I cringe when I hear the words "classically trained," especially when they refer to musicians. The idea of someone being a "classically trained" instrumentalist or vocalist implies that there is some kind of singular "classical training" connected with the instrument that he or she plays. The use of the verb "to train" also implies a kind of rigor that one would apply to athletes, animals, small children learning to use the toilet (and I don't even think that the word is appropriate for children), or what you do when you have a lock of hair that you want not to fall into your face, or you want to move your part from the left to the right. The idea of "classical training" implies that there is one "classical technique" that is used for "classical musicians," and that there is another kind of technique that used by everyone else.
There is something called "classical ballet training" which is a set of techniques that are used methodically in the process of building a "classically-trained" ballet dancer. It would be expected that a classically-trained ballet dancer would be able to perform a series of movements with a certain degree of strength, and those movements would be movements that a person without "classical training" would not be able to do. What would be parallel in music to this? Being able to play scales and arpeggios in all keys? Is that what playing music is all about?
In the case of performing musicians, it seems that the main reason for someone to call him or herself "classically-trained" is to make a contrast with someone who has only learned to play his or her instrument through playing music that is not "classical," but it is often used as a way of giving more cachet to they idea of having taken (and paid for) private lessons, or knowing how to read music. The term "training" implies the loftiest idea of private study: training at some kind of "classical" academy, at the hands of a "trainer," who demands serious applied discipline. Some teachers do demand discipline, but many don't, or they don't know how to teach students to develop self discipline.
Many of the good musicians I know have developed their techniques after a period of study, and usually it was study with a good teacher. Some have developed excellent technique in spite of having a teacher who was not very good. Some have done it without much help from a teacher at all. It is rare that a violin teacher would ever think of him or herself as a "trainer." Even Suzuki teachers, uniform as they try to be in their methods and materials, offer different perspectives, different senses of sound, slightly different ways of holding the violin and the bow (there is no right way because everyone's body is different), and a different sense from one another concerning the whys and wherefores of playing music.
My own violin "training" is not training at all. I practice. I learn what I can from whoever I can. I even learn from people I would never have the chance to meet, and I even learn from people who are no longer alive. I learn from people who don't even know that I am learning something from them. There is also a lot of great musicianship and technical strength to be found in the playing and singing of people who have never had any interest in playing "classical" music or "getting" "classical training."
I apply my own methods of practice to material that I choose to use to develop technique. I apply my own interpretations to the music that I play. I could never in a million years call myself a "classically-trained" violinist or violist, and my students could never in a million years think of what they are getting from me in lessons as "classical training." Sure, I encourage them to read music, have strong hand positions, play in tune, and think about the music they are playing as vehicles for expression, but it doesn't come from any "training."
Wouldn't it be nice to either eliminate the "I'm a classically-trained" this or that and substitute it with a phrase that is a bit more realistic?
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Benefits of Being Classically Trained
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

10 comments:
I've not really thought about this all that much, Elaine, but I guess it's never really bothered me. Hmmm.
I use "classically trained" to contrast with those who play jazz and have come from that background. In most cases they seem to be much more adept at improvisation. I'm sure there could be a better word. Maybe "frozen to the page trained" ...??
Kidding ... sort of.
(I have all my students improvise each week; I'm bound and determined to free them from the perfection of the page thing. I know it may sound odd, but when I'm improvising I'm not likely to ever miss an attack, while when I'm working from a written part I might.)
Anyhoo, now you're going got have me pondering a bit! :-)
Thanks for the link to this post on your blog, Patty (a blog that I can't seem to gain access to make comments on, for some reason). I hope that it generates a bit of discussion. I certainly would love to know if this little phrase bothers any other musicians besides me. And I'm interested to learn the product of your pondering.
I don't think that improvisation is in any way at odds with "classical" playing or "classical" composition. All composers improvise. That is the way most of us get our ideas: by messing around.
I used to think that all improvisation needed to be jazz-based (or chord-progression-based), but eventually I discovered that improvisation can be anything it wants to be. Some organists I know can even improvise fugues!
Well, I am totally envious! I CANNOT seem to improvise. I couldn't do it as a dancer. I certainly could never improvise ont he piano, even after seven years of lessons. And oboe? Well...believe it or not, oboe's a LITTLE different; it's the first intstrument I've actually "PLAYED AROUND" on! But it's still not real improvising!
Sigh...I think the hypoxia at birth kinda put the improv section of my brain at a disadvantage or something, or I was born without it entirely. Whenever I hear my daughter's choir teacher improv on the organ at church after playing the recessional, I am always floored at how he can just DO that, come up with stuff off the cuff that is complex and rich and wonderful...
T.--
Playing around on your oboe IS real improvising.
Really...? But is feels like so much trial-and-error with more error than trial! :)
I do think some folks have more of a "knack" for the art than others, but I appreciate the affirmation and will keep "playing around!"
This "classically trained" business bothers me too. Whenever I'm in the position to do so I simply delete it. After all, why introduce everyone to the new PR manager saying she's a "classically trained flutist" when you can just say she's a "flutist"?
Clearly if you play an instrument (and are willing to say so) then you are accomplished and that accomplishment has come about as the result of some kind of training /study/practice.
The tradition in which one develops skills may be "monolingual", i.e. just pop or just classical or just jazz or..., but there's also a good chance one has been exposed to at least a couple of traditions.
Sometimes it makes sense to specify: you might, for example, choose to say that you're a "jazz flutist", because you want to define the kind of music you make as well as the instrument you play. Or there are instances where you might – because of the context – want to clarify whether you are a "professional flutist" or an "amateur flutist".
But the "trained" part? The word is simply redundant.
That's like saying "Olympic trained swimmer". Well, an "Olympic swimmer" clearly trains and has been coached much more intensively than the lap or fitness swimmer, and those two words are enough. Ditto the "classical dancer".
Beautiful post, Elaine.
I've been reading Carolyn Brown's memoir of her time with Merce Cunningham, and have a certain amount of envy for the dancers' practice of going to "class" on a regular basis, daily, sometimes several times a day, in addition to rehearsals proper. Musicians don't quite have an equivalent form of practice beyond warming up and brief technical exercises and scales, and we certainly don't do it career-long and in group settings like dancers do. For composers, this is particularly the case (especially since, with C Chopin, etudes became an elevated, performable genre), although I find doing counterpoint exercises is a form of practice that comes very close.
It's interesting, Elaine, that I wouldn't refer to a composer as "classically trained" as I might an instrumentalist. I really do think it's all about us having to play perfectly off the page or something. A composer doesn't compose off the page, after all!
A composer is a "creator", while a symphony musician is a "creative", if you know what I mean.
Hmmm. Sorry. My brain is in a muddle right now (working on a project for my daughter's bridal shower has taken its toll on my thinking, I fear!)
And believe it or not, I've met a few musicians in the symphony who can't improvise to save their lives. Really. So not all musicians can do that. Or at least they think they can't!
I really appreciate your thoughts on this Elaine. But I have to admit that I've used "classically-trained" as a succinct way to avoid requests to sing the theme from Ice Castles and other pop tunes at weddings. It isn't a qualitative judgment except to say that when I sing pop tunes, I sound terrible.
"Opera" doesn't quite work either. I am "classically-trained" but don't sign me up for Die Walküre. Any suggestions for a better term?
(Reposted without the hooked-on-foniks spelling error)
Post a Comment