I'd like to ask a few simple questions to teachers here and would be interested to hear your answers. Here goes:

Do you, as a teacher, feel that classical music is in any way at all superior to other genres of music? Please be honest here.

Do you feel when teaching the non-classical pieces from the AB repertoire (and I'm asking you again to be really honest here) that they may have been put there more to reflect and recognise the general current waning interest in classical music than because of much perceived intrinsic value in the pieces themselves?

And lastly, do you feel as a teacher that a big part of your role is to introduce to and foster an interest and love primarily of classical music through your pupil's chosen instrument?

If it's OK with you, I'll post my own answers after some of you have (hopefully) responded.

Over to you!

I don't really give much thought to the classical material presented for ABRSM exams, i play in a big band so i try and ecourage my students to develop an appreciation for the music of that genre. The new jazz syllabus is a great opportunity for me to develop this as well as improvisation skills. I don't feel classical music is by any means superior, perhaps its percieved that way by some. Its just a question of what you like, i can't really describe Hindemith for example as catchy and musical whereas Ellington i find very enjoyable to listen and play to. Ultimately teachers will try and foster a love of the music they also like.

Good point, TenorClef, that "ultimately teachers will try and foster a love of the music they also like".

If you're right, it would follow that if most teachers prefer classical music they will try and foster a love of that genre, and if most preferred jazz...etc.

However! Shouldn't we be trying to override our own preferences (and prejudices?) and foster instead an appreciation of all genres more or less equally?

I know there's a definite move in this direction in the current music GCSE syllabus, but aren't many of us musical instrument teachers a little guilty of pushing our own love of, say, classical music over and above other genres?

Judging by the lack of activity in the jazz section of this forum, I'd hazard a guess that this is indeed the case, and it could well be one of the reasons so many students tend to give up playing when adolescence strikes.

It may be different in Europe, where there are possibly less worries about the "definitely not cool" status of classical music, but here I wonder if it's crucial if we instrument teachers recognise the situation and, instead of continuing to try and force classical music on reluctant pupils, find other ways of sustaining their interest in playing?

In my own experience I've found that my teenage pupils absolutely love playing jazz, blues, Klezmer, folk, Cajun, Tango, chill-out - anything we can lay our hands on once they've developed enough technique to play in all these different styles. However, it's difficult for a teacher to teach all these different styles unless they're proficient in them (and have a genuine appreciation of them) themselves.

Recently while leafing through the music at my local sheet music store I found some House music for violin with an accompanying CD. I listened to it and to me it was just horrible and I couldn't imagine working on it with my pupils so I didn't buy it. However, some of them would have probably loved it, so in this instance I was allowing my own prejudice to dictate...

Was I right or wrong?! And should any of us be teaching in just one genre unless the pupil specifically requests it?

Wow, an interested topic Violinia.
I had to think hard about some of the answers.

It seems to me that there is good and bad music in all genres and periods. I have likes and (and a few dislikes) all over the place, although broadly I like most music. I try very hard not to foist my tastes on my students; I believe it's vital to expose them to as wide a variety as possible, but I do feel it's important for them to enjoy most of what they do (otherwise what's the point??) and it sometimes needs a good reason to encourage them to explore music that doesn't immediately appeal !

I have a classically trained student who is doing grade 5 this time. She has come to me from overseas, so I had no hand in her early lessons: she plays well but tends to choose only classical or romantic stuff. She didn't like any of the group C pieces in the syllabus, but I persuaded her to try the Bartok, and later we looked at the Bossa Nova (which she now plays and her husband enjoys!). If it hadn't been for tackling the exam, we might not have tried those two pieces, I might have stayed with what she liked best.

My training was broadly classical (at the RCM), and to begin with I had very little knowledge of jazz, but I really enjoy exploring some of the jazzy pieces with my students. No, I don't think I feel that the AB sticks them in the syllabus as a token gesture, (but I do sometimes wonder if with my limited jazz experience I'm getting ir right!)

If I feel that it's important to introduce my students to as much classical music as possible, it 's not because I necessarily regard it as superior, but because it's probably the type of music that they are going to experience least often outside their instrumental lessons. A kind of balancing act ??

Plenty of food for thought anyway; I'll be mulling it over for some time. Thanks for raising this !

Maggie

I think the point with 'classical' is that if you have that sort of background you can turn your hand to almost any other style. A largely classical training (on piano at least, I don't know about other instruments) prepares you for anything.
It teaches many of the basic building blocks for western music of almost any genre.

I try to mix in things like arrangement of popular tunes. Things like Disney themes go down well. If it is a tune they would really like to play it provides good motivation to practice. It is always possible to 'trade off' with what may be less popular choices (and these can become well liked on better acquaintance )

"I think the point with 'classical' is that if you have that sort of background you can turn your hand to almost any other style."

Not true at all. A classical training prepares you to play in the classical styles and while it may give you the basics of technique and/or virtuosity depending on how far you take it, each genre needs deep study and understanding if you really want to play authentically.

In the case of jazz, a classical training is virtually a hinderance! If you truly understood what jazz was about, you wouldn't have made that statement and I'm afraid it's somewhat indicative of the attitude prevalent amongst some classically trained musicians. Classically trained musicians attempting to play jazz usually if not always make a number of errors: they tend to play too legato, they don't/can't "swing", they overplay, they don't play with their bodies, they don't "groove", they rush, they play too lyrically - need I go on. The same will happen with blues. And a classical training may enable you to play the right notes with folk music, but you'll never transmit the authentic folk "feel" until you've really studied and internalised the music, which can take years.

I'm afraid what you said epitomised a certain attitude: that a classical training gives you a lofty position from which you can easily dip in and master, let alone teach, other styles. It just doesn't work that way and it's a little insulting to the other genres to impy that it does.

I find the reverse to be the case, i struggle to play classically due to my training and years of playing in jazz and popular music styles. There is a real disicpline and feel behind each musical genre. Some people can cross over with very little effort others have to work at it a bit more. Even so i do try and encourage my students to learn some of the legit(classical) music as well as jazz and popular music.

As a music teacher, I don't feel that any particular kind of music is superior to another. Any music takes time to compose and time to learn how to play, classical training does give a good understanding of rhythm, chord structure, fingering patterns etc and yes it is difficult to show a classically trained musician how to "swing" quavers. People however have varying tastes and as I teach I have to look to the fact that I might be teaching the composers, performers and pop stars of the future. Therefore I try to encourage an interest in all different styles and am always prepared to teach these styles. Music changes so frequently take Poulenc and Mozart, they are only as different as Bach and Boyzone!

My apologies to the length – but you did ask.

To your first: No, but you could be forgiven for having this opinion. 30 years ago you would have been hard pressed to find a teacher that would teach classical and jazz/blues alongside each other. Classical training giving you a lofty position? Well, if you choose to play baroque in a truly authentic style you would have to spend a considerable amount of time and effort. However, just because you are not wanting to study in such an in-depth way doesn’t mean you can’t “give it ago” or are not allowed to. The same applies to all other styles of music.

To your second: No – because times are changing and it is now acceptable to have a mixture - classical and non-classical in the same syllabus. Maybe living in such a multi-cultural society has helped to bring this about?

To your third: I have only been teaching for a year or so and so my experience is small (enthusiasm very big though!) and my students are all still at the beginner stage. I try to mix what I think will bring their understanding and playing on and what they would really like to play.

When I learned to play piano as a youngster I had a classical teacher. However, my dad, who had played in a jazz band and could play the cornet and was a good pianist, taught me boogie woogie – I can still play Honky Tonk Train and Boogie in the Groove from memory and what fun it still is! My classical teachers never heard me play boogie or any jazzy pieces – this was frowned on and they wouldn’t even consider listening to me. Thank goodness this has changed as not everyone has a dad who plays jazz/boogie/blues!

When my students can cope with some boogie why on earth shouldn’t I teach them some? However If I wanted to teach jazz I would not do so until I was very happy improvising myself.

And whilst we are ready to give classical music a good beating lets not forget that every genre has some very boring/non inspiring pieces of music to be played. Trouble is – to each one of us our opinions to what these are vary!!!

I was not suggesting that a classical background would make you an expert on other styles. Only that it lays the foundations of good technique.

"I was not suggesting that a classical background would make you an expert on other styles. Only that it lays the foundations of good technique."

OK, fair enough. I have a feeling, though, that this is more true of the piano than other instruments. Classically trained violinists find it pretty difficult to switch to jazz without sounding too classical - it can take years to make the switch convincingly. From what I've noticed, folk fiddlers who've started out as fiddlers with no classical training whatsoever can make the switch far more easily, although they probably won't have as virtuosic a technique as a diploma-level violinist (unless they practise hard!). What they will have, though, is a more "choppy" style, better suited to jazz.

Generally speaking, though, for a classically trained musician to play other styles authentically, they need to do a lot of listening and probably go to an expert in the field for some lessons if they don't want to spend years in a relative wilderness.

"though, for a classically trained musician to play other styles authentically"

I'm perhaps straying from the point a little here, but all this talk about playing authentically. Playing authentic jazz, yes, because jazz is a relatively modern genre compared to what is seen as the traditional classical scene. There are also recordings of the earliest forms of jazz (dating from the early 20th century) which help us identify certain sound characteristics of this music.

However, Ursie mentions if you choose to play baroque in a truly authentic style you would have to spend a considerable amount of time and effort.
.........you'd also have to be getting on for 400 years old, or, own the worlds first time travelling machine!

In reality no living human knows how baroque music should be played. There are many texts purporting to know the playing style and what it should sound like, but since there are no sound recordings dating from the 17th and 18th centuries and a large proportion of todays musicians play on modern instruments (or old instruments that have been updated for modern use), can we really say we are playing this music authentically? I think not - and many musicologists would agree. The same could be said of music written by the Classical and early Romantic composers.

Sound recordings don't exist from the period in which the music was written, so after all the research in the world we are still only making an educated guess at how this music from the past should be played.

“I think not – and many musicologist would agree” – and some would not. And “…old instruments that have been updated for modern use)?!! Are these not what we call modern instruments! I have played Scarlatti on the piano and I have played it on the harpsichord – they are different instruments. Scarlatti plays differently on each. Professional musicians have recorded works on the old instruments. No, these musicians did not get in a time machine and they have no recordings but they have spent considerable time and effort researching their specialised subject. Your point is?

The point I was trying to make was that I didn’t think classical teachers do think they are in a lofty position. If you read the recent Libretto you will note that Mark Nightingale (Trombonist) comments “The main thing is learning your instrument. The basics, the tonguing, the breathing, the tone, are the same whatever type of music you are playing. Jazz comes down to phrasing and interpretation, learning to phrase in a swing idiom”. Kornflakes commented, “There is a real discipline and feel behind each musical genre. Some people can cross over with very little effort others have to work at it a bit more”. I would agree.

Violinia asked a few questions and invited replies – I wait with interest to what you have to say.

QUOTE (Ursie @ Feb 16 2004, 05:30 PM)

I have played Scarlatti on the piano and I have played it on the harpsichord – they are different instruments. Scarlatti plays differently on each. Professional musicians have recorded works on the old instruments.

You seem to be missing AmandaL's point.

Harpsichords are still around, as are pianos.

Clarinets are incredibly different from how they once were. They sounds very differently, they play differently, and any classical music using a clarinet will NOT sound the same on a modern clarinet as it would when the instrument was invented.

And I used clarinet as an example, but there are other instruments which this applies to.

Thank you DavidMusic.

At the beginning of my last reply I had clearly stated that I was "perhaps straying from the point a little". We just need to be careful about the use of "authenticity" when speaking about a genre of music none of us were alive to hear when it was first written.

On the subject of the original question; I think there are far less teachers around with the attitude that classical training gives them the upper hand or makes them better than teachers of other styles. This has become very evident in music conservatoires where jazz and even more modern idioms are taught alongside the classical repertoire.

In todays highly competitive music arena (unless a musician is of virtuoso material in a specific field), it is of great importance to learn as many styles of playing as possible - to increase ones own job prospects.

The important thing is that we should encourage learners (of all ages) to try out different styles and genre of music, rather than just teaching a one-tracked path. Apart from adding variety to the repertoire, it lessens the chance of their playing getting stuck-in-a-rut, so to speak and also encourages a wider range of musical appreciation.

AmandaL. I appreciate your concern over the use of the word “authenticity” – you are quite right that we have not heard a live performance recorded 2/3/400 years ago. However, there are live performances given now using period instruments. This is a much debated subject. As you say, with jazz there are recordings – so there is no issue. This subject should really be in a topic of it’s own as there is much to say.

Violinia - I thought you said ask a few simple questions

QUOTE (AmandaL @ Feb 15 2004, 04:37 PM)

In reality no living human knows how baroque music should be played. There are many texts purporting to know the playing style and what it should sound like, but since there are no sound recordings dating from the 17th and 18th centuries and a large proportion of todays musicians play on modern instruments (or old instruments that have been updated for modern use), can we really say we are playing this music authentically? I think not - and many musicologists would agree. The same could be said of music written by the Classical and early Romantic composers.

AmandaL. It's interesting that you should think this. I have just finised reading Francois Couperin's L'Art de toucher de Clavecin in which he states quite specificaly the style in which French music for the harpsichord was being played and (according to him) how it should be played (he seems a very opinionated fellow). French music in the baroque period is a particuarly fine example as there were many rules in place which the performers had to strictly adhere to. ie. the ornamentation. An explanation of the ornaments was written by Couperin himself and has survived to this day.

If you had happened to leave out the sentence about the 'purporting texts,' I would have agreed with you ( even though being a harpsichordist I would have been going against everything I work towards). But, I can hardly ignore a book about the playing of the harpsichord written by the person whose music I'm playing!

First question, yes classical music is a good basis for piano technique but it cannot be said to be superior over any kind of music, just as you can never say that a father is superior to his son, but like father and son, classical music was probably the biggest development in the early days and it deserves respect for being the backbone of many musicians today. Although a lot of different kinds of folk and native music were also invented concurrently they were not as popular as classical music or well-known.

Second question, maybe the AB HAS been putting in a lot more "fun" pieces, but they do have their value. Anything learnt by a student out of interest is valuable and progress is made in that way. Classical music might take years to master, but the more "fun" pieces take much less time and learning some would balance the need for interesting material with the need for technical improvement. Classical music might not be appreciated by all, but it also takes some maturity to figure it out. Hence the decision by the board (I feel) to place some non-classical pieces in the C group.

As a teacher, I feel that it is important to balance the repertoire evenly. Too much classical for those who are not ready for it will make them bored and ruin any chances of nurturing their appreciation for it. Too little and they are missing out the greatest values of their instrument... after all, their instrument WAS created to play classical music in the beginning (unless of course you're teaching an electrical instrument or the panpipes!). But most of all, my job is to nurture a love for music so great, that they keep learning long after they have stopped their lessons with me. And maybe when they're older, they'd eventually come to love baroque and opera etc... hence I would try to expose them to as many kinds of music as possible. Like what the board is doing... they do have Tangos and stuff also of late, besides the jazzy pieces. I used to be very bored by some classical pieces as a child, but now I love it.

QUOTE (Violinia @ Feb 13 2004, 11:34 AM)

I'd like to ask a few simple questions to teachers here and would be interested to hear your answers.  Here goes: Do you, as a teacher, feel that classical music is in any way at all superior to other genres of music?  Please be honest here.

The long time use of notation is the main way in which classical music is superior to all other genres (with the exception of those that have adopted it). This has some corollaries, some benefical, some deleterious:

1) Very much more complicated works can be prepared in a reasonable time;

2) Good sight readers can examine lots of pieces in a short time;

3) Very old music can be played with fair approximation;

4) Many performers do not need (or think they do not need) to exercise their memory regularly;

5) Some performers think they do not need to exercise their ears.

When I tried to play jazz (on double bass) I found that 4) was a problem. As a singer, I sight read fairly well, and playing a wind instrument rarely puts one in the position of having to memorise. My other problem with playing jazz was a lack of adequate theory: e.g. knowing all the chords that you can get from 12 (or more) keys and five(?) modes.

QUOTE

Do you feel when teaching the non-classical pieces from the AB repertoire (and I'm asking you again to be really honest here) that they may have been put there more to reflect and recognise the general current waning interest in classical music  than because of much perceived intrinsic value in the pieces themselves?

That thought had not crossed my mind. I had thought that it was a recognition of the status of jazz as a valid culture.

QUOTE

And lastly, do you feel as a teacher that a big part of your role is to introduce to and foster an interest and love primarily of classical music through your pupil's chosen instrument?

No. However, in my limited experience, I have tried to introduce pupils to _ensemble_ music and teach skills that will help them to play with others in any genre.