"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