Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I started in piano which gave me a foundation for transitioning to harp. When I started harp at the university, I focused primarily on the physical technique that was different from piano which made the transition fairly quick. Professionally I focus more on harp as a performer, but fill in with piano for teaching. I think in some ways the two instrument focus both helps and detracts. I took a gig to play the variations and adagio from the Schubert Trout Quintet on piano and yeah, that took me off
This is definitely an issue for harpists since we have the laws of physics against us in an orchestral setting. I have worked hard to increase my volume while maintaining a rich, resonant sound, and it can be difficult especially in passages where the harp can scarcely be heard buried beneath a large string section. The harsh tone of overplaying is quite unpleasant especially in contrast to the natural tone of the harp. There is a hard edge at the beginning of the sound that drops off and leaves less resonance than when not overplaying. Specific technical advice for achieving maximum dynamic with quality tone could be useful in this thread. I work to increase the relaxation between plucking, as well as releasing from joints further out the louder the sound that is required.
It is mostly an issue with orchestra, since the pedal harp has plenty of projection as a soloist or in most chamber settings. In that case it is mostly just a matter of listening to your instrument in a responsive manner. I also play a light-tension folk harp which requires a different sort of touch. Adjusting between the two is easiest if my focus is on the sound and responding to it.
I am always interested to hear further input on specific technical advice to maximize the entire dynamic range with the most ideal tone. Both ends of the dynamic range can cause the tone to suffer.
I have been interested in getting started for a number of years. I need to check the application deadlines, because it is my goal to get at least Book 1 training this summer. My own teaching philosophy naturally aligns with everything I have read about Shinichi Suzuki’s philosophy, so I am excited to get involved with it.
I have been interested in getting started for a number of years. I need to check the application deadlines, because it is my goal to get at least Book 1 training this summer. My own teaching philosophy naturally aligns with everything I have read about Shinichi Suzuki’s philosophy, so I am excited to get involved with it.
I have been interested in getting started for a number of years. I need to check the application deadlines, because it is my goal to get at least Book 1 training this summer. My own teaching philosophy naturally aligns with everything I have read about Shinichi Suzuki’s philosophy, so I am excited to get involved with it.
This may have been suggested already, but since she specifically said it is the harp, i would examine all possibilities for how the equipment differs. It could even have to do with the bench because that has quite the effect on how the harp actually feels. If the height between your bench and hers is too different, then the entire harp will feel like a different size. She could even measure the distance between the bench and harp, stand and harp, etc. There might also be something about the pedal tension between the harps. Another area to examine are other aspects of the room like the lighting or how the walls behind the strings affects the way they look. As a trouble shooting method, it might make sense to have her bring her harp into your studio and see if the problem emerges.
It might be a sensory based problem. It could also be psychological, but it is important to start with the explanation she offers since she is the one viewing it from the inside.
The Suzuki Association of the Americas website does not list renown performers who went through the Suzuki method, but that is partly in line with its philosophy of non-elitism. It is true that the Suzuki philosophy doesn’t focus on building the pre-college resume through competitions and festivals during childhood and adolescence. That can be a disadvantage when functioning in a professional environment where external measurement is the ideal. There is room to question the competition track as well since it is not as holistic in its development of the individual, especially if it results in understanding second place as failure when subjective and random elements cannot all be accounted for in the evaluation process, but that should be explored in a new thread. I did find the following reference in a memorial to Lynn Baughman, a Suzuki teacher who passed away. I think it sums up the Suzuki philosophy quite well.
Many of Lynn’s students received music scholarships to institutions of higher learning including Eastman School of Music, New England Conservatory, Oberlin Conservatory, Cleveland Institute of Music, University of Southern California, Stetson University, Vanderbilt University, and Harvard University. Although many became professional performers, composers and music teachers, she was just as proud of those who became engineers, physicians, graphic artists, attorneys, etc.
Saul Davis Zlatkovsky wrote: So, given this start of a Suzuki-trained child, how does this affect
their psychological development, and artistic growth? To never have a
critical attitude or accept it is to me a bad thing, and I believe I’ve
seen the results of that on stage.If you reference to a lack of criticism is based on my use of the term, I should clarify. Having a focused, nuanced level of aural awareness is likely the same thing another person would call “criticism”. The emphasis on listening is a necessary first step to any excellence in playing. The problem of “criticism” comes in when it becomes a psychological way of removing oneself from the experience of creating music and focuses on gaining approval or avoiding punishment instead of focusing on sound. If someone is obsessed with the idea of hitting a wrong note, it distorts the perceptions and limits artistic growth. This can be a difficult topic because word definitions are easily molded to the point where there can be agreement in principle, but debate in the use of words.
The Kodaly method is also an excellent one. I realize there is a tendency for people to think in terms of being the “best”, but because there is always a great deal of context involved in the field of teaching, it also seems apt to value different approaches for their individual merits. I have great respect for the Suzuki method, Kodaly, Orff, and many others. It can feel somewhat arbitrary to label one as “best” and dismiss the others. Education is a continually evolving field, so understanding a variety of well thought out and effective approaches is important.
Since I mentioned a reference to brain imaging in the study of language
acquisition in an earlier post, it seemed important to include a couple
of references for anyone interested. There are specific regions in the brain devoted to language acquisition while literacy seems to integrate a variety of regions. Considering the history of mankind, speech communication is significantly older than text communication. The following are a few articles I found which might be an interesting read.1. Brain imaging of speech perception in early infancy: Exploring the neural mechanisms for language acquisition by Dr. Fumitaka Homae.
2. Nature and Nurture in language acquisition: anatomical and functional brain imaging studies in infants by Dehaene-Lambertz, Pannier, and Dubois.
3. Wired for reading: Brain Research May Point to Changes in Literacy Development. by Sara Bernard.
“New brain-imaging technologies and a spate of recent studies suggest that readin aptitude is better understood as a spectrum of abilities relateed to biological architecture than as a universally acquirablee skill. Misconstruing the neurological underpinnings of reading risks alienating and discouraging students for whom this particular task will never come easily…”One more note to add. :o)
Because Shinichi Suzuki’s approach focuses on nurturing the whole child by creating a positive environment, it seems inconsistent for the method to be implemented with an “iron fist” so to speak. When some cases of traditional music learning is based on perfectionism as an unachievable ideal and even punishment when it is not reached, I think it is easy for any method, including Suzuki, to become mishapen by some of these underlying assumptions teachers can bring in from their own experiences. The underlying ideal in the Suzuki method is to “foster the human qualities in the child”. It seeks to strengthen every child. With that as a principle, it would seem reasonable that it would adapt the details its implementation to any practical means to achieve that goal.
Assigning sight-reading is a regular part of the Suzuki training I know of from teachers who have their certification. Also, the ensemble playing reinforces reading and rhythmic coordination. I don’t have Suzuki certification in harp yet, but plan on it as soon as I can save up the funds, however, I have done some reading, have taken the Every Child Can course, attended the SAA conferences, and have friends and colleagues who have been raised in Suzuki and/or have completed the training. One important issue to consider is certification. Anyone can buy the books and I suppose call themselves a Suzuki teacher. This is not the same thing as going through the training. I can’t verify all the outcomes of the training process, but the issues you describe do not sound compatible with the philosophy or training.
It isn’t necessarily the only approach to take in teaching, but its strengths include an emphasis on listening and on parental involvement. It is a non-elitist approach to education with some influence from Eastern philosophy which focuses on relaxed awareness and focus over judgment and criticism. My understanding of the last point is that when the learning process focuses on a checklist of “do’s” and “don’ts”, “right” and “wrong” and other such preset judgments, the focus can be removed from the experience of playing the instrument. This self distraction which focuses on the negative can make it difficult to hear how one is actually playing. There is use of repetition to internalize the sounds. By focusing on the sound in a deep manner, one learns to hear every nuance of the melody just as one learns the nuance of language right down to the details of regional accents.
The Suzuki method creates an approach to learning that is parallel to how language is acquired. The idea is that in the same way language is learned first as speech and secondly as written text, music is most naturally acquired by this same process. Reading music is no less a goal than becoming literate is for language. Brain imaging has determined that there are parts of the brain dedicated to language acquisition, but literacy requires many parts of the brain coming together. It is not as deeply rooted – we are not hardwired for written text in the way we are for spoken text. Perhaps the same is true of music as a language?
I think the underlying philosophy is interwoven throughout the method. There could be problems when someone encounters one fragment of it and then proceeds to implement it.
I was thinking about this thread and perhaps it is worth softening the terms “good” and “bad”. I have taught students from many different backgrounds from ages 5 to 75. I don’t think of any of them as “bad students”, although some were harder to reach than others. There are students who are naturally effective learners and others who struggle because of ability, attitudes, schedules, etc. I enjoy the bright student who practices and with whom you can see your efforts working right away, but in some ways the challenging ones make me learn more as a teacher. The best moments are when as a teacher I can find some way to help the student learn especially when it was difficult. I mentioned struggles with students who resist learning because they have been encouraged to think there is nothing left to know. I’ve learned a little about breaking through that mindset, but am still learning. The truth is that there are always reasons for the way people think and act. Compelling reasons. Understanding the world from inside their perspective is important to help them learn.
It is important to separate the value of the individual from their skill and performance. There are no “good” or “bad” students, but just people with various limitations who have good days and bad days, good years and bad years.
As is mentioned before, every instrument deals with enharmonic notes to some extent, but it is more troublesome for the harpist. The theoretical aspect probably does tend to be more important to whomever is dealing with the big picture. Having the note notated with the correct harmonies is especially important for the conductor when dealing with the full score. Interpreting enharmonic in the harp part in addition to the other instruments transpositions would be difficult. If the harp part did have the notes written in alignment with the pedaling, it could confuse communication between harpist and conductor. I guess it is a big picture vs. individual perspective situation.
I have a question about the notation of harmonics. I have heard, but cannot verify at the moment, that harmonics written were sounding have the circle written above and the harmonics written where played have a diamond shape. I think there are also cases of having the small circle above the note where played. The main issue here is one of consistency of notation which will likely be ongoing as both music and the instrument evolve. As long as the notation of harmonics could become consistent, I don’t see how it would matter which way was the standard. It’s rather straightforward either way.
Bernard, your reaction to a new performance is legitimate, but it is important to contrast it with post #66. I don’t have a reaction to this particular piece having not heard it, but I am active in experimental music as a performer, so the issue is important to me. I can appreciate those who weary of the use of shock alone to make a claim as art. There is a way to take a balanced approach that neither throws out or embraces all challenging and shocking expression.
It is important to judge a work for what it is, not for what it is not. Can the work make a justification for itself as a work of art? One thing academia does help the artistic community with is requiring those earning graduate degree to make a reasoned case for the merit of their work. Both visual artists and composers are required to justify the aesthetic merit of their work based on it’s influences, originiality, internal coherence and meaning.
One thing I hear in this thread from many viewpoints is a call for accountability from artists. This can in part be drawn from the immediate appeal of a work, but that is limited by the shared assumptions of a given group of people. My position is that immediate appeal is not the only measuring rod available to determine merit and that both artist and critic are accountable to make a reasoned case for the integrity of their position. The thorough study of great works of music and art, an informed understanding of the philosophy of aesthetics, a sense of various ideals and ways of structuring music from diverse cultures, can all contribute towards the ability to make a legitimate estimation of the integrity of a work of art. Judge the work for what “it” is, but do in fact require it to demonstrate its integrity. If we cannot say exactly why a piece is lacking, then it is important to make the effort to understand the piece for what it is so we can also make a reasoned account for why it should be rejected.
Here are considerations concerning experimental music.
1. By definition it is not mainstream. If everyone immediately understands and accepts it, then it is exploring the norm, the inside of the box and not the boundaries. It is not a requirement for the majority of people to accept explorative music for it to have merit. There is value in protecting modes of expression that are relevant to only a minority of people. It is important to respect and consider the aesthetic values of contrasting ideals.2. Experimental music is just that – an experiment. Not all experiments succeed, but an environment in which experimentation is not allowed can quickly become stagnant. Considering boundaries and attempting new ways of expressing is often an important catalyst for growth. It is about taking risks and being willing to try things that might fail completely, perhaps fail in part, but lead to growth, or risking the new to hit serendipitiously on something deeply wonderful.
I also think David’s suggestion of having an experimental music concert could be a reasonable solution. Experimental music doesn’t need to be forced on anyone, or presented in surprise (if that is what is going on – I don’t know).
