Rogers 33-73 (Fundamentals)
Your comments are due by 11:59 pm on Friday Sept. 12
Some things to ponder after you've done the readings:
- Rogers believes that any problem a student has with "advanced" theory concepts (for example, augmented sixth chords) can be traced back to a weakness in fundamentals. Do you agree? If you were a student who struggled with music theory classes, do you think that having a more firm grounding in scales, key signatures, etc. would have made a difference?
- Rogers suggests that, to achieve fluency in music fundamentals, students must grasp the very large network of patterns and relationships that tie the fundamentals together. (For example, key signatures dictate scales which dictate interval qualities, which dictate triad qualities, etc.) However, some students do not grasp abstract patterns as well as others. (Some people can do Sudoku, others can't. I'm in the second group.) Can you think of a different, more intuitive path that these students could take as they work toward fluency? (Here's a hint: Think repertoire!)
Remember, these questions are seeds. You don't have to address all of them, or ANY of them for that matter. If the readings move you to bring up other ideas that you find interesting/important, then by all means, go there!
The author makes a wonderful point in saying that a lot of time will be saved later in musical theory development if the fundamentals are drilled consistently and concretely in the very beginning. For example, I cannot imagine how long it would take me personally to study a score or an excerpt if I had to calculate every chord and harmony from scratch.
ReplyDeleteA particularly interesting point is quoted on pg. 37 from Leland Smith stating that “in tonal music, the minor mode has no separate existence, but represents merely a fairly consistently applied group of alterations-flattings-of certain parts of the major mode.” When I first started learning minor use in college this is exactly how my brain processed minor scales and spellings because major was a solid frame of reference. I think for most (not all) students, this is a great way to think about and describe minor when a student first encounters it.
I agree with Rogers’ defense of roman numeral analysis as a tool to see relationships and movements between chords. The only downfall of this use is that roman numerals themselves seem to be leaving public school primary curriculum. Will we still use roman numerals in 20 years when students no longer know that I is 1, V is 5 and so on? I can see this simple lack of reference evolving into an increasing number of theory classes using pop/jazz letter designations over roman numeral analysis.
I find Rogers’ mention of a danger of analysis is treating all chords and tonal centers equally. I remember early in my collegiate career, I was always concerned with whether or not a new key was a modulation or just a tonicization (and of course, there are always gray areas there anyway.) I think it would be useful to point out to students that some harmonies are more important to overall structure than others and they are what really drive the harmonic momentum of a particular piece.
In regard to vertical vs. horizontal views of harmony, I think that the quote “it is more important…to find viewpoints that will support the examples” is a very wise phrase. Sometimes, the momentum of a piece is driving the resulting harmonies, where others the harmonies dictate some of a piece’s melodic elements. I feel that the beginning of my study was too focused on the vertical and I did not see relationships/benefits or the horizontal until I developed as a musician.
As a former secondary teacher, it is a phenomenal point that new material should be taught as a link or outgrowth of previous material. The N6 example really hits home for me, because I remember being a sophomore in theory class in the fall of 2005 thinking “what the hell is this?!” If it would have been clear to me the exact relation to the iv chord which I had previously learned and used extensively, I would have grasped the concept more readily and easily. A philosophy that has worked for me at all ages, socioeconomic backgrounds and other variables is “start with what students know, and take them where the need to go.”
A final point that I found interesting that Rogers mentions melodic analysis and that it is sometimes glossed over or not taught in depth. I feel this way about my own theory knowledge, and wish I could analyze and determine the importance of certain melodic elements as efficiently as I can analyze harmony or counterpoint.
NM: " I can see this simple lack of reference evolving into an increasing number of theory classes using pop/jazz letter designations over roman numeral analysis."
DeleteJR: Yes, but the trouble is, they do different things. Letter designations are absolute values. A B chord is a B chord, no matter what its context. Roman numerals serve to put chords into context--or more accurately, to assign them functions. It's possible we'll come up with a better way to do that. But using letter names alone won't accomplish that.
NM: "As a former secondary teacher, it is a phenomenal point that new material should be taught as a link or outgrowth of previous material. The N6 example really hits home for me, because I remember being a sophomore in theory class in the fall of 2005 thinking “what the hell is this?!”"
DeleteJR: You and thousands of others...including me (in 1991, though!)
I most certainly agree with Rogers about underlying fundamentals problems. I feel like I deal with this on a daily basis, especially with Musicianship 4 students. If a student is asked to build a Ger+6 in A major, for example, they often have to count on their fingers or as if they were playing their instrument to find the sixth scale degree of the key. I honestly get a little scared every time this or something similar happens (like today when I asked a student what the interval between C and Db was and they had to reference the keyboard). I think it becomes a struggle when teachers choose to push students through their classes who are right on the edge of passing. They miss concepts because they are forced to move on to the next, more challenging thing, and the result is less and less comprehension and understanding as time goes by. Although there are not enough hours in the day or dollars to pay professors to teach these classes, I wish there could be a class between fundamentals and what we (at YSU) call Musicianship 1. The 5-week review period that we do in Mus1 is great, but some students don’t need it. And some need more review time to catch up to other students. In a perfect world, each student would have an individualized start to the collegiate theory curriculum. But alas, that is not how our world is.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the second posed question, I would very much like to discuss this in class. I am a “building on patterns” type of thinker, and I find it very difficult to teach those who don’t think that way. Might we talk about this in class? Or does someone want to respond in how they approach it (Dr. Root or otherwise)?
I completely agree with you Meredith and I'm glad to get your thoughts on this since you see students dealing with this in Music Theory classes. I loved reading your perspectives. As for the question, I was thinking about maybe for example, have the student learn the scale letters for C major and then incorporate numbers into them. This would be an easy transition because then if you move onto minor scales, you can tell them to lower the 3, 6, and 7 scale degree and then that the scale will start on the 6th letter of the major scale. It sounds difficult, but it would work better to write it out. Do you think that would be a possible solution to teaching in a non-pattern way? I just wanted to see your thoughts on this issue as well. Thanks! :)
DeleteMA: "In regards to the second posed question, I would very much like to discuss this in class. I am a “building on patterns” type of thinker, and I find it very difficult to teach those who don’t think that way. Might we talk about this in class? Or does someone want to respond in how they approach it (Dr. Root or otherwise)?"
DeleteJR: Yes! I would love to talk about this in class! Monday, maybe Wednesday. (Less work for me, right? :-)
SB: "This would be an easy transition because then if you move onto minor scales, you can tell them to lower the 3, 6, and 7 scale degree and then that the scale will start on the 6th letter of the major scale."
DeleteJR: Back up the truck a minute...remember that these are two separate things You don't lower 3, 6, 7, AND then start on the 6th. (If you did, you'd get a Lydian scale, unrelated to the original major scale.) What you're talking about here is two ways to approach minor: The first illustrates the concept of parallel, the second way explains relative.
Oh....and why numbers? Why not solfege? :-)
Rogers believes that any problem a student has with "advanced" theory concepts (for example, augmented sixth chords) can be traced back to a weakness in fundamentals. Do you agree? If you were a student who struggled with music theory classes, do you think that having a more firm grounding in scales, key signatures, etc. would have made a difference?
ReplyDeleteI find what Rogers’s discussions about music fundamentals to be interesting. I agree completely with Rogers that a weak foundation in music theory fundamentals will cause struggling later. Personally, I have done well in my theory (lecture) classes because I had a sound foundation by my high school choir director, band director, and private lesson teacher. They all made sure that I had a deep understanding of the scales, the circle of 5ths, and chord building and that I was fluent and could do all of that without much hesitation. I believe that if you do not have a good understanding of how a scale works and the intervals between each scale degree, it would be hard to understand how chord building works. However, that could not be the case. Someone could catch up quickly, or find their own method to figuring out chord building and not really understand how to build a scale and do it just as easily. I feel that scales are a very important function in music and that it should be understood and everyone should be able to do it to have a full understanding of music. Another problem are if you have a week background in music theory fundamentals is Counterpoint because it relies on intervals and how certain notes can only work in certain key signatures. However, I think it would be difficult for the student to continue to learn more complex theory concepts (for example, Schenkerian analysis, Roman numeral analysis, and modulations) would be extremely difficult.
To an extent, there could be a bit more success when getting to more advanced theory concepts if you have a smaller background of scales and key signatures. For example, 12 tone row music theory is taught in the our Musicianship 4 class and focuses on making music based on using all 12 notes in a chromatic scale in a specific order. To an extent, someone could figure out the pattern that the notes are organized in without having to know intervals, key signatures, or scales.
In all fairness, this argument could be said for musicianship lab as well. As someone who never had to do sight-singing without a piano and never knew how to do dictation, I had a tough struggle because the teacher assumed that since I had a solid lecture foundation, they thought we all could do lab materials as well. Since we never had structured and intense instruction on how to perform sight-singing without a piano and how to do dictation, I had a hard time learning a strategy to do the dictation tests and singing correctly. After some struggle, I finally had a “light bulb” moment where I got used to them and could do them on my own. I feel that if I had a foundation in the lab skills, I would have done better and not had such a struggle.
In my opinion, I think it is more important to have every student completely understand how scales, chords, intervals, and other music fundamentals work than to have the student possibly struggle in future concepts. To prevent this, I believe that the teacher should fully make sure that each student knows how to key signatures and scales work and be able to form one through memory and intervals. There should be a week or two of review and then a small assessment of some sort to make sure that the student does know how to do it, whether it is written or an oral assessment. If that student is going to be music majors, they should understand how to do scales and key signatures so they could teach it to their own students one day, or be able to understand why they are so important in music learning and teaching.
SB: " However, that could not be the case. Someone could catch up quickly, or find their own method to figuring out chord building and not really understand how to build a scale and do it just as easily."
DeleteJR: I'm having trouble finding a way to agree with that. Maybe someone who plays a harmonic instrument, such as piano or guitar...but I just don't think you can do (functional) chords without scales.
SB: "To an extent, there could be a bit more success when getting to more advanced theory concepts if you have a smaller background of scales and key signatures. For example, 12 tone row music theory is taught in the our Musicianship 4 class and focuses on making music based on using all 12 notes in a chromatic scale in a specific order. To an extent, someone could figure out the pattern that the notes are organized in without having to know intervals, key signatures, or scales."
DeleteJR: Interesting thought...should we teach 12-tone first? But in any case, you can't do it without intervals, because you need them to transform the row (i.e., to build the matrix.)
We often forget the importance of fundamentals as music students. Life is busy: we have jobs; we have lessons, and are typically taking five or six classes simultaneously. This makes it easy (especially while we are just starting our college experience) to fall behind in our schedules/ daily routines. Time passes and we are sitting in our 5:20 pm Theory Pedagogy class learning how to teach music theory without a proper foundation in the concepts for ourselves!
ReplyDeleteThis is a dilemma that is well known by each and every one of us, and the more we fall behind, the more we question, “What value does music theory actually have?” After all, one might ask themself “I may be uncertain with some of the “little” topics in theory, but I was still “good enough” to make it through all of the classes so far!” Some of us even have received a superior ranking in our theory classes, but still struggle with basic concepts. What then really is its value to us individually?
In my first year at Youngstown State University after going through the (in my opinion at the time) mind-numbingly bland Materials of Music class, I asked my applied professor what every student in that class was probably thinking: “Why are scales important?” He snickered cruelly and replied “Well, they comprise all of Western Music for a start…” It was after this that I realized without a firm (almost religious) practice of the concepts and exercises that continuously re-strengthen ones musical abilities (especially those dealing with ear training and recognizing audible phenomena in music), what value is there in what we understand but do not practice? This is expressed pretty clearly by Rogers when he claims we should be as familiarized with the concepts/practices of music theory as we should with our names.
LM: "Time passes and we are sitting in our 5:20 pm Theory Pedagogy class learning how to teach music theory without a proper foundation in the concepts for ourselves!"
DeleteJR: Oh come on....do you really expect me to believe you (or anyone, really) would have made it to upper division without a good grounding in fundamentals?
LM: "I asked my applied professor what every student in that class was probably thinking: “Why are scales important?” He snickered cruelly and replied “Well, they comprise all of Western Music for a start…” "
DeleteJR: Remind me to hug CK the next time I see him.
Seriously, Logan. These are very good observations. What I think you're trying to express is that, if someone doesn't practice something, and then feels (probably subconciously) insecure about it, then they are likely to form a bias that it isn't really important after all. As I often like to say, the market (usually the job market) will out.
DeleteRogers makes a strong point about mastery and how there is a distinct difference between it and knowledge. He states that, eventually, “the information must be so totally engraved into the natural thinking grooves that responses are swift, sure, and automatic.” I could not agree more, and generally I base this agreement on my own experience, or rather, lack of. I know all too well that it does no good to breeze through a review of the fundamentals. After all, as Rogers says, a weak foundation will result in struggle later on.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned in my last post, most of my undergraduate music theory was based on a fixed agenda, as in “we have this, that, and those to learn and this much time to learn it – no more and no less.” And again, I’m not blaming the professors, but because of that method, I find myself struggling even now. Granted, I did have a good grasp of the basics like scales and key signatures, but if we had spent more time on their relationships to advanced concepts of music theory, it would have made a world of difference. At the time I felt like I understood what was being taught, but wait about a week or when a new topic was introduced, and POOF. Gone.
Rodgers mentions that “sometimes a slower more thorough pace at the beginning permits more rapid development later on.” Having knowledge about some fundamentals helps, but in the long run, time is counts. This comes as a double edged sword, because everyone learns at a different pace, and there is not always sufficient time to accommodate these needs. So along with time, I would add consistency and practice. I believe there is always time for practice and there is always a way to go about consistently producing a good outcome.
Kathleen, thanks for your very personal story. If you ever want some easy and fun (I think) ways to brush up, let's have coffee sometime!
Delete(I love any excuse to have coffee.)
I would agree with Rogers as far as the notion that students who have not fully grasped the key concepts of fundamentals tend to struggle with bigger concepts in music theory, but I also would say that it really depends on the subject that being taught and what exactly the student is struggling with. I know that personally for me, I completely understand that system of solfege, note dictation and of course basic scales to key signature relationships. But when actually applying my premediatated knowledge to bigger concepts when composing four-part harmonies and dealing with counterpoint matters, I struggled severly. I think that a teacher of music theory must keep in mind three things: the natural ability of the student (what he or she was born with and the background from wence he or she came from), the students ability to withhold new information (the way that the student is interpreting larger scale concepts) and the teachers personal ability to connect with students in such a way where they can understand the end product which derives from smaller building blocks.
ReplyDelete