Hello, I was interested in Jay Zhong's blog on the training of performers (or lack of) in composition. I must say I second many of his sentiments. I am a younger person starting out in the field but I share this split in ambition, both composing and performing as well as teaching. It is the most intersting thing to balance. I finally had to find a mentor who did the same before I was able to start wrangling this "split personality" I am interested on what others on this forum thinks. I have found the study of composition very rewarding and enlightening in my solo work. This started in the study of counterpoint (not always required for an instrumentalist) and has, I feel, made me a better player. Other things that were fringe things that really have made a difference are the study of Jazz and improvisation.
Any more thoughts? Does anyone else incorporate these disciplines into private instruction?

I will never understand why every musician will not be at least open minded to try and learn something-about-everything at some point in their lives. Music is a life-long and joyous learning thrill.

My conducting tutor, for example, is of the firm belief that every musician should learn conducting, because this study will transform one's core values in music, and surprisingly so.

And for sure, classical musicians need to pay attention to tonality and improvisation. The help is around, although not necessarily easy to find all the time.

What's great about classical music is the dedication to craft and perfection, and the patient, deep and lifelong study of great repertoire. I can think of some rock guitarists would who surely benefit by adopting such attitudes.

So, let the barriers fall and let music just be music!

I agree with Waving Air I have to bat myself down sometimes as I will pick up too many new things. I currently have a extreme fascination with conducting and it would certainly not take much to convince me to get up on the podium. I remember when I studied it thinking, why did no one teach me this sooner? I agree with letting music being music. I have always chaffed against too much "correctness" if it leads to boring playing. As for the rock guitarists, I guess we can learn one thing from them (or relearn, as many past composers/ performers have used the same thing, Liszt, Chopin, Paganini, etc. ) and that thing is STYLE.

Kimberly is on potentially dangerous ground. Chaffing against correctness if it leads to boring playing misses the point of correctness, that it is a means to expression. Correctness doesn't cause boring playing, boring players cause it.

This is similar to the arguement that I often hear among second-rate rock guitarists who claim that they don't work their technique too hard because they don't want to be technicians who have nothing to say. I always tell them that if you really have something to say musically, then technique certainly won't get in the way. On the other hand, if you are lacking in a solid well developed technique I don't see how you can expect anyone to fully understand what it is you're trying to express. And for the record, I have nothing against rock guitarists; my son is a very accomplished rock guitarist.

Nice response, this is why we have discussion forums. I would like to say that I did not mean to say correctness is not important. Or Technique, why I am a technique nut. I am saying the problem lies when correctness become more important to understanding, then even musicallity. So often many go on their whole lives just parroting their teacher rather than having an independent musical thought. This leads to players that all play the same. However it is the players that have a little personality that seem to make a success of it.
So to sum up. In my opinion technique and "correctness" are very important. So is theory, composition and the forgotten art of Counterpoint. If one has a firm understanding of all the rules and regulations then one can truly enjoy breaking them. : )

In the end, nothing is correct or incorrect, unless the pulse and/or mood is not indicated and it throws off the flavor of the piece. Many people with limited technique can disguise it musically, because they simply feel the essence of the music. Some people with too much facility skim over the deeper feeling of the music, simply because it took them less time to learn it and not enough time to probe deeper into the music. Back to your topic, you should do all the facets of music that your heart tells you to do. You never know where it will lead.

quote:

Originally posted by Kimberly:
...technique and "correctness" are very important. So is theory, composition and the forgotten art of Counterpoint. If one has a firm understanding of all the rules and regulations then one can truly enjoy breaking them. : )

Amen to that! I consider myself a player first, and, indeed, my DMA is in performance, but I pride myself in a solid knowledge of theory, and I even teach a theory class. As for the forgotten art of counterpoint, I teach species counterpoint in that course, and insist that my students be able to write well in all 5 species.

Ahhh counterpoint, It was not until my DMA (in performance) that I was able to study it. It was not ever required. I took it as an elective. Of course I had general voice leading but I was astonished at how useful I have found counterpoint. My reaction to it was why had I not been taught it before. I helps not only with composition and arranging but also with memorization and improvisation. In fact I find it more useful then harmonic analysis has ever been. Also it was in counterpoint class that my compositional abilities were recognized and fostered in individual lessons. Composition in general gives one a greater understanding of the music that one reads. More attention is given to why particualer elements are chosen. You are also more respectful to the indications of other composers. I call counterpoint a "lost art" as it seems to be de-emphasized in many circles. Particually performance circles.

No counterpoint until grad school! I should show this to my theory students. I taught counterpoint to a high school AP Music Theory class. All but a few complained that it wasn't going to be on the AP exam. I pointed out that the discipline would help them with good 4-part 18th-19th century writing. They should feel privileged to be learning it so early.

Yeah, I was amazed by it as well! I fully expected to study it earlier. I had no music classes at all at my high school. All music but choir had been axed in budget cuts until my senior year. Lucky for me I had a very good private teacher who gave me some rudimentary theory and history as well as encouraging me to compose. Because of her I ended up ahead of the game when I first went to college. I personally would have loved to have more training earlier. Lucky for me there was also a really good youth orchestra in my area. I ended up having to go out of the school to do anything with music though. At the university the focus was more on harmonic analysis. We also had an incident with the counterpoint instructor being murdered and there was a mourning period of a couple years before he was really replaced. So, taking this into consideration it makes a bit more sense.

What university did you go to?!! There is probably no way to say this without sounding insensitive, but any university that, because of a mourning period, does not immediately replace the only person teaching an important area is failing to fulfill its primary mission and its obligation to its students. Shed a tear, mourn his/her passing, be angry over the murder of a beloved professor, but find someone to serve the students' needs immediately, even if it is a temporary adjunct!

Oh, they did seek to replace him right away, one or two canidates were tried but did not stay or something. It took two years to find a suitable canidate. Then they got really lucky with a new teacher that reenergized the program and the interest in counterpoint.

I do know it was not required by my undergrad (requirements set by the head of my area )though I did basic voice leading. In general the head of the theory department and the head of the composition departments are not counterpoint people and the university was understaffed, like most are now days, with many professors doing double even triple duty with not even a teaching assistant to help. So the course was not offered for 2 years. Those were the years of my Master's degree. I had also tested out of most theory studies when taking the entrance exams.

This brings up another frustration of the modern performance student. I had so many performing demands placed upon me that it made it very difficult to really get into any other studies. Since then I find myself in a state of review of everything, wishing I had had more time to pay attention when I was in classes.

I am not mentioning the name of my Alma Mater because I do not wish to give it bad press which would be undeserved as it is a good school with a very talented faculty who work very hard.

Sounds like a run of bad luck, if one believes in luck. Maybe a series of undesirable random events better describes it.