Or, Looking from the outside in?

I recently completed a two volume essay on African music (by Kubik) and although I think it's really brilliant, when I think of the knowledge in my head (which I take to be a pretty complete understanding of the books) it doesn't feel like 'two-volume's worth'. In fact, when I read some of the chapters (much of which presents justifications for his conclusions) I did think to myself: "Someone could've shown me that in about 5 minutes!!!"

(But then, can you imagine describing dub music compared to showing someone where the beats are, the instrumentation and how to operate a mixer, tape delay, and other effects? How may volumes would that take? I also remember someone learning blues guitar and asking me details on how to bend the strings, what equivalent frets would it be, and so on. To think like that must be a nightmare! And if you can't feel where the bend should stop, what's the point?)

Also, I don't think I'm enough of an intellectual to struggle with the rhythms the way the author obviously did (from his own reports). That is, I probably find learning skills and getting into the music flow more enjoyable than people who have it in their nature to scrutinise every micro-action involved. My intellectual side is totally manufactured, so I find that if you're relaxed, you will find the correct (natural and most efficient) way to do it anyway.

Kubik claims that (Sub-Saharan) African musicians hold in their minds a faster rhythm, about 400MM-500MM, which makes it easier to keep accurate timing. In my experience, this faster pulse level is then grouped into either 4s (so 4x4), 3s (either 4x3 or 8x3) by the main reference pulse. This gives 16 and 12 or 24 faster pulses respectively, grouped in one or two 4s. This is a period, and has nothing really to do with what we call time signatures (because different periods can be superimposed meaning bar lines don't work).

I already understand this simply as:

Chronos Protos (this smallest practical duration, not including grace notes, ornaments, etc, and is the secondary reference pulse...) grouped by (or adding up to) the tactus i.e. that pulse we feel as the primary reference beat. That's it. After that, we just consider the different periods which may be superimposed at different ratios and hemiola (cross rhythm).

If I understand you correctly, yes your right in that over thinking about something can make it harder. This is because your conscious mind gets in the way of your unconscious mind, which is actually far better at doing lots of things than our calculating conscious mind. Start thinking about walking and it gets hard. However when you need to learn new skills the conscious mind must play a roll, the unconscious mind is only good at things it can already do. So in order to teach someone a new skill, you need to be able to communicate what has to be done, and this is where knowing theory and technique intellectually is important. Someone might be able to just play a rhythm by instinct, the next person might struggle. If you can explain the part with theory it will help them get the conscious mind to understand and play the piece slowly at least. It might not be sounding great but with practice the sub-conscious mind picks it up, and as it is great once it knows what it's doing, it soon comes together. However without the initial theoretical understanding it would never have happened.

It is always easy to teach the naturals, but they also benefit from learning the theory of what they are doing as well. The less instinctive students are more challenging and learning the theory of whatever they are trying to do helps them get going, once over the hump they start to play more instinctively and start to "hear" it. Without the confidence of at least understanding the part (even if they can't "do it") many of them would just give up.

What I guess I'm trying to say is, yes ideally it's nice to be able to just "do it" by ear, all well and good when it's working. When it isn't where do you go? Theory. If you don't understand what's wrong you wont know how to put it right.

Quote J.A.S:

---

Kubik claims that (Sub-Saharan) African musicians hold in their minds a faster rhythm, about 400MM-500MM, which makes it easier to keep accurate timing. In my experience, this faster pulse level is then grouped into either 4s (so 4x4), 3s (either 4x3 or 8x3) by the main reference pulse. This gives 16 and 12 or 24 faster pulses respectively, grouped in one or two 4s. This is a period, and has nothing really to do with what we call time signatures (because different periods can be superimposed meaning bar lines don't work).

---

I wonder if the actual musicians consult Kubik's writings when learning to play? I'd be more interested in a manual written by one of them!

Quote:

---

I wonder if the actual musicians consult Kubik's writings when learning to play?

---

Well, (yes) they wouldn't need to, but African writers do favourably consult Kubik's writings and he's done a lot to preserve for posterity many misunderstood and fading traditions (as has Simha Arom, the French-Israeli writer). Similarly, Hugh Tracey's field recordings and writings have saved (now) long dead traditions like that of the royal court of Uganda (where in 1966 political changes left many of the musicians dead and the royal instruments destroyed). I suppose this is Africa's 'classical' music and in some ways such analyses do lend themselves well to the study of its structural principles which are extremely logical and specific, not just left to the whims of the performers.

Quote:

---

I'd be more interested in a manual written by one of them!

---

I think the problem is with the medium itself and not so much the writers (although those who are both able and inclined to create such documents tend to be of a mindset that is at odds with that of most musicians).

I was really thinking of the direction of learning: Theory -> Practice as the problem, where I think many of the essentials need to be shown before moving onto deep theory (i.e. since experience provides reference points with which to understand it). I really think DVDs with animated scores/tabs/cipher would be far superior to books for this kind of teaching, especially if it featured the native musicians who should also benefit from it. I do also think lectures should be recorded properly by institutions instead of some zealous student at the back of the class. Of course, online interactive lecture videos are clearly the future of education.

Quote fletcher:

---

What I guess I'm trying to say is, yes ideally it's nice to be able to just "do it" by ear, all well and good when it's working. When it isn't where do you go? Theory. If you don't understand what's wrong you wont know how to put it right.

---

I think where essentual 'theory' can be taught by demonstration, it should be. In most African traditions, there is no blackboard, the master of the choristers or horns just shouts, "no, not like that, like this!", or a drum teacher shows the pupil how to play the parts and how to think of them in terms of actual sound, or else there are little rhythmic games that teach children the basics they need to know.

Incidentally, for the same reason, I don't think music really works as a university subject. Like with all artforms (especially during their 'golden ages') there should (ideally) be an apprenticeship which involves a master-pupil relationship in the later stages, where all advanced knowledge is transmitted how it was essentially received in the firstplace.

Yes, it would be ideal to have a "master" at your side as you learn. Where was Wes Montgomery when I needed him

Yes I suppose Africa does have an oral tradition, that doesn't mean there is no theory as I'm sure your aware. If the master is on hand he can show you how. This is the advantage of a written knowledge. It's not "better" but it means the teacher might not be present and you can still learn. I agree it's not ideal for music, but it's better than nothing. Even classical musicians appreciate the chance to get master classes because of course your right, you can learn more from sitting down with such a person than reading any book. Reading the book as well though would probably prime you to learn even more from your master class. Still I would also argue that the master class is still learning theory first - even if it is just demonstrated. You have to understand what is being shown and you still have to practice afterwards, so it is still theory/practical demo first, practice second.

Surely as well we already have a system like you describe? Classical musicians have to master grades first, learn music next, then if good enough go on to master classes from which some of them might go on to be concert soloists. Imagine after about 20 years of practice getting told you have no feel and will never be a concert pianist! Glad I just play the blues in it's many forms.....

Edited by fletcher (15/05/12 03:08 PM)

I think it's rare for the student to have any choice in the kind of teaching or teacher. Ideally, an apprentice would think, "I want to do what he can do [at least for a start], if I follow his instruction, I will!" I'm not sure students have that confidence in their teachers, that they really want to follow them, unless it's to become a teacher.

It's composition that interested me most, and I don't think we have a practical system in place. My teachers all wrote this kind of naff jazz-classical hybrid (attempts). Teaching composition normally involved the philosophy or the 'poetry' -the only aspect you can't really learn because that comes from life experience and finding your own way. They can only really teach skills.

Subdividing beats is an essential tool for rhythmic accuracy and consistency. I work with lots of amateurs, many of whom started to learn music late in life, and this is the thing they do not get, and hence never get to be able to maintain a rhythmic pattern or be able to read rhythms at sight and know how to play them. So instead of counting quavers or even semiquavers in a slow crotchet beat they just guess a slow crotchet, with the result that the shorter notes come out slower and the longer notes come out too short. You don't have to be in Africa to know this or do something about it!

In my experience it's impossible to pay multiple lengths of dotted notes anywhere near right if you aren't subdividing your beat enough. Your mileage may vary, as they say, but I seriously doubt it. And if you're learning music by ear, you need that 'grid' of sub-beats like graph paper to plot onto. I don't look at it as theory against practice, more a matter of how finely divided a ruler needs to be to measure accurately.