.jpg)
By I'm so completely fascinated by how we get the learning principles that science tells us about into books... but also as to how common phenomenon in life translate into books, as well. Case in point: I've been really working on listening to a piece of music, and then playing that piece of music. And I suck at it. I mean, I'm a guitar player, for crying out loud, been playing for over a decade, but I can easily spend an hour on a 10-note phrase. So what gives?
First, I learned music theory in college... both through my private guitar teacher and then in school. And I was able to go a long way knowing—in a head way—what was going on. So I could play anything if I had the music (well, mostly, but you get the idea), and analyze it, and understand it. This is the concept stuff, right? The stuff we emphasize in true learning... not just how to write a test, but what makes a good test, and how to structure your tests, and how to organize them.
Then, there's application. I'm able to apply that theory pretty well, able to write music—I've composed piano concertos and solos and duets and instrumentals and everything else—and I'm able to look at music and figure out what's going on, even get at the intent of a composer in some cases. So again, taking this to technology, I can write great tests, I can even know why they're great as I write them.
But there's this other thing, this thing I'm still getting my head around. It's listening (or seeing, in the visual realm) something, and being able to reproduce it. The theory helps, it informs me as to what key the music is in, it lets me figure out which notes are likely given a certain chord structure, whether the pentatonic or major scale is being used, etc. It's sort of like looking at code, and knowing enough to figure out what it does without running the code. You have this context of learning to inform you.
But what about simple reproduction? What about seeing something, and intuitively knowing what to do to reproduce that behavior? How do you teach that? How do you learn that?
Honestly, I have no idea.
But I know it's key. And I know it's about more than just theory. There's a repetition element... do something enough times, your hand/fingers/mind knows what to do even if your conscious brain doesn't. Case in point (again), I've started tuning my guitar down a half-step, and everything sounds funny to me. My brain KNOWS what a certain chord should sound like, and now, the same shape on the guitar produces the same chord, but down a 1/2 step. Bugs me like crazy, I'm having to relearn everything.
So what's that missing piece? What's the secret behind reproducing something intuitively? What goes beyond just theory and direct application, and gets us into mimicry, which is essential to learn from others who've gone before?
I wish I knew. If you do, let me know... I'd like to bottle it and chug back a few.
Share:
This is funny to me because my dad was pretty much the exact opposite. He had little or no formal musical training, but taught himself how to play guitar and piano by ear. Hum a tune and he could pick it out pretty quickly. Give him some sheet music and he would get it eventually, but it would take a while.
I almost wonder if all the music theory and other knowledge isn't getting in your way? If you have so much structure and interpretation built into the way you hear and see music that you have a hard time getting back down to it just being a sequence of notes? If, as it were, you can't see the trees for the forest?
I'm learning Klavarskribo, which is an alternative music notation (and which I've begun to blog about), and I'm finding it to be a wonderful step backward--bypassing all the music theory I know. I'm learning by mimicry, as you put it. I feel (and still sound) like a beginner. At some point I'll allow music theory to broach my attention again, but first I want to milk this experience for all its worth, and find more ways (like making a computer game) to strengthen my mimicry skills. And then maybe bottle it too, like you said. :-)
I think I agree with Stacy. I've been playing guitar for about 9 years (off and on, mostly off) and was completely self-taught. All my early experiences were playing by ear and trying to mimic techniques and sounds I heard from other musicians. Now, I'm nowhere near being able to hear a piece of music and reproduce exactly, however I do find myself picking out chords and scales when I listen to music. Mastering an instrument is a lifelong journey, but the reward is being able to communicate fluently in the most universal language of all, music.
I've been playing guitar now for about 30 years (sounds scary when you say it like that) and I've played with quite a lot of musicians, and I find that as a general rule the people who started off with a theory based approach are nowhere near as good as picking things up by ear as those who had a more self taught approach.
I guess what you're trying to do here is make an analogy between playing music and computing, so if there's any sort of parallel here it would probably be that people who pick up computing in a less structured way probably develop the skills necessary to pick up new technologies more easily than those who have had a more formal introduction. The analogy breaks down a bit though, because the development of new skills and technologies is a much more fundamental part of the computing experience than it is with music.
If you are having difficulties picking out a particular piece of music I can recommend the Guitar and Drum Trainer by Renegade Minds which you can use to slow down a particular piece of music, loop a phrase, EQ it to isolate a particular instrument or transpose it to match your tuning.