at older children and young adults who are starting to think of auditioning for college or taking teaching qualifications. I think they will get full theory lessons later, but not entirely sure how separate the two categories are.

"Music theory" - called "ongaku riron" in Japanese. Perceived as "difficult" and "specialized" and aimed at people who want to arrange or compose music or harmonies. It seems that every "easy" book on this topic is aimed at rock and jazz guitarists and songwriters, and there are lots of such "theory in ten minutes" books around! I don't think most classical musicians hit this area until university. Teaching about styles and music history probably not taught under "music grammar".

The attitude of son's violin teacher is "theory is something you cram up on for a year before you audition for a conservatory high school or university". Period. However, piano teachers seem to include more theory, and all the theory teachers I know also teach piano.

Parents here will pay anything from 500 to 500 pounds for ONE lesson with a top teacher if they are really fanatic about their kids' advancement, and I recently saw a discussion about whether or not a violin that cost nearly twice the national average salary was "good enough" for a 14 year old! Pitch training for infants is quite common (though mostly in major cities). This gives some idea of the relative balance between practical achievement and theoretical understanding in most people's minds.

Finding theory texts in Japanese on theory suitable for a child is hard. I finally found one book which teaches Italian terms via silly puns in Japanese but that's about it.

Alternatively, I see heaps of "aural training" CDs aimed at young adults in English, but most Japanese musicians get these skills when young, so there are far fewer products like this around in Japanese - except for very young children. I don't think the situation described by indy_epx would be common here with teens or adults.

Kenm's comments on intervals was interesting - I started pointing out the interval leading up to notes where son's intonation wasn't clean, much more effective than saying "That's a D, dolt!".

Maggiemay...kids who switch off theory. Interesting. Maybe there are two types - those who are not THAT interested in music anyway, and those who are still coasting along on their aural skills, and have yet to hit the Wall of Necessity in their playing. I don't think that even son's teachers knew HOW much he was relying on his aural skills and HOW little he understood of the written music. Actually, once he had a vague ability to read music, sight reading of very easy stuff with 30 seconds prep was a challenge he enjoyed and which has sharpened up his attention to detail.

Son's aural skills are so much ahead of his visual skills (in other areas too, not just music) that I'd almost say he is slow in visual tracking skills. Kids like this talk smart and play well, very hard to tell when they are struggling and when they are slacking with written material.

I tried doing things like coloring the "A" space on the staff to make the music more readable for him. That worked OK. I also got him to color in things which recurred in the music, but that was a waste of time - at that point, he couldn't read music well enough, and thinking back, I should have talked about the repetition in terms of intervals instead of transposed notes!

As for motivation, who knows??? I can see that now HE wants to learn, before, it was only ME that wanted to teach him. Yesterday I told son to read the section in the Ab theory guide on the circle of fifths, telling him about it briefly as I handed him the book, in case he had trouble reading it in English. No response. Ten minutes later, he rocketed into the kitchen, saying "Mum, Mum, major scales start 5 notes above each other, there's a neat thing called the circle of fifths...!" Err....hello...??!

As for teaching on non-keyboard instruments, I'm not sure what the right approach is, but I don't think it's impossible to develop a sense of harmony.

I think he must have developed a sense of intervals through inadvertently transposing songs that he heard into keys that were easier to play on the violin, and then becoming more aware of what he was doing. Recently he started obsessing over harmony, singing harmony instead of unison to CDs, extemporizing "2nd violin" while teacher played melody etc. I'm sure that will be a good basis for studying the theory involved.

Son's guitar teacher uses a lot of duets and insists that both parts are learned. Maybe melody instrument teachers could use more duets and song accompaniments, and also encourage advanced students to learn a harmony instrument?

Rhapsodin, your comments on acoustics sound very interesting, and that sounds like an excellent way to alert boys to "why theory actually works"! Anything you can recommend for more information?

Sorry to go on so long - so many interesting things to respond to.

Oops, 50 to 500 pounds per lesson...We pay more like 60-70 pounds per month for weekly lessons plus quite a bit of ensemble work, and that's considered very reasonable.

QUOTE

"Solfege" - sight-singing, pitch and rhythm recommendation

I don't know what "recommendation" is doing in that sentence. Sorry.

You can use the edit button at the top right of your post to change it once you've posted it: that way you can correct it in the post rather than having to explain afterwards.

I teach Oboe and Piano and find it much easier to cover the concepts of chords, cadences etc with my Pianists than the Oboists - fairly obviously so I guess! In general I have always found Piano students to be more receptive to theory tuition than Oboists, possibly because Pianists read the bass clef and Oboists have to learn it specially and somehow working out intervals and so on is so much more obvious on a keyboard than an Oboe - though working aurally, of course, it makes no difference.

I introduce all my students to theory very early on (and equally important explain my reasoning to their parents to gain their support too) so that it is a double approach of here is the music to play, now let's look at how and why it is written as it is.

With the coming of UCAS points for senior grades I have found myself with students (particularly those 13+ of age) who are now seriously considering senior grades where they might not have done before. Thus they are keen (however artificially) to get Grade V Theory. A welcome change from the groaning and moaning I've known in the 30 years I've been a teacher and also the parental comments such as "you're here to teach Oboe and nothing else"). To such comments I have always replied, "No, I'm here to teach music in all its guises!)

Anyway, I do use the Theory books to back up what I'm doing aurally and practically often asking a pupil to use a little of their practice time to complete an exercise or two at home to support the work we've done in the lesson. Generally I find this overall approach works quite well. The written work gets done but not by taking up most of a practical lesson.

I personally think that the level of theory teaching should relate to the pupil's overall musical skill. Beginners don't need to be weighed down by a lot, whereas someone with a desire to go into music professionally should, of course, have a more detailed knowledge.
That's just my two cents, as a music theory major