I think both approaches have their merit. Mozart is correct about stressing the importance of letting the ear be the guide when learning to play. And this is something that sadly is somewhat lacking in the education of classical music, where it is not too uncommon to see a disconnect between the ear and the mechanics of playing the instrument. However, Mozart is too dogmatic and fatalistic in his approach. By his logic, kids who aren't coordinated enough to bike without training wheels should just give up altogether. But everyone has different strengths and starting points, and it is still possible to develop a skill to a high degree, even if it does not come naturally at first. Furthermore, we see that training wheels certainly do work. However, only as a starting point, as they eventually will have to come off. How soon and when is an individual matter. The same goes for developing a good ear and using spots on the fingerboard - the ear can be developed and spots certainly do work as starting point for learning the geography of the fingerboard. It could be argued about which approach is the most optimal. You could argue that Mozarts approach may perhaps be more rewarding in the long term, as you learn to approach music making in the correct way right from the get go. But for some, it may simply be too difficult and not pragmatic enough, and thus not suitable as a long term strategy.
When I came to the US for the first time, I was as fatalistic as Mozart because, in the USSR music education system, one couldn’t even think of putting labels (and I will explain why). But after living in the US for over two decades and facing the reality of the US system-or rather, the lack of a system for pre-college music education-I realized that sometimes putting a label is indispensable. The Soviet pre-college system for violinists, and for musicians as a whole, was modeled after Stolyarsky’s system after his pupils won almost all the awards at the Ysaÿe Competition (currently, the Queen Elizabeth Competition) in 1937, including David Oistrakh winning the 1st prize. Stalin saw it as a great propaganda tool through the arts. The Soviet state adopted and implemented this system throughout the entire Soviet Union. They assembled the best methodologists and pedagogues and created a special music school system (1st-10th or 11th grade) and method books for gifted children to educate first-rate musicians who would win competitions. These schools were also boarding schools so that anyone, even from remote areas with talent, if accepted, could come and join the school and live there. At 6-7 years of age, one had to take a series of entrance examinations that checked your physiology, ability to recognize rhythms, pitch, etc., and selected the most talented kids with a set of natural gifts in these areas. Of course, no labels on the fingerboard were necessary. In addition, primary instrument lessons were at least twice a week. But solfège, secondary piano, musical literature, rhythm classes, choir, harmony, theory, analysis of musical compositions had to be taken every day, along with a mix of regular school classes such as math, literacy, etc. By the time of graduation from this special music school (by the age of 17-18), one was pretty much already an established musician, playing the most advanced musical compositions and well-versed in harmony, music theory, and music literature. No wonder, if you look at the list of international competitions before the 1990s, you would see USSR winners almost in every competition.
In the US, on the other hand, one has to rely on luck and personal research skills and the ability to assemble an education for kids on one’s own. The majority of learners study music only for general education and as an extracurricular activity for portfolio for applying to universities. And music is accessible virtually to anyone who wants to learn; some are less gifted, some are totally unfit, but some are truly gifted. Usually, they take lessons once a week for 30 minutes, more advanced for 45-60 minutes. And during the week, they are left on their own. In most cases, labels on the fingerboard help a lot as the students are left to themselves for a week. Gifted kids catch up quickly and require labels only for a shorter period of time, while others desperately need them for a prolonged timeframe. And most importantly, in the USSR, this education was free; the only prerequisite required was natural talent. In the US, such a system would be unaffordable to most parents unless it was sponsored by big foundations or companies if such a system existed. So yes, both Mozart’s and Geminiani's ways are legit, depending on the circumstances. It seems that Mozart’s philosophy aimed for top talents; perhaps he could not tolerate mediocrity. His son Wolfgang is proof, while Geminiani might have addressed it universally.
@@vladimirdyo7301 I agree but the US system doesn’t have to be the way it is. Look into Edwin Gordon’s Music Learning Theory, a sound before sight method than is fantastic for developing whole musicians even in public classroom settings. I once worked with public 4th grade students who after a year knew the melody melody, harmony, and bassline of several short tunes and understood tonic/dominant. They were even doing basic improvisation on the chord changes and learning to read by identifying the songs they already knew by ear. Sadly that’s extremely rare to see in the US and its application for string instruments is not as sophisticated as for winds.
@@MF12123 This is great, thank you for sharing. Yes, in the US, there is so much talent and diversity of thought, with amazing systems developed. It just needs a revolutionary who has great musical and business/marketing skills to combine the best and make it mainstream. Unfortunately, it is either that great musical minds lack sufficient entrepreneurial acumen, or great entrepreneurs do not understand the art well enough. Also, sometimes it is very hard to break through the administrative bureaucracy and complexity of the endeavor.
@@vladimirdyo7301 Thank you for the thorough answer and for telling me about the USSR/Stolyarsky system (I had no idea!), as well as your own experiences of the differences between the US and the USSR. I think your last three sentences summarise it well and we seem to be in agreement. Best wishes
I wholeheartedly agree with L Mozart. Learning music should be guided by the ear and the idea of learning by pushing down the right spot on the fingerboard is purely mechanical. Most school kids are taught in the “this finger goes with this note on the page” approach which is akin to learning to speak as a baby by starting with the written alphabet. Clearly Mozart knew how to teach total musicianship as his son shows!
Paganini studied the mandolin for three years before touching the violin. The mandolin is basically a fretted violin.
I like how Mozart is essentially saying "if you suck, give up" 😂😂
I think both approaches have their merit. Mozart is correct about stressing the importance of letting the ear be the guide when learning to play. And this is something that sadly is somewhat lacking in the education of classical music, where it is not too uncommon to see a disconnect between the ear and the mechanics of playing the instrument. However, Mozart is too dogmatic and fatalistic in his approach. By his logic, kids who aren't coordinated enough to bike without training wheels should just give up altogether. But everyone has different strengths and starting points, and it is still possible to develop a skill to a high degree, even if it does not come naturally at first. Furthermore, we see that training wheels certainly do work. However, only as a starting point, as they eventually will have to come off. How soon and when is an individual matter.
The same goes for developing a good ear and using spots on the fingerboard - the ear can be developed and spots certainly do work as starting point for learning the geography of the fingerboard.
It could be argued about which approach is the most optimal. You could argue that Mozarts approach may perhaps be more rewarding in the long term, as you learn to approach music making in the correct way right from the get go. But for some, it may simply be too difficult and not pragmatic enough, and thus not suitable as a long term strategy.
When I came to the US for the first time, I was as fatalistic as Mozart because, in the USSR music education system, one couldn’t even think of putting labels (and I will explain why). But after living in the US for over two decades and facing the reality of the US system-or rather, the lack of a system for pre-college music education-I realized that sometimes putting a label is indispensable. The Soviet pre-college system for violinists, and for musicians as a whole, was modeled after Stolyarsky’s system after his pupils won almost all the awards at the Ysaÿe Competition (currently, the Queen Elizabeth Competition) in 1937, including David Oistrakh winning the 1st prize. Stalin saw it as a great propaganda tool through the arts. The Soviet state adopted and implemented this system throughout the entire Soviet Union. They assembled the best methodologists and pedagogues and created a special music school system (1st-10th or 11th grade) and method books for gifted children to educate first-rate musicians who would win competitions. These schools were also boarding schools so that anyone, even from remote areas with talent, if accepted, could come and join the school and live there. At 6-7 years of age, one had to take a series of entrance examinations that checked your physiology, ability to recognize rhythms, pitch, etc., and selected the most talented kids with a set of natural gifts in these areas. Of course, no labels on the fingerboard were necessary. In addition, primary instrument lessons were at least twice a week. But solfège, secondary piano, musical literature, rhythm classes, choir, harmony, theory, analysis of musical compositions had to be taken every day, along with a mix of regular school classes such as math, literacy, etc. By the time of graduation from this special music school (by the age of 17-18), one was pretty much already an established musician, playing the most advanced musical compositions and well-versed in harmony, music theory, and music literature. No wonder, if you look at the list of international competitions before the 1990s, you would see USSR winners almost in every competition.
In the US, on the other hand, one has to rely on luck and personal research skills and the ability to assemble an education for kids on one’s own. The majority of learners study music only for general education and as an extracurricular activity for portfolio for applying to universities. And music is accessible virtually to anyone who wants to learn; some are less gifted, some are totally unfit, but some are truly gifted. Usually, they take lessons once a week for 30 minutes, more advanced for 45-60 minutes. And during the week, they are left on their own. In most cases, labels on the fingerboard help a lot as the students are left to themselves for a week. Gifted kids catch up quickly and require labels only for a shorter period of time, while others desperately need them for a prolonged timeframe. And most importantly, in the USSR, this education was free; the only prerequisite required was natural talent. In the US, such a system would be unaffordable to most parents unless it was sponsored by big foundations or companies if such a system existed. So yes, both Mozart’s and Geminiani's ways are legit, depending on the circumstances. It seems that Mozart’s philosophy aimed for top talents; perhaps he could not tolerate mediocrity. His son Wolfgang is proof, while Geminiani might have addressed it universally.
@@vladimirdyo7301 I agree but the US system doesn’t have to be the way it is. Look into Edwin Gordon’s Music Learning Theory, a sound before sight method than is fantastic for developing whole musicians even in public classroom settings. I once worked with public 4th grade students who after a year knew the melody melody, harmony, and bassline of several short tunes and understood tonic/dominant. They were even doing basic improvisation on the chord changes and learning to read by identifying the songs they already knew by ear. Sadly that’s extremely rare to see in the US and its application for string instruments is not as sophisticated as for winds.
@@MF12123
This is great, thank you for sharing. Yes, in the US, there is so much talent and diversity of thought, with amazing systems developed. It just needs a revolutionary who has great musical and business/marketing skills to combine the best and make it mainstream. Unfortunately, it is either that great musical minds lack sufficient entrepreneurial acumen, or great entrepreneurs do not understand the art well enough. Also, sometimes it is very hard to break through the administrative bureaucracy and complexity of the endeavor.
@@vladimirdyo7301 Thank you for the thorough answer and for telling me about the USSR/Stolyarsky system (I had no idea!), as well as your own experiences of the differences between the US and the USSR. I think your last three sentences summarise it well and we seem to be in agreement. Best wishes
I wholeheartedly agree with L Mozart. Learning music should be guided by the ear and the idea of learning by pushing down the right spot on the fingerboard is purely mechanical. Most school kids are taught in the “this finger goes with this note on the page” approach which is akin to learning to speak as a baby by starting with the written alphabet. Clearly Mozart knew how to teach total musicianship as his son shows!
It depends. I just replied to another comment thoroughly.