Rogers, pp. 1-30
- Comments Due by Friday, August 29 at 11:59 pm. But...please feel free to respond to others' comments after the due date.
- It will be helpful if you can post early so that others have a chance to read and respond!
- Remember that your response should be between about 100 - 500 words. You might find it helpful to type and edit your response in a Word Processor and do a word count there.
- FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS HOLY, please put line breaks between your paragraphs!
Here are some ideas to get you started. You don't have to comment on ALL of them; focus on what was meaningful to you in the reading, and please feel free to add questions/comments of your own.
- Last week, we spent some time talking about why so many students dislike music theory. In his opening pages (ca. 1-5), Rogers addresses this problem in some detail. What is his reasoning for this, and what kinds of remedies does he suggest?
- What ARE the "Purposes and Goals of Music Theory"? In other words, consider this scenario: You teach the entire music theory core at a small college, where you have a small class of only the brightest and best. They do everything you tell them to, and study what you tell them to study, and grasp all the concepts. You have them for a complete four or five semesters. Under these very ideal circumstances, what skills would you want them to have when you're done with them? What should they have learned? What should they be able to do?
- On page 7, Rogers says "That answers for [Music Theory] are necessarily elusive is no excuse for failing to grapple with the questions. Viewed in this context, the ultimate value of the endeavor will lie as much in the quality of new questions raised as in the answers given." What kinds of questions do you wish had been raised in your undergraduate music theory courses?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChapter 1
ReplyDeleteI enjoy how the author immediately addresses that theory is sometimes just viewed as the nuts and bolts of music (I’m personally guilty) rather than a lifelong knowledge of applying theory to one’s own musicality. I believe that making this point to a beginning theory class at both secondary and university-level courses is paramount to dispel students’ inherent fear or lack of interest in theory. I really enjoy when Rogers said theory should be viewed more as philosophy than mathematics to emphasize this point. Another poignant statement he makes is that success of the theory course should not be measured in a grade but the “strength of the reverberations from the course for decades afterward” of one’s musical study. The thinking/listening model is also useful because it illustrates that the more we hear, the more we want to know about how a piece is put together, which then makes us want to listen to new and different pieces which starts the cycle over again.
In regard to the separation vs. integration argument, I came from a program that was separated by faculty, class meeting time and resources but the topics themselves were correlated together. I initially had trouble linking what I heard in a piece to the ink and paper of what was in front of me. It took me a while as an undergraduate to efficiently link the two together efficiently, but the correlation of topics eventually helped me to do so.
Chapter 2
I can see the benefits of a comprehensive musicianship approach in terms of students immediately putting into practice what they are learning fundamentally. Despite this, it seems like too grandiose of a concept to work efficiently and effectively because all faculty members would have to agree on every detail, be well versed in every single aspect of musical study and spend many hours planning and collaborating. These factors make it seem like an overwhelming and too daunting task to implement CM effectively.
I have the most experience learning from a Historical approach but teaching 12-18 year olds in the astylistic approach. I will say that the younger a generation gets, the shorter the attention span. Because of this reality, I feel like using preexisting knowledge of pieces and composers helps solidify modern students’ knowledge as well as sparks their desire for more knowledge effectively. Diving straight into Guido D’Arrezzo or Hildegard of Bingen might turn some students off immediately.
Finally, I agree that there should be a balance between concepts and skills in the teaching of music theory. This point seems to be what Rogers feels not only about concepts and skills, but all aspects of teaching and designing curriculum for theory. I believe that not every approach will work for all students and faculties in every music school, but the right balance of all four areas of theory design must be met to have an effective program tailored to a specific music school and set of students.
Thanks, Nick. One thing you said sticks out a bit for me: " I really enjoy when Rogers said theory should be viewed more as philosophy than mathematics to emphasize this point." Yet in your sales pitch (and you'll see this in my comments), you do talk about music as mathematics in a couple of places. The comparison of the two, while NOT entirely inaccurate, is a double-edged sword: On the one hand..."you can handle this; it's just numbers and patterns." On the other...."OMG it's math! It's abstract! It's scary!" The truth, as we both know, is neither of these things--so best to avoid the word altogether.
Delete(What ARE the "Purposes and Goals of Music Theory"?)
ReplyDeleteI find this to be a difficult question to answer because each student is different and has different goals. I think general skills are the most important and the ability to translate those skills, even if the student is not particularly excellent at performing on tests or quizzes. I would specify three categories of knowledge: harmony, analysis, and ear training. Students should understand chord structure, be able to identify it, but also be able to compose to a certain degree. This includes diatonic and chromatic chords, modulation, and harmonic structure (progressions). Students should also be able to analyze pieces. I don’t find it particularly useful for every student to be able to analyze every tiny aspect of a piece, following instructions given by a professor, but they should be able to draw conclusions of a piece that they are conducting or playing using harmonic and form analysis skills. The third aspect, and perhaps most important in my opinion, is ear training. Many instrumental musicians struggle with ear training, mainly because they do not have experience using their voice. Undergraduates often do not realize that developing vocal fundamentals can really strengthen tuning and sight-reading. Dictation strengthens the contextual ear, while singing and sight singing strengthens the mental connection between the page and the sound. These skills are very important to grasp, but also to understand well enough to teach. Not every public school educator has to be a theory whiz, but if they can teach reading and listening skills to their classes, they will have a better ensemble sound. Their students will be more productive musicians with a broader set of skills, ultimately benefitting the music community as a whole.
"Dictation strengthens the contextual ear, while singing and sight singing strengthens the mental connection between the page and the sound." I've never heard it put quite like that. And I like that you're relating back to high school teachers. It's almost as though you're writing a thesis on that...
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis book offers an interesting perspective as to what the final destination of what we all call “music theory” actually is. What is expressed is that this theory is just the start, or a collection of tools; a vocabulary to give consistency to and unify how we express our thoughts in terms of music. Prior to studying at Youngstown State University, I had no theory training or instrumental coach, so my original perceptions of music theory were simply what I heard from people that took theory courses ahead of me. Many told me that it was boring and tedious, and after entering the remedial course for those with no preliminary theory training, I was in agreement. As the classes grew in complexity, however, I began to notice that there was less rigidity to the interpretation of pieces of music through the presentation of choices of possibilities. This flexibility of interpretation created the supposition in my mind that what I learned in the preceding theory courses were simply supplementary in the process of analysing music. So, in short, my personal experiences have proven identical to that of the author’s statements of music theory pedagogy.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Comprehensive Musicianship/learning is concerned, I can imagine the difficulty in creating a finely-working synergy of lesson plans amongst professors of different specific disciplines within music. Along with differing styles of appropriation of material is also a difference in attitudes, beliefs, and personalities. With this said, is it an unrealistic goal? If not, what level of effort and cooperation would be necessary to supplement each course with overlapping material to create a functional CM?
Excellent thoughts, Logan. I especially like your description of your personal "evolution" through music theory and analysis. "As the classes grew in complexity...there was less rigidity to the interpretation of pieces...through ...choices of possibilities." It's kind of like life, isn't it?
DeleteChapter 1:
ReplyDeleteRodgers makes a great point in the first couple pages by stating that “defining music theory is almost impossible”. That is a great thing to point out at first because it’s true. There is no one or two set definitions for music theory and there never will be. There are too many important and necessary aspects of music theory that must be covered and learned for them to understand just the basics of theory. Rodgers states, “One irony of many undergraduate curriculums is that the two- or three-year required sequence of courses allots all its time to acquiring the background (terminology, labels, etc.) for doing music theory but runs out of time just as the topic becomes interesting – resulting in an extended introduction that leads nowhere”. This shows that a lot of our music theory training is the introduction. Personally, I will admit that it is frustrating to learn about rules and concepts of music theory and to take a long time before we are actually able to contextualize and use it on a daily basis. He states that there is “too much emphasis on narrow course content and acquisition of knowledge once again obscures the more far-reaching goals of theory instruction – goals that should spill outside the strict boundaries of the courses themselves”. He believes that music theory should be taught so that it “affects serious musicians throughout their lifetime”. In my opinion, some music theory programs at other universities and colleges have lost the sight to help the musicians throughout their careers. Rodgers suggests that “theory programs must move ahead to create tolerance and enthusiasm for the discovery, explorations, and comparison of a wide range of differing musical ideas and must promote the ability to back up decisions and judgments with logic, consistency, and imagination”. I agree that that the music programs should build their program around this suggestion. Luckily at YSU, they have us contextualize and after some semesters of learning the basics, and then use that basic knowledge to build new theories and contextualize music effectively and the other professors encourage us to do the same. (I can’t count the number of times Dr. Wang has asked me to analyze a piece or etude I was playing to understand the overall musicality and context). These thoughts on music theory are very important because it brings to light that it is sometimes frustrating to realize that you go through so much theory in music programs and it seems like there is no real goal other than to learn and memorize factual information. Personally, it took me a while to warm up to theory because I had a rough start and it took me a while to catch back up and continue to grow in the music theory field. I think it’s important to remind students that theory can be used so much in performing music and that it is important to understand context and composition of a piece to be able to perform it even better. Music theory is one of the most important things that we learn in music school and I think it is important that everyone understands why they have to learn it to be better musicians and teachers.
Some good observations, Steph. When you post in the future, please be sure to put line breaks between your paragraphs. It helps a lot when others are reading it!
Delete(What kinds of questions do you wish had been raised in your undergraduate music theory courses?)
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking back to my experiences with undergraduate music theory classes, I immediately think of what Rogers describes as comprehensive musicianship, (and I see that Nick also has an opinion on this). Generally, my theory program could be looked at like the review of fundamentals and concepts that most of my class (all being music majors) could easily figure out. We saw or heard these kinds of “theoretical” things in the music that we listened to, played, or sang many times, even without knowing it. Like Nick’s experience, our music theory and music history courses often correlated and this proved to help with both subjects – at least at first. At one point they started to deviate from each other quite significantly and right at the point where things began to get difficult. A few of us (myself included) began to struggle with more unfamiliar territory. Diminished and augmented chords were completely foreign. What do they look like, what do they sound like, and how can you quickly determine the difference? The idea that the continual use of parallel fifths is frowned upon was mind boggling. Why are certain chord progressions not acceptable? “Because it sounds bad” was not always the popular opinion, especially after learning about Serialism.
Questions like these were raised, but were not always satisfied with a significant answer. An example would be written and then an aural training session could go over them a few times, but not much more. You may have gotten the response: “we don’t have time to spend on that” – which in fairness is understandable. (And I don’t blame the professors at all.) Students have different comprehension levels, there are always going to be a few that don't understand 100% of the ideas that you present them. There is also an agenda and there must be “a means and an end” as Rogers states, but if you can’t attain a means, how do you achieve that end?
"The idea that the continual use of parallel fifths is frowned upon was mind boggling. Why are certain chord progressions not acceptable? “Because it sounds bad” was not always the popular opinion, especially after learning about Serialism. "
DeleteI'm not one to blame the professors either, of course--though I can get away with it a little more than you can. :-) I think often professors will answer this way, because it's the way THEY were taught--and perhaps THEIR own teachers didn't have the time in the classroom to encourage critical thinking beyond the textbook. But I think that's changing, slowly. There is a lot more talk about curriculum, about relevance, especially in the US today, and people are just starting to raise questions such as-- "Hey, why ARE we teaching figured bass anyway?"
I agree with Meredith on the points that I would teach in a core setting; however, I feel as if harmony and analysis should be taught as one entity and point, rather than separately. Rogers mentions in the preface that the book has an underlying assumption that aural theory and written theory have an artificial distinction between them. I like that use of articial in that it reminds me of an automaton, like a clock. The gears move together to cause the bells to ring and hands to move. A strong knowledge over harmony and skill with analysis to me are like two gears that move a musician. WIthout the other, you either have knowledge over chords with no context, or knowledge of form and function without the feel for harmonic strucure. it’s one thing to teach a chord and say “here’s this chord. It sounds like this, and usualy goes to this” and another to say the same thing but SHOW that exact flow in a solo or even orchestral piece. A combination of the two benefits both performance and ed majors in helping phrasing and even intonation with more difficult chords. Performance majors can learn the flow of harmonies through skills such as Schenkerian Analysis, whereas educators can better their groups by combining phrases into one large idea. In regards to ear training, I’m of the opinion their is no bad reason to improve your aural skills. The very best musicians I know, while maybe not having the best singing voices, can at least sing through their parts relatively well. Every lesson I’ve had with Mr. Byo over the past six years, he’s sung some kind of phrase on the exact pitch, save maybe the lowest octave. I wouldn’t be half the musician I am today if it wasn’t for the sight singing abilities I’ve gained through theory courses. As a bassoonist, it is typically my job to chameleon and blend in with EVERY other instrument in the orchestra. With significant ear training, this task simplifies immensely. Being able to hear the pitch discepencies in other instruments on the fly has kept me afloat in more performance situations than I can count. Even those focussing on education majorly benefit from the ability to say, hear the trumpets playing a wrong note in a march (my apologies to Nick, it was the first section I thought of). Combining all the ideas in a theory curriculum, musicians can better themselves without playing or singing a note on a page.
ReplyDeleteI love how you talk about this in the context of your own instrument--having barely ever TOUCHED a bassoon, it's a perspective I simply don't have. And Bill Byo--he sings everything?? That's amazing. More instrumental teachers need to do that, I think, and to encourage their students to do the same.
DeleteAnyway, I think you're fortunate to have a really good natural singing voice--knowing where to place notes in your voice certainly helps with "mental" placement in the inner ear--which helps with conceptual practice, and eventually real practice. You are one of those people who gets it. Thanks for that....
One of the perspectives that Rogers offers is "the delicate web of counterbalances" where creative theory is born. This open realm for new theory ideas to build on one another is something that could expand the web of music along with its own. With theory expanding, more possiblities within the music world are created. With the foundation that is taught through music theory, endless opportunities for musicians are created. That is then, the purpose for music theory. For teachers to instill the basic tools needed for musicians to expand their musicianship COMPLETELY. To me, this requires a complete flexibility within the teacher. Multiple genres should be incorporated when teaching music theory. Multiple time periods should also be taught, given the fact that theory is always changing and adapting. Teaching music theory should be all about how much you as a teacher can give resources that you know your students will need for the real world.
ReplyDeleteHi Shanyse, Take a look at my reply to Kathleen's post. I think that attitudes toward diversity in the curriculum are slowly changing but they ARE changing. When I go to conferences, there are real discussions about relevance--and incorporating more genres and styles. We live in twenty-first century America. Our music is NOT Beethoven. It is rock, pop, jazz, hip-hop and much more.
DeleteRemember that as teachers, we were trained by the generation before us, who were pretty firmly grounded in the classical tradition. Most of us WANT to embrace new ideas, but we don't have much guidance on how to incorporate these into our teaching. That is slowly changing, though.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete