"The value of learning music is not in the number of pieces one may play, but in the musical thoughts one can think."
| Ages 5+: | The Ear
Training Companion patent pending method for learning perfect pitch and an exciting way to learn relative pitch |
| Ages 3-5: |
We Hear and Play taught for over 30 years in Germany and Japan |
| Ages 5-12: | The Fletcher
Music Method an amazing system, done in by bad business decisions |
stuff about acting |
Edgar Allan Poe audiobooks (read by me!) |
Music and Dyslexia |
Relative Pitch Monstercourse |
How do we develop categorical judgment? I asked Rob Goldstone about it, and his personal answer was similar to his published answer: we don't know.
"We do not know... the precise course along which this ability develops: what triggers it; whether internal mechanisms or external cues are more powerful in shaping it; how concepts are 'born' in our heads; or how do we end up, as adults, to flexibly shift between several possible interpretations for one stimulus in accordance with contextual demands." (Goldstone, 2007)
Nonetheless, as Lakoff's book illustrates, the newest data seem at least to be killing the theory of the physical prototype. Goldstone continues:
"[R]elatively recently we cognitive scientists have changed our view about categorization. We have moved from considering taxonomies (or categories based in logic) as the 'real,' mature kind of categorization to understanding that there are multiple kinds of similarities that are taken into account when one groups items."
If this is true, then it shoots a massive hole in the fundamental premise of much ear training-- that learning musical sounds means learning what they sound like. The full identity of any object, even a musical sound, goes well beyond its physical attributes, encompassing every interpretation that can be imagined for it.
Here is a question that you should answer before reading any further. Don't overthink it; it's not meant to be a trick question. Just say (or write down) the first few things that come to your mind. If you answer this sincerely and easily, you'll have some context for what comes afterward.
What is an E-flat?
Got your answer? Okay... moving on.
We don't perceive objects by their physical appearances. We perceive objects by what we know about them. When we haven't learned anything about an object, naturally all we can know is what it looks like or sounds like; but once we do learn something, it becomes an inextricable part of what we "see". How many times have you heard, or said, after learning some new fact, "I'll never look at x the same way again"? This isn't just a figure of speech; it reflects the fact that our perception of object x has fundamentally changed.
An article by French researchers explains the difference. If some Object X is best recognized by its physical features, then it is a natural object. If Object X is best recognized by its functional purpose, then it is an artifact. These researchers discovered that they could easily figure out which was which by asking children the simple question, "What is Object X?" Perceptual answers indicated a natural object; functional answers indicated an artifact. I can easily show you what I mean-- For each of the following objects, notice that your first instinct for some of them will be to say what it is (and what you can directly observe) and for others will be to say what it does (and what you know about its purpose).
What is water?
What is soap?
What is a tree?
What is
a computer?
What is a cow?
What is a ruler?
For some of these, you might have given answers that were not about physical appearance or composition, but were still natural observations (like "a cow moos and eats grass"). It is true that you can make functional observations of natural objects; you could say that a cow can be made into leather, or into burgers. However, you probably have to consciously think about it before you come up with answers like that-- unless you happen to be a tanner or a butcher, in which case, to you, a cow is a functional artifact first and foremost. To these professions, what a prototypical cow looks like, and how it behaves, is irrelevant. Conversely, you can make natural observations of an artifact like a computer (weight, length and width, surface temperature), but they're not what you'll think of first, and they don't really tell you anything meaningful-- unless you happen to be mounting it in a cabinet, at which point its physical characteristics become crucial.
In short, an object's primary classification rests entirely on which of its definitive features are most meaningful to you, the observer, at the moment you need to categorize it. If, like the computer that needs mounting, you interact with an object in a way that renders its function irrelevant, you will become very aware of its natural characteristics. If, like the butcher and his cow, you interact with a natural object in a way that trains you to make use of it, then you will no longer perceive it primarily as a natural object, but as an artifact. In fact, with increased functional knowledge, you can come to perceive familiar objects as completely different where once they seemed practically identical-- and this total transformation happens without the slightest change to the image your senses receive.
The French research shows how this process can be trained. They wanted to find out if children could be made to recognize the same objects as either natural objects or artifacts. Indeed, their experiments showed that "...training the children to look for common visual properties helped them to categorize natural objects at the superordinate level, whereas asking them to seek common functions improved their categorization of artifacts" (Bontheaux, 2007).
So, going back to that other question. What is E-flat?
Did you describe what it sounds/feels like (a natural object) or what you use it for (an artifact)? And if you described it as an artifact-- as you may have done, if you've had an amount of practical musical experience-- ask yourself, were you thinking as you described it of the physical sensation that lives in the air, or of the theoretical representation that sits silently on a page? Try either one; my guess is that if you describe the sound in the air, you'll talk about it as a natural object, and if you have the experience to describe the dot on the page, you'll talk about the artifact. (Whether that is or isn't the case, here's a thread to talk about it.)
If you've followed this far, you probably see where I'm going with this. It may be that absolute categorical perception of auditory pitch may be induced by drawing attention away from its physical characteristics-- or anything about it that can be directly observed-- and emphasizing its functional purposes instead.
The most obvious problem, of course, is figuring out how to describe the functional purposes of an object that has long been argued to have no functional purpose.
"I purchased your copy of the Fletcher Music Method book when it first became available and have read and re-read it several times. I am a full-time music teacher, teaching grades K4 through 12th grade as well as directing an adult church choir. I have already made several of the Fletcher music teaching aids and have found them to be very useful in the classroom." - Curtis Hollembeak
A brief but potent sampling of her philosophy.
Click the link or the book cover above to download the What Is the Fletcher Music Method e-book (PDF, 78 pages with illustrations). This book explains her philosophy and the principles behind her teaching methods. All proceeds are used for my ongoing work. And if you buy the e-book and don't like it, I'll refund all three of your dollars! There's no risk-- buy it now!
Read an informational publication about the Fletcher Music Method.
Read some sample passages from What is the Fletcher Music Method.
Click the link above, or the book cover below, to download the Fletcher Music Method teacher's handbook (PDF, 124 pages with illustrations). This book details her instructional games and methods; it is intended for the teacher who is handling a class of six or more children, six years of age and older.
Buy the teacher's handbook and receive What Is the Fletcher Music Method? for free!
Read some sample passages from The Fletcher Music Method Teacher's Handbook.
Please note: The teacher's handbook is not refundable.
Thanks for your support!
Click any of these links for additional reading.
| Research | Theory | Software | ETC Help | Library | Debunking | Links | Comments |
