Joe N says >>I listen to some of them and say they don't have enough rhythm. And so there's another imperfect analogy to explore. I mentioned that at the piano recital I just recently attended, not a single performer could play with convincing rhythm. Why is that? Because students haven't had enough time to develop rhythmic sensibilities? Of course not. Its because the teacher wants the correct notes above all else.
R Hansen: >Isn?t this just the nature of learning to play these instruments? One must first master finger independence and coordination and *map* the keyboard sufficiently before they can then focus on the finer details of timing and velocity?
I don't think so. The art of learning piano is to integrate all sorts of capabilities, rhythm among them. Its the balance that makes the music. I'm talking about a student of 10 years, playing a full Beethoven sonata, but who just couldn't make *real* music out of it because of a lack of convincing timing. I have to blame the teacher.
What I see and hear in my home town, I think is common, and perhaps reflects a almost cultural prejudice. Its certainly true that western music flourished mainly through the exploration of melody and harmony, while the Sub-Saharan cultures advanced all sort of variations on the 3:2 polyrhythms.
So I'm thinking this is similar to the overemphasis (if there is one) on executing operations and algorithms, to perhaps the detriment of developing more of the big picture of mathematics and how it connects to the world, life, everything.
As I said before, "music" played without rhythm just loses all its life. Math taught without having all this "connect the dots" stuff Kirby talks about, may be rather lifeless as well.