Phil Kane wrote:
On 16 Jul 2003 03:06:13 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:


Well, here's an idea. Should you find later that you need to learn about
something, have you ever heard of books? I find them very useful.


How long does one have to read the book to learn how to play the
piano?


Why should one be forced to learn to play the piano if what one REALLY
wants to do is to play one or more OTHER instruments?

Would there be ANY sense in a rule that said "You can't play any other
instrument, no matter how good you might be at it, unless you first
demonstrate
that you can play the piano proficiently." ???

I don't think so ...

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Phil Kane wrote:
On 16 Jul 2003 03:06:13 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:


Well, here's an idea. Should you find later that you need to learn
about
something, have you ever heard of books? I find them very useful.


How long does one have to read the book to learn how to play the
piano?


Why should one be forced to learn to play the piano if what one REALLY
wants to do is to play one or more OTHER instruments?

Would there be ANY sense in a rule that said "You can't play any other
instrument, no matter how good you might be at it, unless you first
demonstrate
that you can play the piano proficiently." ???

I don't think so ...

Carl - wk3c


You have to learn to play the piano to get a degree in music whether you
plan to be a teacher or performer on some other instrument. Even if you
will never have a need to play the piano, you still must learn it to get
that music degree.

However they don't have to become proficient on the piano just like hams
don't have to become proficient at Morse. In either case, they only have to
learn the basics.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Phil Kane wrote:
On 16 Jul 2003 03:06:13 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:


Well, here's an idea. Should you find later that you need to learn
about
something, have you ever heard of books? I find them very useful.


How long does one have to read the book to learn how to play the
piano?


Why should one be forced to learn to play the piano if what one REALLY
wants to do is to play one or more OTHER instruments?

Would there be ANY sense in a rule that said "You can't play any other
instrument, no matter how good you might be at it, unless you first
demonstrate
that you can play the piano proficiently." ???

I don't think so ...

Carl - wk3c


You have to learn to play the piano to get a degree in music whether you
plan to be a teacher or performer on some other instrument. Even if you
will never have a need to play the piano, you still must learn it to get
that music degree.

However they don't have to become proficient on the piano just like hams
don't have to become proficient at Morse. In either case, they only have
to
learn the basics.

As stated many times before, a ham radio license is NOT a degree or
certificate
of graduation ... it is a "learner's permit."

Nice try, but no prize... care to play again?

Carl - wk3c

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

As stated many times before, a ham radio license is NOT a degree or
certificate of graduation ... it is a "learner's permit."

No, that's not true.

An amateur license, driver's license and a "certificate of graduation" (usually
called a diploma) indicate that the holder has met the minimum requirements, as
determined by the agency in charge. Doesn't mean the holder is an expert, fully
qualified, or that the learning is done. Just that the person is considered
permanently qualified to do certain things.

A learner's permit is a temporary, limited license, issued to allow the holder
to learn, under the immediate supervision of an experienced person, skills
which cannot be learned from a book or class. The holder of a learner's permit
is not supposed to stay at that level, but to "graduate" to a permanent
license.

Of course learning is a lifelong process, and no radio amateur knows all there
is to know about radio or even amateur radio. But a ham license is not a
"learner's permit" by any stretch of imagination. In the days when the Novice
was extremely limited (distinctive call, xtal control, tiny parts of a few
bands, very few modes) and nonrenewable, it might have been considered a
learner's permit. But those days are long gone.

Nice try, but no prize... care to play again?

Ahem.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
Phil Kane wrote:
On 16 Jul 2003 03:06:13 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

Well, here's an idea. Should you find later that you need to learn about
something, have you ever heard of books? I find them very useful.

How long does one have to read the book to learn how to play the
piano?

Why should one be forced to learn to play the piano if what one REALLY
wants to do is to play one or more OTHER instruments?

Nobody is "forced". Those who want a music degree from a particular
institution may have piano as a requirement for the degree, but they
are not "forced" to learn it unless they are also "forced" to attend
the institution and "forced" to get the degree. The requirements are
set by those who run the institutions, who probably know more about
music than the students.

OTOH, millions of young children today are "forced" to learn how to do
basic arithmetic even though inexpensive calculators have been around
for decades. Even though most professional/commercial/military
arithemtic is done by computers and calculators far faster and with
less error than any human.

Would there be ANY sense in a rule that said "You can't play any other
instrument, no matter how good you might be at it, unless you first
demonstrate that you can play the piano proficiently." ???

All depends on who defines "proficiently". The amateur radio code test
we have now is roughly equivalent to being able to pound out a few
bars of "Chopsticks" with two fingers on the piano. Even the old code
tests didn't get much beyond the "Heart and Soul" level, compared to
what was considered proficient by knowledgeable folks.

Would you have a problem with a "Chopsticks" requirement? Because
that's about what we have now.

For comparison, consider the old US Navy Radioman "A" level test, as
given in 1958. Required the copy of 5 symbol coded groups at 24 wpm.
On a standard Navy mill (manual typewriter). For a solid hour, with no
more than 3 errors.

I don't think so ...

Do you play any musical instruments?

--

But hey, we're missing the point here. Why should any musical
performance skill be needed to get a music degree, unless a person
wants to be a performer? This is the 21st century, and we've got
synthesizers out the wazoo that cost far less than, say, a Martin
guitar or a Steinway piano. And which are much easier to learn how to
use. Why focus so much time and effort on learning a "manual motor
skill" to play one instrument - any instrument - when there are
machines which will do the job with much less effort and error-free?

This isn't far-fetched. The new contract for musicians who play on
Broadway has reduced the size of the orchestra required for a Broadway
musical performance, and allows for the use of recorded and
synthesized music. (Musicians are a major cost item in Broadway stage
prodcutions - or so the producers tell us). Why not go one better and
simply use recorded/synthesized music in all long-running shows? The
movies have done it for years, although once they used live music.
Heck, some folks are even beginning to use synthesized voices rather
than singers, as was done in some of the music for the 1997
blockbuster "Titanic". (Celine Dion is a real human, however).

Don't shoot me, I'm not the piano player.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Would there be ANY sense in a rule that said "You can't play any other
instrument, no matter how good you might be at it, unless you first
demonstrate that you can play the piano proficiently." ???

All depends on who defines "proficiently". The amateur radio code test
we have now is roughly equivalent to being able to pound out a few
bars of "Chopsticks" with two fingers on the piano. Even the old code
tests didn't get much beyond the "Heart and Soul" level, compared to
what was considered proficient by knowledgeable folks.

So what? The point is that there is no NEED for ANY level of Morse
proficiency any more.

Carl - wk3c

On 18 Jul 2003 05:17:42 -0700, N2EY wrote:

OTOH, millions of young children today are "forced" to learn how to do
basic arithmetic even though inexpensive calculators have been around
for decades.

What "learning"? Go into your local fast-food place or grocery
store and see the blank look on the clerk's face if s/he has to make
change and the register is not working.....

Would there be ANY sense in a rule that said "You can't play any other
instrument, no matter how good you might be at it, unless you first
demonstrate that you can play the piano proficiently." ???

But hey, we're missing the point here. Why should any musical
performance skill be needed to get a music degree, unless a person
wants to be a performer?

Most conservatories and music degree programs require piano
proficiency no matter what the instrument or specialty (performance,
composing, whatever) is. I got away from that by studying voice
privately, but that's the exception.

This is the 21st century, and we've got synthesizers out the wazoo
that cost far less than, say, a Martin guitar or a Steinway piano.
And which are much easier to learn how to use. Why focus so much
time and effort on learning a "manual motor skill" to play one
instrument - any instrument - when there are machines which will do
the job with much less effort and error-free?

Effort and error rate aren't the real criteria of music performance.
Creating it by human effort/input is.

This isn't far-fetched. The new contract for musicians who play on
Broadway has reduced the size of the orchestra required for a Broadway
musical performance, and allows for the use of recorded and
synthesized music. (Musicians are a major cost item in Broadway stage
prodcutions - or so the producers tell us). Why not go one better and
simply use recorded/synthesized music in all long-running shows?

You are really looking forward to a visit from Petrillo's goons,
aren't you ??? James Caesar Petrillo (the Idi Amin of the American
Federation of Musicians) may be dead but his legacy lives on. They
manhandled me when I was a recording engineer in college (mid-1950s)
and I haven't forgotten.

Heck, some folks are even beginning to use synthesized voices rather
than singers, as was done in some of the music for the 1997
blockbuster "Titanic".

The day that I go into a synagogue and hear a synthesized cantor
leading services is the day that I find another congregation. (You
do know that I have been trained as a cantor.)

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 18 Jul 2003 05:17:42 -0700, N2EY wrote:

OTOH, millions of young children today are "forced" to learn how to do
basic arithmetic even though inexpensive calculators have been around
for decades.

What "learning"? Go into your local fast-food place or grocery
store and see the blank look on the clerk's face if s/he has to make
change and the register is not working.....

In large part that's because dependence on the machine has reduced/eliminated
development of the skill. In most stores, employees are REQUIRED to go by what
the machine says.

I don't know about where others are, but in my school district the kids do
learn basic arithmetic. Most of them are good at it, and retain the skill.

But in this age of claculators and computers, why must ALL children be FORCED
to learn basic arithmetic - 'specially given that at least some don't retain
it? And it is FORCED on ALL children.

Would there be ANY sense in a rule that said "You can't play any other
instrument, no matter how good you might be at it, unless you first
demonstrate that you can play the piano proficiently." ???

But hey, we're missing the point here. Why should any musical
performance skill be needed to get a music degree, unless a person
wants to be a performer?

Most conservatories and music degree programs require piano
proficiency no matter what the instrument or specialty (performance,
composing, whatever) is. I got away from that by studying voice
privately, but that's the exception.

Exactly. But why must piano be required if a person doesn't want to play piano?
Why must any skill be required if the person doesn't want to be a performer?

This is the 21st century, and we've got synthesizers out the wazoo
that cost far less than, say, a Martin guitar or a Steinway piano.
And which are much easier to learn how to use. Why focus so much
time and effort on learning a "manual motor skill" to play one
instrument - any instrument - when there are machines which will do
the job with much less effort and error-free?

Effort and error rate aren't the real criteria of music performance.
Creating it by human effort/input is.

The exact same is true of about 99% of amateur radio operation.

This isn't far-fetched. The new contract for musicians who play on
Broadway has reduced the size of the orchestra required for a Broadway
musical performance, and allows for the use of recorded and
synthesized music. (Musicians are a major cost item in Broadway stage
prodcutions - or so the producers tell us). Why not go one better and
simply use recorded/synthesized music in all long-running shows?

You are really looking forward to a visit from Petrillo's goons,
aren't you ??? James Caesar Petrillo (the Idi Amin of the American
Federation of Musicians) may be dead but his legacy lives on. They
manhandled me when I was a recording engineer in college (mid-1950s)
and I haven't forgotten.

I am still amazed that the new contract got through.

I think the musicians would understand what I was trying to say.

Heck, some folks are even beginning to use synthesized voices rather
than singers, as was done in some of the music for the 1997
blockbuster "Titanic".

The day that I go into a synagogue and hear a synthesized cantor
leading services is the day that I find another congregation.

Now you know why Carl's "strawman" scheme will not be accepted.

(You do know that I have been trained as a cantor.)

I surmised as much.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Why should one be forced to learn to play the piano if what one REALLY
wants to do is to play one or more OTHER instruments?

Would there be ANY sense in a rule that said "You can't play any other
instrument, no matter how good you might be at it, unless you first
demonstrate
that you can play the piano proficiently." ???

I don't think so ...

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

*I* think so. When you learn the piano, you're dealing with chords virtualy
from the beginning. You learn more about key signatures, time signatures,
and the structure of harmony from learning the piano than you do with any
other instrument. Why do you think virtually all music is composed on
the piano (or modern electronic keyboards)? It is because the piano has
all the basics wrapped up in one instrument which is a bit more difficult
to learn, but does virtually as much as all the others combined. I started
with the clarinet, and quickly moved to the various types of saxophone
and the trombone. I could play the instruments well enough, but I never
had the general background in musical theory that all the piano players
had, regardless of which instrument they were playing at the time.
Therefore, I never became a Real Musician(tm) as a result. Piano is an
essential skill in music, and I firmly believe all musicians should start
on the piano and be tested in piano proficiency before being allowed to
move on to any other instrument -- which will be much easier as a result.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


Why should one be forced to learn to play the piano if what one REALLY
wants to do is to play one or more OTHER instruments?

Would there be ANY sense in a rule that said "You can't play any other
instrument, no matter how good you might be at it, unless you first
demonstrate
that you can play the piano proficiently." ???

I don't think so ...

Carl - wk3c


Carl:

*I* think so. When you learn the piano, you're dealing with chords virtualy
from the beginning. You learn more about key signatures, time signatures,
and the structure of harmony from learning the piano than you do with any
other instrument. Why do you think virtually all music is composed on
the piano (or modern electronic keyboards)?

Yaknow, Larry, I think maybe there is a new cause brewing here "No
Piano's International. We can get those stupid arbitrary requirements to
learn the piano abolished. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -