Memorization

[+ Gar1eth]

Well Gaul being divided into three parts was far as I got with memorizing Latin. However, having gone to parochial school many of my brethren who became altar boys had to memorize the entire mass in Latin. I was spared that having been tossed out of "altar boy school". In retrospect it most likely was a "blessing". The gods only know the pervert that I might have turned into if I had been able to survive the entire program!!!

 

I just realized I left out the word 'unam' between 'quarum' and 'incolunt'.

 

I noticed that I have more trouble learning lines now-assuming I ever managed to be in a play. Part of the problem may be my older brain. But also there is the fact that when I memorized as a teenager, I always had my parents there to read lines with me plus the only worries I really had were schoolwork and not adult life.

 

As for music @whipped guy, I can still memorize songs (pop/Broadway) that I like. But I get that way from replaying them to the point that I don't want to hear them anymore. As for playing music, I don't anymore. I'm sure it would be more difficult thetn when I was younger. Plus I'm sure you are attempting songs much more difficult than any I ever played. But my vague memory is that I played them so much that they became mostly muscle memory. I wasn't envisioning the notes in my mind. I just knew this was how my hands should go.

[bostonman]

The Boston Symphony Orchestra Chorus, aka the Tanglewood Festival Chorus, decided a number of years ago to memorize all their music, and NOT use scores in concert. For something like a Mass, the words are easy (they tend to be the same). For a requiem mass, perhaps more difficult. For Damnation de Faust by Berlioz, more difficult; and I can't believe they actually did Евге́ний Оне́гин in Russian.

 

The Berlioz has that amazing sequence at the end where all the demons in hell are literally speaking in tongues - devilish-sounding gibberish. Great stuff, but yeah - could be hard to memorize. Or maybe not, just because it's so unique!

 

What gets me is a piece like Glass' opera Satyagraha, where not only are you dealing with Glass' crazy repetitions and Escher-like gradual changes in meter/rhythm, but also that the text is in Sanskrit - AND that it's only tangentially related to the stage action (it's all text from the Bhagavad Gita - inspirational text for Gandhi and his followers, but not literal to the story of the opera itself). How does anyone memorize all of that?

 

I learned my lesson about choral memorization etiquette as a high school soph. We were doing excerpts from the Vivaldi Gloria - a piece I didn't know at the time, and really liked. So much that I had no problem memorizing the tenor parts - and I sang them for memory in the concert. Problem is, everyone else was holding music - the choir director hadn't said we HAD to, I suppose, but I was the only one without. And I was in the front center and very visible. So of course I stood out like a sore thumb. Which is not something you're supposed to do in a choral situation lol. So the lesson is - even if you know the music, USE it if everyone else is.

[+ WilliamM]

Gettysburg Address? Anyone? I think it was 5th/6th grade when I memorized it.

 

I know you live on the west coast. You did something I was never able to accomplishment. I am going to sound like the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce, but Gettysburg is a great place to visit, not just to see the battlefields. I enjoy stopping at Pres. Eisenhower's farm which is now a Park Service location. It's next to the battlefields. Ike only had prize cows. I believe the cows are long gone (there must have been a bull too!). Not such what happened to the prizes.

 

Thanks for mentioning the Gettysburg Address.

[+ Gar1eth]

I have very good memorization facility, so I had no problem with numbers (multiplication tables, phone numbers, etc.), lists (the states and their capitals in alphabetical order, etc.), and poetry, of which I still remember a great deal in various languages. If I read something in prose that I have read before, I recognize it, which was very helpful when trying to catch errors or plagiarism in students' research papers. But the facility does decline with age, which is why the rhymes and proverbs which we learned as children stay with us while the things we learned in graduate school are somewhat iffy. I tried to learn to play the piano when I was in my 40s, and although I had an excellent teacher and practiced every day, I just could not memorize all the scales and keys, much less even short musical works, and gave up in despair.

 

@Charlie you might try again with a better teacher. Chords don't just occur. They have structure. You don't have to memorize the individual notes. In our chord system one major chord is divided into two tetra cords. Each tetra cord of a major scale consists of a definite number of notes (4) and specific number and placement of intervals(I've gone as far as memory will take me. I'm going to use Google now).

 

Each tetrachord is composed of whole step, whole step, half step. They are combined together by a Wholestep. So a complete major chord is

 

 

W(hole)step, W(hole)step, 1/2step. The two tetracords are combined by W(hole step).

 

The easiest chord to see this on is C major

W W 1/2. W. W. W. 1/2

C-------D-------E--------F--------G-------A------B----C

 

Where the underlined W is the connecting Whole-Step.

 

Or we can use D Major

W. W. 1/2. W. W. W

D--------E-------F#----G--------A---------B---------C#-

1/2

----D

 

As long as you know what notes are what on a piano and the difference between a whole and a half step, you can figure out any major cord. You don't have to memorize the notes of every major chord-only the pattern of the two tetrachords each consisting of W interval, W interval, 1/2 interval connected by a W interval.

 

 

You can find the relative minor of a scale (the minor scale that has the exact same notes as the major scale but played in a different order by going 3 - half steps below the 1st note of the major cord. So taking C -one half step down is B, another 1/2 step down is Bb, another 1/2step is A.

 

A is the relative minor of C. Since C has no sharps or flats neither does the relative minor of it. But the intervals are different from the two tetrachords of a major scale.

 

W. 1/2. W. W. 1/2 W. W

 

A-----B-------C------D--------E--------F-------G-----A

 

 

 

So for a relative minor the 1st tetrachord is

 

W

H

W

 

Connecting W

 

 

2nd tetrachord is

 

H

W

W

 

Using that to make a G minor scale

W. H. W. W. 1/2. W

G-------A----B flat---------C---------D------E flat-----F-

W

------G

 

 

The only little trick on minors is we usually play a harmonic minor instead of the natural minor. In the harmonic minor the 7th tone (note ) is raised a 1/2 step. (I remembered something about this vaguely but had to look it up on Wikipedia to remember which note was changed).

 

So for G harmonic minor the notes are

 

G

A

B flat

C

D

E flat

F sharp (In a natural minor this would be F)

G

 

At the beginning , the trick is not to remember the individual notes for each scale. But to remember what intervals the scale is composed of. So get your fingers used to the intervals required for a C -scale. Then use those same movements/reaches when going to another major scale. It's like learning the multiplication tables. At first you only know certain numbers are associated with other numbers. 2 x 3 is 6. But you aren't really ready calculate 23 x 23 yet. Learn the muscle movements needed to play a certain set of intervals which will equal a scale. When you have more knowledge, you'll know that if someone asks you to play a G minor relative scale that there are two flats-B and E. But if I didn't know that right off the bat, I'd go to a keyboard-start on G and map out the two tetrachords. The pattern for a relative minor key is W-H-W a connecting Whole Interval followed by H-W-W.

 

Or if you want to know the individual notes you will be playing for the scale-you can map them out knowing the composition of a major scale is TETRACHORD #1: W-W-1/2 + a connecting W followed by Tetrachord #2: consisting again of the intervals W-W-1/2.

 

For any of you who actually know music theory, please forgive my infantile fumblings.

 

 

Gman

[+ Gar1eth]

Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes;

und seiner Hände Werk zeigt an das Firmament.

 

The first Enhlish is correct. The modem version doesn't say the same thing.

 

Bring back Süßmeyer!

 

I believe when a similar phrasing for a prayer is used in the traditional siddur I grew up in-the translation would most likely be-And the heavens DECLARE THY GLORY, O' G--d

 

In fact Psalm 19:2 in my Bible-I think it's 19:1 in most Christian bibles.

 

"The heavens declare the glory of God, And the firmament showeth His handiwork;

 

Gman

[gallahadesquire]

The Berlioz has that amazing sequence at the end where all the demons in hell are literally speaking in tongues - devilish-sounding gibberish. Great stuff, but yeah - could be hard to memorize. Or maybe not, just because it's so unique!

 

 

Actually, it was pretty easy by the time we got to performance. We didn't have time to look at the score.

[whipped guy]

If I remember correctly , the line is a direct quote from the King James Bible. The syntactical reversal of subject and verb was not uncommon in very serious early 17th century artsy English, and may be a direct translation of the word order in the language that was being translated (Greek for the New Testament, Hebrew or Aramaic for the Old Testament).

After hearing the the word reversal I read a review of the recording in the British Magazine Gramophone, and they mentioned that it was a correction of a "mistake" in the translation that, if I recall correctly , followed the reverse wording in the German version of the libretto. If it were a quote from the King James Version of the Bible I'm sure that the Brits would have called the change a sacrilege of sorts. If I google the line "The wonder of his works displays the firmament" the only thing that pops up is a reference to Haydn's The Creation.

In any event, I prefer the original.

[whipped guy]

PS to the above post, from what I gather the King James version is give or take:

 

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork" or "the handiwork of God".

[whipped guy]

@Charlie you might try again with a better teacher. Chords don't just occur. They have structure. You don't have to memorize the individual notes. In our chord system one major chord is divided into two tetra cords. Each tetra cord of a major scale consists of a definite number of notes (4) and specific number and placement of intervals(I've gone as far as memory will take me. I'm going to use Google now).

 

Each tetrachord is composed of whole step, whole step, half step. They are combined together by a Wholestep. So a complete major chord is

 

 

W(hole)step, W(hole)step, 1/2step. The two tetracords are combined by W(hole step).

 

The easiest chord to see this on is C major

W W 1/2. W. W. W. 1/2

C-------D-------E--------F--------G-------A------B----C

 

Where the underlined W is the connecting Whole-Step.

 

Or we can use D Major

W. W. 1/2. W. W. W

D--------E-------F#----G--------A---------B---------C#-

1/2

----D

 

As long as you know what notes are what on a piano and the difference between a whole and a half step, you can figure out any major cord. You don't have to memorize the notes of every major chord-only the pattern of the two tetrachords each consisting of W interval, W interval, 1/2 interval connected by a W interval.

 

 

You can find the relative minor of a scale (the minor scale that has the exact same notes as the major scale but played in a different order by going 3 - half steps below the 1st note of the major cord. So taking C -one half step down is B, another 1/2 step down is Bb, another 1/2step is A.

 

A is the relative minor of C. Since C has no sharps or flats neither does the relative minor of it. But the intervals are different from the two tetrachords of a major scale.

 

W. 1/2. W. W. 1/2 W. W

 

A-----B-------C------D--------E--------F-------G-----A

 

 

 

So for a relative minor the 1st tetrachord is

 

W

H

W

 

Connecting W

 

 

2nd tetrachord is

 

H

W

W

 

Using that to make a G minor scale

W. H. W. W. 1/2. W

G-------A----B flat---------C---------D------E flat-----F-

W

------G

 

 

The only little trick on minors is we usually play a harmonic minor instead of the natural minor. In the harmonic minor the 7th tone (note ) is raised a 1/2 step. (I remembered something about this vaguely but had to look it up on Wikipedia to remember which note was changed).

 

So for G harmonic minor the notes are

 

G

A

B flat

C

D

E flat

F sharp (In a natural minor this would be F)

G

 

At the beginning , the trick is not to remember the individual notes for each scale. But to remember what intervals the scale is composed of. So get your fingers used to the intervals required for a C -scale. Then use those same movements/reaches when going to another major scale. It's like learning the multiplication tables. At first you only know certain numbers are associated with other numbers. 2 x 3 is 6. But you aren't really ready calculate 23 x 23 yet. Learn the muscle movements needed to play a certain set of intervals which will equal a scale. When you have more knowledge, you'll know that if someone asks you to play a G minor relative scale that there are two flats-B and E. But if I didn't know that right off the bat, I'd go to a keyboard-start on G and map out the two tetrachords. The pattern for a relative minor key is W-H-W a connecting Whole Interval followed by H-W-W.

 

Or if you want to know the individual notes you will be playing for the scale-you can map them out knowing the composition of a major scale is TETRACHORD #1: W-W-1/2 + a connecting W followed by Tetrachord #2: consisting again of the intervals W-W-1/2.

 

For any of you who actually know music theory, please forgive my infantile fumblings.

 

 

Gman

 

Now I have a headache!

 

And I thought that the Brits were off the wall with their quavers, semiquavers, and hemidemisemiquavers!!!!!!!

 

Or is that semidemisemiquaver!!! I hate math but a 64th note works just fine for me!

 

Oops! I forgot the semidemiquaver!

[+ honcho]

Now I have a headache!

 

And I thought that the Brits were off the wall with their quavers, semiquavers, and hemidemisemiquavers!!!!!!!

 

Or is that semidemisemiquaver!!! I hate math but a 64th note works just fine for me!

 

Oops! I forgot the semidemiquaver!

 

Uh, you forgot minims (half note) and semi-brevs (whole notes). The only time I ever saw a Breve

in the wild was the fugue in Brahms requiem (4/2) where I held a note for 4 counts written with

a double-whole note.

 

Oh, and 64th note actually is hemidemisemiquaver.

 

I suspect that Charlie would be do better with Gman sitting him down at a piano and showing him

half-note and whole notes on the piano than trying to describe it in words. It's easier to visualize.

Are both of them going to the next palm springs event?

 

But I do appreciate the idea of figuring things out for yourself; it was easier for me to re-derive trig formulas that to have to memorize them back in high-school.

[+ Charlie]

@Charlie you might try again with a better teacher. Chords don't just occur. They have structure. You don't have to memorize the individual notes. In our chord system one major chord is divided into two tetra cords. Each tetra cord of a major scale consists of a definite number of notes (4) and specific number and placement of intervals(I've gone as far as memory will take me. I'm going to use Google now).

 

Each tetrachord is composed of whole step, whole step, half step. They are combined together by a Wholestep. So a complete major chord is

 

 

W(hole)step, W(hole)step, 1/2step. The two tetracords are combined by W(hole step).

 

The easiest chord to see this on is C major

W W 1/2. W. W. W. 1/2

C-------D-------E--------F--------G-------A------B----C

 

Where the underlined W is the connecting Whole-Step.

 

Or we can use D Major

W. W. 1/2. W. W. W

D--------E-------F#----G--------A---------B---------C#-

1/2

----D

 

As long as you know what notes are what on a piano and the difference between a whole and a half step, you can figure out any major cord. You don't have to memorize the notes of every major chord-only the pattern of the two tetrachords each consisting of W interval, W interval, 1/2 interval connected by a W interval.

 

 

You can find the relative minor of a scale (the minor scale that has the exact same notes as the major scale but played in a different order by going 3 - half steps below the 1st note of the major cord. So taking C -one half step down is B, another 1/2 step down is Bb, another 1/2step is A.

 

A is the relative minor of C. Since C has no sharps or flats neither does the relative minor of it. But the intervals are different from the two tetrachords of a major scale.

 

W. 1/2. W. W. 1/2 W. W

 

A-----B-------C------D--------E--------F-------G-----A

 

 

 

So for a relative minor the 1st tetrachord is

 

W

H

W

 

Connecting W

 

 

2nd tetrachord is

 

H

W

W

 

Using that to make a G minor scale

W. H. W. W. 1/2. W

G-------A----B flat---------C---------D------E flat-----F-

W

------G

 

 

The only little trick on minors is we usually play a harmonic minor instead of the natural minor. In the harmonic minor the 7th tone (note ) is raised a 1/2 step. (I remembered something about this vaguely but had to look it up on Wikipedia to remember which note was changed).

 

So for G harmonic minor the notes are

 

G

A

B flat

C

D

E flat

F sharp (In a natural minor this would be F)

G

 

At the beginning , the trick is not to remember the individual notes for each scale. But to remember what intervals the scale is composed of. So get your fingers used to the intervals required for a C -scale. Then use those same movements/reaches when going to another major scale. It's like learning the multiplication tables. At first you only know certain numbers are associated with other numbers. 2 x 3 is 6. But you aren't really ready calculate 23 x 23 yet. Learn the muscle movements needed to play a certain set of intervals which will equal a scale. When you have more knowledge, you'll know that if someone asks you to play a G minor relative scale that there are two flats-B and E. But if I didn't know that right off the bat, I'd go to a keyboard-start on G and map out the two tetrachords. The pattern for a relative minor key is W-H-W a connecting Whole Interval followed by H-W-W.

 

Or if you want to know the individual notes you will be playing for the scale-you can map them out knowing the composition of a major scale is TETRACHORD #1: W-W-1/2 + a connecting W followed by Tetrachord #2: consisting again of the intervals W-W-1/2.

 

For any of you who actually know music theory, please forgive my infantile fumblings.

 

 

Gman

I'll memorize all this during a commercial break in the tennis match I'm watching.

[bostonman]

In our chord system one major chord is divided into two tetra cords.

 

I assume you meant "one major SCALE is divided into two tetrachords."

 

Technically, a "tetrachord" is any grouping of 4 notes. BUT - in terms of the tetrachords that make up a major scale, one great mnemonic device is the instrumental hook of the Addams Family theme (i.e. the music that goes with the snaps). That whole tune is simply 2 tetrachords (in different keys).

 

[+ Funguy]

Organic chemistry was all memorization, but that did not lead to learning. The only compound that I recall is triethylamine and I remember that from the nasty odor. It is a component of decaying fish. YUCK!

 

 

Non memories include:

 

http://11452-presscdn-0-51.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ddva2.png

 

And even better:

 

http://www.goldstandard-mcat.com/organic-chemistry-mechanisms/images/002.png

 

Now they tell me:

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KNq9oXXgjDw/VpezaldVg7I/AAAAAAAABjU/f8vMYCaem9c/s320/com.electrolyticearth.chemistrylab-7%253D500.png

 

Of course now there's an app for your phone!!!!!!!! Who woulda thunk!

 

http://a5.mzstatic.com/us/r30/Purple5/v4/f1/d1/61/f1d161e7-1257-22c1-5880-dc9bb06da916/screen1136x1136.jpeg

 

How about the Krebs cycle - I've finally forgotten it!

[whipped guy]

Uh, you forgot minims (half note) and semi-brevs (whole notes). The only time I ever saw a Breve

in the wild was the fugue in Brahms requiem (4/2) where I held a note for 4 counts written with

a double-whole note.

 

Oh, and 64th note actually is hemidemisemiquaver.

 

I suspect that Charlie would be do better with Gman sitting him down at a piano and showing him

half-note and whole notes on the piano than trying to describe it in words. It's easier to visualize.

Are both of them going to the next palm springs event?

 

But I do appreciate the idea of figuring things out for yourself; it was easier for me to re-derive trig formulas that to have to memorize them back in high-school.

Not to belabor the point, but both terms semidemisemiquaver and hemidemisemiquaver are can be used to indicate a 64th note. That only adds to the confusion for those thinking in mathematical fractions and was why I purposely referenced it.

 

As for visualizing scales it is a easier to comprehend with a keyboard in front if you.

[bostonman]

How about the Krebs cycle - I've finally forgotten it!

 

I think I had a Schwinn when I was a kid.

[whipped guy]

How about the Krebs cycle - I've finally forgotten it!

LOL! Last week I met a young lady who was studying for medical boards part one (which I had to take as well to become a "BAD MD") and I referred to the Krebs Cycle in the EXACT SAME MANNER! Talk about headache material!!!!

[+ Charlie]

After hearing the the word reversal I read a review of the recording in the British Magazine Gramophone, and they mentioned that it was a correction of a "mistake" in the translation that, if I recall correctly , followed the reverse wording in the German version of the libretto. If it were a quote from the King James Version of the Bible I'm sure that the Brits would have called the change a sacrilege of sorts. If I google the line "The wonder of his works displays the firmament" the only thing that pops up is a reference to Haydn's The Creation.

In any event, I prefer the original.

 

PS to the above post, from what I gather the King James version is give or take:

 

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork" or "the handiwork of God".

 

The "King James Bible" that most of us know today is the Authorized Version, which is an edition published in 1769 that contained many revisions to the original of 1611, and I believe "the firmament showeth his handiwork" is one of the changes in the 1769 edition. Handel's Messiah was written long before the new edition, so he would have known only the original, not the Authorized Version. I don't have a copy of the original, so I don't know for sure if "displays the firmament" was the original wording. However, although Haydn wrote The Creation at a much later date, he apparently worked from an English text that was originally offered to Handel, which Handel declined to set, and he used the "displays the firmament" wording also. (The German version of Haydn's The Creation is actually a translation from the English text into German, not vice versa.)

[+ Charlie]

The "King James Bible" that most of us know today is the Authorized Version, which is an edition published in 1769 that contained many revisions to the original of 1611, and I believe "the firmament showeth his handiwork" is one of the changes in the 1769 edition. Handel's Messiah was written long before the new edition, so he would have known only the original, not the Authorized Version. I don't have a copy of the original, so I don't know for sure if "displays the firmament" was the original wording. However, although Haydn wrote The Creation at a much later date, he apparently worked from an English text that was originally offered to Handel, which Handel declined to set, and he used the "displays the firmament" wording also. (The German version of Haydn's The Creation is actually a translation from the English text into German, not vice versa.)

Ignore the comments about Handel and Messiah above. I got muddled, thinking "displays the firmament" was used in Messiah, which is untrue.

[whipped guy]

The "King James Bible" that most of us know today is the Authorized Version, which is an edition published in 1769 that contained many revisions to the original of 1611, and I believe "the firmament showeth his handiwork" is one of the changes in the 1769 edition. Handel's Messiah was written long before the new edition, so he would have known only the original, not the Authorized Version. I don't have a copy of the original, so I don't know for sure if "displays the firmament" was the original wording. However, although Haydn wrote The Creation at a much later date, he apparently worked from an English text that was originally offered to Handel, which Handel declined to set, and he used the "displays the firmament" wording also. (The German version of Haydn's The Creation is actually a translation from the English text into German, not vice versa.)

 

Ignore the comments about Handel and Messiah above. I got muddled, thinking "displays the firmament" was used in Messiah, which is untrue.

 

The text of Die Schöpfung was indeed Baron van Swieten's German translation of the original English version that was derived from the Bible and Milton's Paradise Lost. Regarding Handel, he never set the text, but did consider doing so, but ultimately rejected it. However, the English text as presented to Haydn was probably several generations removed from what was given to Handel for his consideration many decades earlier.

 

In setting the text to music Haydn obviously worked from the German translation. However, at certain points in the process of fitting the English words to the music for publication some alterations were made and for some reason it is my understanding that the passage referencing "firmament" and "works" was reversed to align things with the German translation: "Und seiner Hände Werk Zeigt an das Firmament". This is supposedly the reason for the awkward sounding wording. Interestingly the German translation is closer to the King James original than what was eventually chosen for publication!

 

Of course since Haydn was setting the German text at other points the English words are at times a bit clumsy sounding. As such over the years various emendations have been made to make things more idiomatically correct.

 

Regarding the King James quote I referenced both for exactly the reasons that you mentioned.

 

Haydn purposely wanted the piece to be performed in English for English speaking audiences due to the English tradition of oratorio in the vernacular. Hence the source of the confusion.

[bostonman]

In setting the text to music Haydn obviously worked from the German translation. However, at certain points in the process of fitting the English words to the music for publication some alterations were made and for some reason it is my understanding that the passage referencing "firmament" and "works" was reversed to align things with the German translation: "Und seiner Hände Werk Zeigt an das Firmament". This is supposedly the reason for the awkward sounding wording.

 

Of course since Haydn was setting the German text at other points the English words are at times a bit clumsy sounding. As such over the years various emendations have been made to make things more idiomatically correct.

 

Doing a "singing translation" (i.e. a translation done to fit the rhythm of the music, for purposes of singing the piece in another language) is a challenging enough thing in the first place - trying to model the translation after a pre-existing one (i.e the biblical English we're talking about here) is much tougher, in terms of keeping the words on the page intact. So it's no wonder that some of the English in The Creation is a bit clumsy.

[whipped guy]

Doing a "singing translation" (i.e. a translation done to fit the rhythm of the music, for purposes of singing the piece in another language) is a challenging enough thing in the first place - trying to model the translation after a pre-existing one (i.e the biblical English we're talking about here) is much tougher, in terms of keeping the words on the page intact. So it's no wonder that some of the English in The Creation is a bit clumsy.

I was recently listening to the original French version of Donizetti's La Favorite (which is usually performed in Italian as La Favorita) and it sounds totally different from the standard Italian translation regarding the rhythm of the words. For example the aria, "Oh mi-o Fer-nan-do" in translation hardly is the same as "O mon Fer-nand" with 6 as opposed to only 4 syllables. The same is true for other French operas such as Don Carlos that are normally performed in Italian.

 

I would guess that a singing translation into Russian would be even more of a challenge!

[bostonman]

The attitude seems to be that knowing facts is not relevant today because a person can always Google the needed information. Many young people hold that attitude; unfortunately they do not know what they do not know. In an ordinary discussion, many things go over their heads. In a play or musical, many historic references just pass by them. So much of the arts makes reference to past art that to these young people who think they need to know nothing just lose out on the richness of the experience.

 

An "insider" view from someone who works in theatre - and who does a fair amount of work with youngsters (I used to do a lot of theatre with high school age and younger, now I do a lot of college work along with professional work). I don't know how many times I've ruefully pointed out that looking things up is so much - ridiculously so much - easier than it was when I was a kid. And yet, people are still as lazy as they used to be, lol. I can't tell you how many times I've had a youngster (or occasionally an adult professional) singing a lyric (or saying a line) with a topical/historical reference that they clearly don't understand. Occasionally there's a very arcane reference that's not easy to research, but much of the time, a few clicks on the internet would have done the job. And of course, outside of references, there's always the matter of unfamiliar words that don't get looked up.

 

But - kids do say the darndest things, and my favorite example of all time came from a young boy (maybe 9 or so?). I was doing a musical version of Charlotte's Web, and he was playing one of the farm animals. There was this musical sequence where the animals were trying to help Charlotte find words to put in her web that would flatter Wilbur, and this animal suggests the word "ubiquitous." When we got to that in rehearsal, I asked him if he knew what that word meant. Not surprisingly, he said he didn't. And I half-jokingly gave him the teacher-ish admonishment to "always look up words you don't know." But I wasn't prepared for his comeback. "Oh, I know," he said earnestly, "but since it seems that my character doesn't know what the word means, I thought I didn't have to either." That made my night. And we all laughed about it. And I told him that he really made a very good point. "But look up the word when you get home later."

 

I'll never forget that. It really warmed my heart.

[Epigonos]

As a university undergraduate, a thousand years ago, I had a Latin America History major and a Spanish minor. In those days foreign languages were taught by the grammar/translation method. That method required a great deal of grammar and vocabulary memorization. After graduation I joined the Peace Corps and during the twelve week training period Spanish was taught using the newer audio-lingual method which required virtually NO memorization. Upon arrival in our assigned country the students who had learned by the audio-lingual method were much quicker to jump into speaking Spanish. Those who learned by the grammar/translation method were more hesitant. After two years the audio-lingual learners where speaking and understanding with only slightly more competency than when they arrived. On the other hand those who had learned by the grammar/translation method where speaking with much more fluency and competency. Upon completion of our two years of service our Spanish Language competency was tested by a State Department Spanish Language specialists assisted by a local native speaker. We were all assigned a State Department competency score of one to five – one being minimal competency. ALL the audio-lingual learners scored between one and three and the grammar/translation learners scored between three and five. The point I am, rather laboriously, making here is that there is absolutely no way one is going to successfully learn a foreign language without a great deal of tedious memorization.

[liubit]

I agree with @Epigonos. I live in Prague and am now in the process of learning Czech, a very difficult language. There is simply no way around memorizing the complex grammar rules and the not-related-to-anything vocabulary. Tedious, but indispensable. My reward? Being able to communicate better with my gorgeous working boys who, for the most part, in spite of their very talented tongues for kissing and blowjobs, are desperately monolingual

[+ Charlie]

I agree with @Epigonos. I live in Prague and am now in the process of learning Czech, a very difficult language. There is simply no way around memorizing the complex grammar rules and the not-related-to-anything vocabulary. Tedious, but indispensable. My reward? Being able to communicate better with my gorgeous working boys who, for the most part, in spite of their very talented tongues for kissing and blowjobs, are desperately monolingual

When I lived in Czechoslovakia, I wanted to learn Czech, but I never got beyond a bunch of common vocabulary and expressions, because everyone wanted to practice English with me. With the older people who didn't speak English, I usually conversed in German, the second language for most of them.