When I was growing up, computers had black screens and green text, and were only accessible to the class when we earned a field trip to the computer lab to play Oregon Trail. It never crossed my mind- or my music teachers' minds, certainly!- that computers could be used in a music classroom!
This comes to mind because of a recent class discussion about teaching composition. I'll get to the specifics of the discussion in a moment.
When someone says "music technology in the classroom," one's default mental image is probably either recording technology, or notation software that every student can use. Finale even makes a barebones version, Notepad, that I encountered at my job two years ago. Apparently the previous teacher showed the students how to use Notepad, gave them some parameters (maybe), and the students composed. But were they really making music?
The principal was thrilled. She had a whole school full of little Mozarts working on Finale Notepad. She was constantly mentioning to me that I should get the laptops in my classroom to do some composition. However, I thumbed through some of the music portfolios from the previous year, and was not really surprised to see the low level of musicianship these compositions displayed.
I shouldn't judge too hard. After all, these students were only in their first year or two of music class. But it seemed like they were all boxed into the same assignment, with no leeway to incorporate musical elements that were important to them. They all had similar usage of the E Major scale, or whatever it happened to be. It looked like there wasn't any joy in it.
So I wonder: Is there a better way to teach composition? For students who have never encountered music before, perhaps notation is not the place to start. They may feel very restricted, and may have little interest in writing the usual tonal, Western-approved-type of music. Instead, start with something that will appeal to them, and spark their interest and creativity. I'm not sure what that is yet, but I wouldn't want to intimidate them by forcing unfamiliar notation on them, especially in the form of an often-confusing computer program.
After they know how to read music well, and are able to hear what they want to write before they put something down on paper, then students should be introduced to notation software. Until then, take the class set of Finale Notepad downloads out of the budget, and instead get some more instruments repaired.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Jazz at Lincoln Center
I was the lucky recipient of a friend's extra ticket to see the fall gala performance at the Rose Theater tonight. Wynton Marsalis performed with his quintet, and George Benson with his entourage of musicians. Ken Burns was also there; he was accepting the Ed Bradley award for leadership.
The reason I'm writing about this in my tech blog is to discuss the very basic argument of real instruments vs. synthesized instruments. Mr. Benson had a rhythm section (including the man who conducts Barbra Streisand's orchestra!), a live string orchestra, a chorus of backup singers, and an overworked synthesizer player. I wondered why he hired every instrument family except for winds and brass; surely a few more players could have been written into the budget? It would have added immensely to my enjoyment.
Mr. Benson was doing a tribute to Nat "King" Cole. His voice is already quite close to Mr. Cole's voice, and the strings' presence brought out the schmaltzy quality of Mr. Cole's signature sound. But as soon as I heard flutes, and didn't see any, I raised an eyebrow; seriously? He's got a synth player for that? It was a very good synthesizer, don't get me wrong; but no professional flute player would choose to keep such a steady, uncreative vibrato for those long notes. The tone was adequate but the expression wasn't there. It detracted from the performance because it seemed like he took an unneeded shortcut.
It was even more apparent when the synth player was doing an entire choir of brass hits. That was obviously inadequate. The sound wasn't present enough, and it was a little too tinny to be believable. I was almost distracted by its wimpiness.
Of course musicians can choose to use a synth player in place of a live performer for budget or space reasons. But Mr. Benson seemed to have both financial and spatial means. I don't know if Mr. Cole skimped on musicians, but my guess is he would have had as many live performers as possible. If Mr. Benson wanted to bolster his sound and his tribute, he should have gone with the real players, even if just for those few measures.
The reason I'm writing about this in my tech blog is to discuss the very basic argument of real instruments vs. synthesized instruments. Mr. Benson had a rhythm section (including the man who conducts Barbra Streisand's orchestra!), a live string orchestra, a chorus of backup singers, and an overworked synthesizer player. I wondered why he hired every instrument family except for winds and brass; surely a few more players could have been written into the budget? It would have added immensely to my enjoyment.
Mr. Benson was doing a tribute to Nat "King" Cole. His voice is already quite close to Mr. Cole's voice, and the strings' presence brought out the schmaltzy quality of Mr. Cole's signature sound. But as soon as I heard flutes, and didn't see any, I raised an eyebrow; seriously? He's got a synth player for that? It was a very good synthesizer, don't get me wrong; but no professional flute player would choose to keep such a steady, uncreative vibrato for those long notes. The tone was adequate but the expression wasn't there. It detracted from the performance because it seemed like he took an unneeded shortcut.
It was even more apparent when the synth player was doing an entire choir of brass hits. That was obviously inadequate. The sound wasn't present enough, and it was a little too tinny to be believable. I was almost distracted by its wimpiness.
Of course musicians can choose to use a synth player in place of a live performer for budget or space reasons. But Mr. Benson seemed to have both financial and spatial means. I don't know if Mr. Cole skimped on musicians, but my guess is he would have had as many live performers as possible. If Mr. Benson wanted to bolster his sound and his tribute, he should have gone with the real players, even if just for those few measures.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Film Scores
I'm reading The Joy of Music by Leonard Bernstein, and he discusses his experience with On the Waterfront in the chapter "Interlude: Upper Dubbing, CA." ("Upper Dubbing" refers to the building where they put the sound effects and soundtrack into the movie, or "dub in" the sounds.) Bernstein describes the sound editors as geniuses who can listen to many different, seemingly contradictory, commands and somehow create an appropriate mix for the movie.
Bernstein was allowed to attend the editing sessions (a rare privilege for a composer), and added another element to the gathering: the advocate for keeping all of the music in tact. HIS music, in fact; he studied the film to write scene-appropriate music, and wrote complete pieces. Bernstein still included a logical beginning, middle, and end when he composed for the film, and his work is somewhat incomplete if any part, even a single bar, is removed.
Unfortunately for Bernstein, the music is often the first to go. He admits that the best film scores are those that the viewer never really notices. If you notice the music, it has covered up the most important element: the movie. So, when the technician removes the climax of a powerful crescendo to allow Marlon Brando's grunted line to come through, Bernstein can do little more than pout about it.
I found it interesting, though not surprising, that composers will fight for every bar to keep it in the film. I am not a composer, and I don't have the experience of agonizing over every note of a score. Of course Bernstein would want to save every last bar if he could; he labored over that music and put his heart and soul into it. And yes, it would be incomplete if any part were removed. If you removed any part of the exposition of a sonata, wouldn't that be incomplete as well? This all makes sense, but I had never thought about it before. I wonder if that is the case with all film scores; is there more to the soundtrack that we're not hearing, and is the composer devastated to find those parts missing when he watches the film?
Bernstein was allowed to attend the editing sessions (a rare privilege for a composer), and added another element to the gathering: the advocate for keeping all of the music in tact. HIS music, in fact; he studied the film to write scene-appropriate music, and wrote complete pieces. Bernstein still included a logical beginning, middle, and end when he composed for the film, and his work is somewhat incomplete if any part, even a single bar, is removed.
Unfortunately for Bernstein, the music is often the first to go. He admits that the best film scores are those that the viewer never really notices. If you notice the music, it has covered up the most important element: the movie. So, when the technician removes the climax of a powerful crescendo to allow Marlon Brando's grunted line to come through, Bernstein can do little more than pout about it.
I found it interesting, though not surprising, that composers will fight for every bar to keep it in the film. I am not a composer, and I don't have the experience of agonizing over every note of a score. Of course Bernstein would want to save every last bar if he could; he labored over that music and put his heart and soul into it. And yes, it would be incomplete if any part were removed. If you removed any part of the exposition of a sonata, wouldn't that be incomplete as well? This all makes sense, but I had never thought about it before. I wonder if that is the case with all film scores; is there more to the soundtrack that we're not hearing, and is the composer devastated to find those parts missing when he watches the film?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Sound Effects
Partners in Rhyme came through on their offer of free sound effects! They were more timely about it than I am about posting, though; I received the email only a day after I sent them the link to my blog. So, thanks, Partners in Rhyme, for the hours of free sound effects!
Monday, October 27, 2008
Musical Expression in Electronic Music
I attended a new music concert tonight at NYU. The performers were Elizabeth McNutt, flute, Dr. Esther Lamneck, clarinet, and... computer?? I've improvised on flute to a fixed electronic score before, but I have never seen a live performance of instrumentalists playing composed music to the improvisations of a computer! I don't quite understand the computer programming, so I'm sure I'm oversimplifying it. But I think the composers designed their computer programs to react to live sounds. And I was most impressed with the last piece, when that composer was on stage "playing" the computer.
It was a fascinating experience. The instrumentalists tonight were of course top-notch. It would have been just as enjoyable to listen to them play together. They varied their tone in extreme ways, yet still blended beautifully. Sometimes I couldn't tell if it was a flute or clarinet tone that I was hearing.
In addition to the live players, the computer contributed so much beyond what I thought was possible. I don't know to what extent the composers controlled the computer sounds, but the computerhad many roles. It filled in the gaps between the instruments' parts. It repeated the instruments' sounds, mixed them together, transposed them, varied them, or made new melodies from them. It was like a sentient participant in the piece.
What really moved me, though, was to see the last composer "play" the computer. My mental image of an electronic composer was not what I saw. I thought he would seem disconnected from the performance; he would merely be there to ensure the computer program does what it's supposed to. But instead, he played the computer as if he were playing another instrument. In his face was the concentration of a musician. His body movements gave away his musical intention: he anticipated entrances and showed phrase endings. He moved quickly and sharply for loud or sudden entrances, and more slowly or deliberately for subtler sounds. There weren't any traditional cadences or harmonic rhythm to clue me in to the form, so watching his body movements helped me understand where the music was going.
This may be a controversial post; is the concert I just saw really a Music concert? A few things I observed tonight pushed me closer to accepting new music as Music. Firstly, it is not all random sounds. Though there are fewer notes as people might recognize from Western classical music, there is a vocabulary of sounds written and used in a distinct way. Secondly, the composers wrote for particular instruments following an expanding tradition of music. It is not neo-Classical, and it is not meant to imitate a more "tonal" tradition. It is meant to expand on what we know as music, which in turn creates a new genre. Lastly, the physical motions that I mentioned above betray musical intention. The musicians on stage were trained in more conventional settings and acquired these movements from that education. They then apply that musicality to this new genre of music.
I have been struggling with the label of "Music" for electronic music, and seeing this concert gets me closer to accepting the label. My interaction with the live performers proved most important in determining a definition of Music.
It was a fascinating experience. The instrumentalists tonight were of course top-notch. It would have been just as enjoyable to listen to them play together. They varied their tone in extreme ways, yet still blended beautifully. Sometimes I couldn't tell if it was a flute or clarinet tone that I was hearing.
In addition to the live players, the computer contributed so much beyond what I thought was possible. I don't know to what extent the composers controlled the computer sounds, but the computerhad many roles. It filled in the gaps between the instruments' parts. It repeated the instruments' sounds, mixed them together, transposed them, varied them, or made new melodies from them. It was like a sentient participant in the piece.
What really moved me, though, was to see the last composer "play" the computer. My mental image of an electronic composer was not what I saw. I thought he would seem disconnected from the performance; he would merely be there to ensure the computer program does what it's supposed to. But instead, he played the computer as if he were playing another instrument. In his face was the concentration of a musician. His body movements gave away his musical intention: he anticipated entrances and showed phrase endings. He moved quickly and sharply for loud or sudden entrances, and more slowly or deliberately for subtler sounds. There weren't any traditional cadences or harmonic rhythm to clue me in to the form, so watching his body movements helped me understand where the music was going.
This may be a controversial post; is the concert I just saw really a Music concert? A few things I observed tonight pushed me closer to accepting new music as Music. Firstly, it is not all random sounds. Though there are fewer notes as people might recognize from Western classical music, there is a vocabulary of sounds written and used in a distinct way. Secondly, the composers wrote for particular instruments following an expanding tradition of music. It is not neo-Classical, and it is not meant to imitate a more "tonal" tradition. It is meant to expand on what we know as music, which in turn creates a new genre. Lastly, the physical motions that I mentioned above betray musical intention. The musicians on stage were trained in more conventional settings and acquired these movements from that education. They then apply that musicality to this new genre of music.
I have been struggling with the label of "Music" for electronic music, and seeing this concert gets me closer to accepting the label. My interaction with the live performers proved most important in determining a definition of Music.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Sound Effects and Concrete Music
This week I'm working on a concrete music assignment. Concrete Music is the use of everyday sounds from the world around you for the creation of a collage, or a "sound sculpture," as Dr. Gilbert puts it. One can compose a wonderful work using the raw material of sound.
Concrete music is not appealing to everyone, and I'm sure not everyone would consider it music. There is not necessarily a time signature, though composers of concrete music probably have time in mind. Rhythmic figures may arise from repetition of certain sounds, or from the precise combination of sounds. There are no pitches or notes in the traditional sense. Many sounds we here are on a continuous spectrum of frequency. In other words, we don't live in a monotone world. But many things we hear we don't register as notes because they have not been clearly defined as definite pitches. Sirens, for example, are like one long glissando, up and down; but few people hear notes in a siren because there are not separate sounds to distinguish as different pitches.
Despite lack of time signature and pitches, concrete music is still musically appealing to some. A concrete music composer works to expand our definition of music by presenting a new collection of sounds to appeal to us like music does: there is structure; there is a beginning, a middle, and an end; there are sounds that may be foreign to music but make sense together.
I decided I wanted to use laughing sounds to create my composition. I did a Google search and found many websites with free downloadable sound effects. One of the most comprehensive websites was PartnersInRhyme.com. They also offer to give you a $50 library of sound effects if you mention them in your blog or on your website. I'll let you know how that turns out...
Concrete music is not appealing to everyone, and I'm sure not everyone would consider it music. There is not necessarily a time signature, though composers of concrete music probably have time in mind. Rhythmic figures may arise from repetition of certain sounds, or from the precise combination of sounds. There are no pitches or notes in the traditional sense. Many sounds we here are on a continuous spectrum of frequency. In other words, we don't live in a monotone world. But many things we hear we don't register as notes because they have not been clearly defined as definite pitches. Sirens, for example, are like one long glissando, up and down; but few people hear notes in a siren because there are not separate sounds to distinguish as different pitches.
Despite lack of time signature and pitches, concrete music is still musically appealing to some. A concrete music composer works to expand our definition of music by presenting a new collection of sounds to appeal to us like music does: there is structure; there is a beginning, a middle, and an end; there are sounds that may be foreign to music but make sense together.
I decided I wanted to use laughing sounds to create my composition. I did a Google search and found many websites with free downloadable sound effects. One of the most comprehensive websites was PartnersInRhyme.com. They also offer to give you a $50 library of sound effects if you mention them in your blog or on your website. I'll let you know how that turns out...
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Power of Photoshop
I am usually satisfied with my photos after I've taken them. That may be the result of growing up with film cameras; you can't do much to the picture after you get it developed. So in the years that I've been using digital cameras, I have done little more than upload my pictures to my computer. I view them using whatever photo-viewing program my computer came with. Sometimes I would crop photos because I wasn't totally satisfied with the angle or the composition, but that was the extent of my image editing.
For Tech Trends, though, I have to use Photoshop. We're not doing anything really complicated yet; most of the assignments are using pre-determined filters. But as I scroll through the available tools, I see what enormous capabilities Photoshop has! You don't have to use the pre-set functions. You can tweak every bit of color, brightness, change the viewpoint, create panoramas. The possibilities are endless.
So this is why some people can spend hours editing pictures! I see now how useful it can be. One can edit pictures to highlight certain attributes of one event. That will create an ideal digital representation of the event. This could be for posterity, for nostalgia, for whatever you want it to be.
Implications for teaching? For one thing, a teacher could process images from a concert, for the school's historical archives, for advocacy, or for recruitment. If the images were meant for a yearbook or a scrapbook, one may want to do little editing of the pictures. Perhaps just change brightness and color here and there to make the photographs clearer. But if the images were to be used in a campaign to recruit more students, one could use the various filters and other tools to make the pictures eye-catching. One could create very attractive posters using Photoshop.
Teachers could also consider using Photoshop in a classroom. I don't think I will use it in a music classroom; I think Photoshop is better suited for a visual arts class. I would consider using Photoshop in an electronic music class, as part of an audio/visual assignment. I can see high school students creating a movie and composing a soundtrack to go with it. But my dream job is a beginning band class. I can't see ever using Photoshop in that context. It will be useful to me to recruite and advocate for my program, but not for my students to use directly, unless they volunteer to help me edit photos outside of class.
For Tech Trends, though, I have to use Photoshop. We're not doing anything really complicated yet; most of the assignments are using pre-determined filters. But as I scroll through the available tools, I see what enormous capabilities Photoshop has! You don't have to use the pre-set functions. You can tweak every bit of color, brightness, change the viewpoint, create panoramas. The possibilities are endless.
So this is why some people can spend hours editing pictures! I see now how useful it can be. One can edit pictures to highlight certain attributes of one event. That will create an ideal digital representation of the event. This could be for posterity, for nostalgia, for whatever you want it to be.
Implications for teaching? For one thing, a teacher could process images from a concert, for the school's historical archives, for advocacy, or for recruitment. If the images were meant for a yearbook or a scrapbook, one may want to do little editing of the pictures. Perhaps just change brightness and color here and there to make the photographs clearer. But if the images were to be used in a campaign to recruit more students, one could use the various filters and other tools to make the pictures eye-catching. One could create very attractive posters using Photoshop.
Teachers could also consider using Photoshop in a classroom. I don't think I will use it in a music classroom; I think Photoshop is better suited for a visual arts class. I would consider using Photoshop in an electronic music class, as part of an audio/visual assignment. I can see high school students creating a movie and composing a soundtrack to go with it. But my dream job is a beginning band class. I can't see ever using Photoshop in that context. It will be useful to me to recruite and advocate for my program, but not for my students to use directly, unless they volunteer to help me edit photos outside of class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)