Re: Aural Training


Subject: Re: Aural Training
From: Eliot Handelman (eliot@generation.net)
Date: Sun Aug 21 2005 - 22:50:53 EDT


huwmcgregor wrote:

>
>
>
>>eliot wrote:
>>
>>
>>>hearing and rapid conceptualization
>>>
>>>
>
>I like this term, and I agree it's how we as providers can evaluate these
>skills in terms of EA Aural and listening skills that counts.
>
>

Misunderstanding -- I'm not disagreeing here, but I was suggesting that
the teacher's METHODS
have to be evaluated. I was at a talk at McGill some time ago in which
someone spoke about various
experiments carried out in the domain. I feel averse to the conventional
methods -- I think they're highly
ineffective. I learned that there was no empirical work at all on their
validity.

I don't have the energy to go off into a rant about this, but in general
I think that
the atomising approach (eg, name the the interval) is not right, and
that it would be far better to BEGIN
with larger contextual units recognizably musical in a way that a single
interval isn't. This comes closer
to how we actually hear, I believe.

In regards EA I think that by having students recoignize eg "eq" you're
making the same atomising mistake --
the unit is premusical. You might say it's important to get students to
recognize EQ but I don't see
why.

At Princeton, JK Randall and Steve Mackey once gave a course on "writing
about music," which was
hugely successful. Of course it was really a course in analysis and
ear-training. It gets going an an extremely useful
faculty for learning, namely "interest."

It might also be interesting to do a course on "drawing music" -- not
merely the up and down or sweeps,
but character, all those things for which we lack names as plain as
"major second."

-- eliot



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:10 EST