The Order of Learning (a piece of music)

[Rue]

What order do you generally follow when learning a new piece (if any)?

As I learn more technique I think how I practice is shifting.

But I still work out notes first. I hate tripping up on accidentals etc.

[Will L]

One of my least favorite concert violinists just plays through things as fast and loud as possible over and over stopping as little as necessary.  But then:  one of my favorites did the same thing.      Go figure.

 

But then these guys had/have raw talent and could/can pull it off.  If we can't yet play a passage, we do have to break it down.  Usually each individual note is worked on, then we become aware of intervals, tendencies, shifts, and what to do AFTER we arrive.

 

Dounis had a lesser known work which seems built around the point that once a shift is made, the show is not over.  We have to shift in such a way that once we arrive we maintain a good hand position to play the upcoming notes.  (I'll have to find it to tell you the name of the studies.)

 

DeLay had an approach that had the student practice for months at no more than "half-speed."  With no vibrato.  The idea being to really home in on the notes.  At first it seems like a waste, but the effect is cumulative.  Flesch desribes something similar.  I suppose to say slow, careful practice ALWAYS pays off is a little bold, but it can't hurt in sufficient doses.

 

IMO, the mistake most of us make is not spending enough time on a passage before declaring it done and moving on. Things need to really be pounded into the brain by doing them enough times.  DeLay actually shocked lil' ol' moi by telling me that even her best students would spend 6 months on a major concerto before ever playing it up to speed.  (She may have been exaggerating a little; but probably only JUST a little.)

 

DeLay talked about shifts as if we are dancers planning our movement in advance, having a kinetic sense of what it will feel like, then executing it, then judging how well we did.  The fingerboard is a physical space, and distance needs to be covered in a rational manner.  While individual notes are the starting point, getting from one to another successfully (=pitch-wise; not distorting the rhythm; and setting ourselves up for continuing) requires a lot of our practice time.  But, again, the time is not wasted.  

 

–MO

[Rue]

I like the dancing visual! I wish I wasn't still trying to do ballet in wooden clogs though...

I think I am on the right track then. I am working harder to get the counting right from the start as well. I can fix rythm later but have found it's hard once I have played a passage "off" too often.

I find a lot of people play too fast...always rushing...I think I like it better when some of it gets played at the lower end of the tempo range..

[DGV]

I read through a new piece entirely a couple of times then mark off the tricky sections.  Then break them into snippets of a few measures.  Then work on them slowly (and sometimes with a metronome) starting with the most difficult passages.

[Rue]

My counting metronome has been my best purchase. I was finally able to figure out where I was going wrong...I tend to rush the last beat of the measure...and not hold whole notes long enough...

I couldn't figure that out with a regular metronome since I couldn't tell which beat I was messing up.

I should remember to take it with me to our quartet rehearsals...save a lot of foot stomping and shouting...lol. Although I was relieved to find out it wasn't just me that was having counting issues.

[Will L]

I suppose I'm not sure what the thrust of the question is.  I'm sure we all know that everything is wrapped up together and hard to separate.  For example, when we learn the violin we develop our skills, then find a piece of music which fits our skill level.  Often there will be problems within such a piece which require us to back up and solve them, possibly with etudes, for example.  Over time we hopefully move on to more difficult music and don't have to think every single problem through from the beginning.

 

Szigeti writes a lot of tantalizing hints that even big time soloists such as himself have to solve problems as they go along. His edition of the Scriabin "Etude in Thirds" gives a page or two of preparatory exercises, for example.  And he talks of how the trill has to be laboriously worked in the "Devil's Trill" Sonata.

 

If we're thinking most basically, individual notes are the atoms and we can't play a run of notes if we can't play a series of individual notes in tempo, in tune, and with the right dynamic and tone quality.  We have to start with what we can do; if it's one note, so be it.

[Rue]

I think different people approach things differently...and I was curious as to the how and why.

For example...with beginners I was surprised that many apparently work on intonation separately. And I am not talking about just tweaking the odd note that is too flat or sharp because of hand position or wonky finger placement.

When I say I learn the notes first I mean that I do my best to play them in tune from the get go.

I don't have perfect pitch. ..but I can tell when I am off ...however I can't always tell if I am a smidge flat or sharp for some reason (that I find weird in itself)...so I am working on honing in on that too.

Hope that made sense...

[Will L]

I'll go ahead and post this, though I'd be wiser to spend more time developing it.  Take it for what it's worth.   :

 

If you can find "The Science of Violin Playing" by Raphael Bronstein, he has what I think is a very interesting way of looking at humans.  Whereas most people at least pay lip service to our being strong and willful, he seems to imply that if we want to solve our violin problems we are wise to realize we are usually weak and lazy.  

 

Specifically, he tries to persuade that we should be aware we tend to "let our fingers do the thinking."  (my words, not his)  One of the most common errors caused by this laziness is our tendency to not play half steps close enough and to not get close enough to the nut with the first finger, for the half-steps down from the first position A,E,B, and F#.  Not to mention tendencies from finger to finger.  He also says that we have the tendency to play down-bows with more energy than up bows, for the obvious reason of gravity, if no other.  And he suggests we need to be very aware of our tendencies.

 

So part of serious practice is to find the general tendencies all humans have, along with our personal ones based often on our physique and concepts, or lack of them.

 

This leads me to believe we benefit from keeping this in mind: EVERY SOUND WHICH COMES OUT OF A VIOLIN IS THE RESULT OF A COMBINATION OF THE TOTALITY OF OUR PHYSICAL ACTIONS.  We are practicing position, angles, pressures, speeds, and tendencies.  (Maybe some things I can't think of right now.)  What we do as players is really VERY physical, but I think we forget that in the fray.  In short, if it don't sound right, it's because we did something physically wrong.  By being aware of that, we don't have to wallow in confusion, and can get along toward solving the problem.  When we improve, it's not because we are playing the notes better; it's because we are doing our actions better.  It's simply another way of looking at things. Try it out.

 

We all probably immediately know that if we are scratching on a chord, it is because we are doing something wrong in the above mentioned areas, but we forget that absolutely EVERYTHING ELSE we do is just as physical as playing those scratchy chords.

 

Connecting the notes is a big area of concern.  It's almost frightening to think that in order to play from one end of a concerto to the other we have to put together long chains of correct motions without any room whatsoever for error.  If musicians aren't asked to be superhuman, I don't know what other professionals have more demanded of them.

 

Shifting is a huge area for mistakes to be made.  Shifts not only have to fill the time allowed for them—either slow or fast—and are one area of playing where sometimes the shift is for technical purposes and sometimes for musical ones. But they are still ALWAYS also technical.

 

If I had to suggest something to practice first, it would be to develop our physical actions to make the notes as smooth and even as possible— meaning smooth and even in tone, dynamic, rhythm, and pitch.  Then we can begin to deal with nuance and musicality.  If we try to get artistic too soon, we risk hiding the technical flaws.  (That's one value of scales, arpeggios, and "scientific etudes.")

 

On the bowing side of things, we have to learn to use the bow in an orderly way, too.  A good start is to learn to divide the bow in such a way that if you use the whole bow for a whole note, you use half the bow for a half-note, and a quarter of the bow for a quarter-note, and so on.  (A generality, of course.)  This helps to develop an evenness of tone quality and dynamics. 

[Carl Stross]

I don't have perfect pitch. ..but I can tell when I am off ...however I can't always tell if I am a smidge flat or sharp for some reason (that I find weird in itself)...so I am working on honing in on that too.

 

 

That's normal. Nothing to worry about. You only need to get the average right and maintain the tonal, melodic tendency. Oistrakh seldom hits a note square and Kreisler is often horribly high. Try be slightly higher than slightly lower. If you play perfectly in tune, you'll sound flat. 

[Carl Stross]

 

Edited August 3, 2015 by carl stross

[Carl Stross]

I'll go ahead and post this, though I'd be wiser to spend more time developing it.  Take it for what it's worth.   :

 

...................

 

 

 

What an absolutely superb post !!! We want more of those !!!!

[Rue]

Ditto!
 
Thanks for all the info!  I am processing!

*p.s. Just found a copy of this book ("The Science of Violin Playing" by Raphael Bronstein). For only 999.11 pounds!   I will see if I can find a slightly less expensive copy.

[DR. S]

Good question.  The most successful players I have known, had very methodical practice habits.   Slow practice was the foundation of learning a new piece, and these players learned a work to performance level much faster than their peers who learned the work by trying to play through the piece up to tempo from the beginning for get there too soon.   A metronome is a required tool.  Practicing slow really teaches you to hear the piece - every note - so that when you get up to tempo, even the fast passing tones are in tune.  While learning notes first play softly with no vibrato,  Then start mapping out you dynamics, accents, style, and bowings and start incorporating this, even into the slow playing.  The bowings become a sort of choreography that work in conjunction with fingerings and shifts and vibrato that propels the piece along, much like a dance.   It is important to have set bowings, at least for the first few performances.  Memorization early in the process is important if you want to play from memory, but you must make sure you have every note down perfectly.   Then learn the piece not just up to tempo but above tempo, you want to be comfortable at performance tempo - never perform a work at a tempo that is as fast as you can play it - that is a disaster in the making. 


A word on shifting.  My experience is that the most common mistake made in shifting is that the player tries to make the shift faster than necessary, Always relax to shift, even for a 'large' shift, the distances are not far in an absolute sense.  Watch any accomplished player, the shifts are always fluid and steady.   

[Will L]

*p.s. Just found a copy of this book ("The Science of Violin Playing" by Raphael Bronstein). For only 999.11 pounds!   I will see if I can find a slightly less expensive copy.

Are you serious!?  My gosh, I should have taken better care of mine!  

[Will L]

A word on shifting.  My experience is that the most common mistake made in shifting is that the player tries to make the shift faster than necessary, Always relax to shift, even for a 'large' shift, the distances are not far in an absolute sense.  Watch any accomplished player, the shifts are always fluid and steady.   

Well put.  That's true of other things, too, such as runs.  In an orchestra, we all know that the tendency when nervous is to rush the notes, not wanting to be alone at the end.  (It's so embarrassing to hit that top note all alone; it rarely sounds good.)  It's a habit that needs to be fought.

 

I think we too often forget about what happens between the notes.  The tendency of a beginner will be to play the note before a shift to the very end—very full—then rush headlong to the next note.  Later on we learn that the first order of business is usually to arrive at the second note ON THE BEAT, so we have to sacrifice (if necessary) by cutting the first note short.  

 

I think the reason DeLay (and probably others) used the term "choreography" is because she thought in term of HOW FAR WE HAVE TO GO, AND HOW MUCH TIME WE HAVE TO GET THERE.  She related playing to a ballet dancer leaping— having to know how far he had to go and when he had to land, which required starting at a certain time and using a given amount of effort to arrive at the right time and place, Eventually it becomes second nature.   

[DGV]

Musicians are superhumans?  Then acrobats, ballet dancers, 10m platform divers, Mt. Everest climbers etc. are nonhumans since musicians rarely (if ever) have to risk serious injuries or even death from practicing.

[Will L]

Musicians are superhumans?  

 

 

I have to admit I haven't thought the whole thing through to the point where I'd bet my life on my observations, if anyone wants to argue.

 

I have tried to think of anything else that requires such precision with little— or no—repose for up to 30 or 40 minutes at a time.  Playing is not like making:  A maker certainly has to be precise in measuring, and placing a cut in a certain place.  But the musician has to make his actions at an exact time, in an incredibly precise way, with no moment of rest before or after each note.  And it is note after note after note, where a fraction of a millimeter is the difference between being noticeably out of tune, and playing a note a split second too soon can be the talk of the critics.  And I haven't even mentioned the bow.

 

A brain surgeon has to be accurate, but before he makes a cut, he can have the nurse wipe his brow, ask the advice of the other surgeon, crack a joke to relieve the tension, decide he'd be better off with a #10 blade, etc.  He might have to hurry, but he doesn't have to make his actions correspond to some galley drummer beating time for the oarsmen.  Once a player begins a performance, he's in for the duration with no respite at all, except for the occasional rest or a few slow notes here and there (which still require scrupulous attention).

 

Coupled with all this, the player is using an instrument which is known for its unreliable nature.

 

A fighter pilot isn't close.

 

A politician...

 

Divers, Everest climbers, dancers, all have their problems but I don't see that the accuracy and sustained nature of their actions of a are in the same league as a classical violinist.  A dancer doesn't have to land on a spot the size of a pin every second.

 

IMO, obviously the fact that some humans can and do develop these abilities shows that they are within human possibilities, so I suppose I exaggerate to think of musicians as superhuman; but sometimes it seems that way.

 

BTW, pit musicians have to worry about getting landed on by dancers or having props land on their heads.  

 

 

[crazy jane]

Seems to me that this sustained mental and physical precision is demanded of most skilled artisans and repair people, and by many types of scientific researchers. Of course, the degree and duration of precision depends very much upon the skill of the individual and the demand of the work. (I was in Nürnberg this spring and gave a lot of thought to the works of Albrecht Dürer as well as the craftsmanship of his goldsmith father--of all of the great guild-meisters, actually.)  

 

In my opinion, the order of learning--whether an instrument or an individual piece--must begin (and end) with rhythm. ("In the beginning, there was rhythm!" intoned our first honor orchestra conductor, in his deep German baritone.) And it continues throughout the learning process as possibly the most important issue, from counting notations to proper entrances to maintaining accurate tempi to--ultimately--informed, thoughtful phrasing. Try reading chamber music--a Beethoven or Schubert slow movement (or anything, really)--with a player who lacks this foundation. A nightmare!!! I had the unfortunate experience of preparing for performance a Rossini duet for viola (originally cello?) and bass with a long-ago member of the Houston Symphony. She had a lovely sound and solid intonation--but dropped beats indiscriminately and could not be corrected. What use is a bass player who can't count?!!

 

Students who lack a rhythmical foundation and a rhythmical approach to reading a piece flounder at all points. And what's the point of intonation, really, when one enters in the wrong places or plays at double or half speed? Then every note is wrong!!  

 

Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau claimed that rhythmical accuracy and understanding, rather than vocal beauty, was the essence of his work and his success (a claim supported by his pianist, Gerald Moore).

[Rue]

Maybe your bassist has the same problem I have...that I think stems (in part) from playing by myself for too many years...where it doesn't ultimately matter...

[Will L]

IMO,all things being equal—which they never are  — "perfect" rhythm aces out "perfect" intonation in an orchestra.  After all, with 16 1st fiddlers sawing for all they are worth and vibrating like they really mean it, none of them are ever on the same pitch at the same time: 16 players playing exactly in tune with each other simply can't be done. But fairly perfect rhythmic accuracy IS possible, and adds a huge amount to the quality and incisiveness of the section's/orchestra's sound.

 

But to the extent of my limited association with good teachers, the first order of business seems to them to be homing in on the intonation of the individual notes.  And, as we work, we have to develop the ability to play the notes evenly so that we get to the next beat at exactly the right time—otherwise, if we are playing uneven notes, somewhere we have to make adjustments in order to not arrive early or late to a beat.  But I don't believe that is the soul of good rhythm.  The soul of good rhythm on an instrument is even individual notes played without any glitches. (Playing with other instrumentalists, however, means we have to sacrifice ourselves all the time.)  So we often have to adjust our individual notes for the sake of arriving together with the "overall."

 

If DeLay says to practice the notes first, with NO concern for tempo, speed, or rhythm in mind, I'd tend to trust her.  But it doesn't mean anyone else has to.  

 

—MO

[Carl Stross]

IMO,all things being equal—which they never are  — "perfect" rhythm aces out "perfect" intonation in an orchestra.  After all, with 16 1st fiddlers sawing for all they are worth and vibrating like they really mean it, none of them are ever on the same pitch at the same time: 16 players playing exactly in tune with each other simply can't be done. But fairly perfect rhythmic accuracy IS possible, and adds a huge amount to the quality and incisiveness of the section's/orchestra's sound.

 

But to the extent of my limited association with good teachers, the first order of business seems to them to be homing in on the intonation of the individual notes.  And, as we work, we have to develop the ability to play the notes evenly so that we get to the next beat at exactly the right time—otherwise, if we are playing uneven notes, somewhere we have to make adjustments in order to not arrive early or late to a beat.  But I don't believe that is the soul of good rhythm.  The soul of good rhythm on an instrument is even individual notes played without any glitches. (Playing with other instrumentalists, however, means we have to sacrifice ourselves all the time.)  So we often have to adjust our individual notes for the sake of arriving together with the "overall."

 

If DeLay says to practice the notes first, with NO concern for tempo, speed, or rhythm in mind, I'd tend to trust her.  But it doesn't mean anyone else has to.  

 

—MO

 

I second that !    

[Violadamore]

My first step is usually to find the music I need to practice on the internet, download it as a PDF and get it from my laser printer.   That's followed by puzzling out the rhythm, then intonation, then bowing, and finally speed.  Then, when I get together with whoever I'm playing with, for a hour's rehearsal before we amaze the world, the whole perfected business sorta goes in the dumpster again............ 

[Carl Stross]

My first step is usually to find the music I need to practice on the internet, download it as a PDF and get it from my laser printer.   That's followed by puzzling out the rhythm, then intonation, then bowing, and finally speed.  Then, when I get together with whoever I'm playing with, for a hour's rehearsal before we amaze the world, the whole perfected business sorta goes in the dumpster again............ 

 

It's a battle, isn't it ? Happy the ones who don't do this anymore for theirs is the pleasure of empty criticism....

 

By the way, you were engaged in valiant combat with Corelli's La Folia - how is it going ? I have DARK memories of that piece. You have my sympathy.

[Rue]

Funny coincidence...
 
I was listening to snippets of a bunch of versions on You Tube of la Folia yesterday...from 6 year olds to Big Names...
 
I didn't know that there were so many different editions to begin with...and an awful lot of different takes on those as well...
 
It is also the first piece in Suzuki Book 6 (which is handily sitting on my music stand)...which might be the most popular version of it as well.  I gave it a shot.  I can play the first 16 bars convincingly...
 
I was thinking of changing my handle from Rue to Hacker...
 
Now...this is for my edification.  I very much appreciate ALL teachers and instructors playing through material in the commonly used books, various exercises, etudes, etc.  For example, I found a great video of the first Fiorilli etude that I'm working on right now too...(btw...my teacher is very patient and will anything play for me (and even record for me! )...but she's not always there when I need to listen to something...so this is all on my own time)...
 
But I need to know if this teacher's bridge is crooked and if his bowing is crooked.  And I'm only asking because I am trying to know if I actually know what I'm seeing...(we will leave the hearing part for the moment)...

[Carl Stross]

 

But I need to know if this teacher's bridge is crooked and if his bowing is crooked.  And I'm only asking because I am trying to know if I actually know what I'm seeing...(we will leave the hearing part for the moment)...

 

 

Rue, that is ABYSMAL playing for a teacher. Horribly out of tune, too. Miserable bow technique and tone production. I HOPE that one is not a teacher but an adult learner. La Folia is incredibly deceiving and I would take one of the lighter Paganini Caprices over it any day. And I know what I am talking about : I played La Folia 12 times in 6 days and I got payed.

 

Here's the bloke Menuhin and many others took lessons from showing how it's really done. The Gold Standard.

 

 

 

I hope Violadamore did not get stuck in the Cadenza, right at the end. But I'm confident she'll pull through.