Rogers, Chapter 5 (pp. 100-138).
Remember, you can always talk about any aspect of the reading, but here are some questions to consider, if you like.
1. Rogers begins the chapter by saying something that I think is probably obvious to us by now: that "dictation and sight singing should be thought of as opposite sides of the same coin." Were you (or are you) markedly better at one than the other? Why do you think that is? Or perhaps you're okay at both skills, but one of them developed more quickly than the other.
2. Rogers goes on to say that "a well-rounded ear training program includes at least two discernible phases: perception and context (or "musical relationships.") He says that this distinction is "between letting sound simply strike the ear drum and and plugging that sound into conceptual frameworks." Can you give an example of this? Perhaps an aural "event" that you learned --such as an interval, triad type, mode, or a certain progression--that you later recognized in a piece of real music? (I'm talking about something you discovered yourself--a "lightbulb" moment--not something the teacher necessarily pointed out.)
3. Other topics as you see fit! There's a lot of good stuff in here. Your responses are due Frida 10.3 by 11:59 pm.
In relation to whether I was better at sight singing or dictation, I feel like personally I had developed both skills simultaneously. As both skills are “part of the same coin,” or as I think of it, are the same roadway just leading in opposite directions, I feel like this means I had an effective theory I experience. If students can learn to perform each skill at the same rate and ultimately with the same ease, I feel that a music theory program has been effective in that student's ear training development. Drilling both on a consistent and ever varied basis seems to be the key. Of course, each class and each individual student will be different, but hopefully the teacher paying careful attention to which skill is stronger or weaker will help yield the same result at the conclusion of each semester.
ReplyDeleteAs I have been out of my undergraduate studies for a while, its frankly hard for me to remember an exact “aha” moment when it clicked for me outside of theory in an ensemble, music history, etc. I can say it took me a while to truly grasp some of the upper-level harmonic ideas from the Classic and Romantic including altered predominants including N6 and augmented 6ths. I remember listening to an example in Analytical Techniques class (essentially our “Theory V” at Akron) and FINALLY understanding the relationships in a musical and listening context. It was hard for me in Theory III to get that from just seeing the relationship visually in the music and translating it into sound in my head. When hearing it reviewed in context in Analytical Techniques, the ideas finally clicked for me and I could more readily pick out the chord in pieces and listenings.
I could say that maybe your Theory III teacher didn't play enough music in class, but I won't. Oops, I just did. :-)
DeleteI don't know if I told your class this story or not. (I get our class meetings mixed up with my theory 3 class--both are a lot of fun!), but I had a similar type of aha moment with +6 chords. If somebody reminds me, I'll tell the story on Wednesday.
Some of the points made in this chapter particularly stuck out as poignant in my reading. The quote about “developing the understanding ear and hearing mind” seems to be a great way of describing our ultimate goal for theory students. They must effectively synthesize what they see as black symbols on a light color/white page through the processor of the human mind into beautiful music. The goal of theory is developing someone's ability to effectively analyze, synthesize and produce what is otherwise gibberish symbols.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to listening vs. analysis, I found that an effective way to teach the concept is well summarized on page 103 when Rogers said “the road to follow can be simply stated: do as much listening as possible when teaching analysis and do as much analysis as possible when teaching ear training.” When I was actually in these classes as an undergraduate, I can remember thinking that they are separate subjects at first but then coming to realize that the written work and singing/listening work was all connected as a giant whole. I wish I would have come to that realization sooner!
I find Rogers' opinion of intervals interesting in that he does not like when theory teachers dwell too long on them. He says that this steals valuable time away from other subjects. I do not know whether or not I had too much/too little experience with intervals, but I am glad that my theory professors spent enough time on them for me to grasp easily in context!
I do however feel like my experience with theory was too focused on the vertical rather than the horizontal. Despite this, I blame myself for not coming to the connection between chords and harmonic rhythm sooner! I believe that I could have learned the relationship between chords and how they moved together as a whole more readily instead of analyzing chords individually for quality by focusing more on the progressions earlier in my studies.
Lastly, a point is made on page 111 that I wholeheartedly agree with in all aspects of education, not just in music theory. Rogers states that “In no sense is modern technology a replacement for proper classwork but is rather an adjunct to it.” As an educator for the last 10 years, I can attest people of all ages and for all skills learn more completely and wholly with a teacher presenting the material and while learning/discussing with fellow students an colleagues. There has been a targeting of parents in failing school systems and people who have been unsuccessful at the collegiate level before. These attacks are performed by some ingenious and devious individuals who promote online charter schools and universities. What a travesty! The learning experience is shunted when people learn robotically using only a computer and a screen. Education always has been and always will be an art facilitated by educators in a live setting and SUPPLEMENTED by technology, books and other methods!
OK, sorry for being a total windbag....also, I'll leave my soapbox now! :-)
NM: "I find Rogers' opinion of intervals interesting in that he does not like when theory teachers dwell too long on them. He says that this steals valuable time away from other subjects. I do not know whether or not I had too much/too little experience with intervals, but I am glad that my theory professors spent enough time on them for me to grasp easily in context!"
DeleteJR: I agree 100% with Rogers on this one. And a lot of my contemporaries are coming to the same realization. However, when he first said it, it was practically pedagogical heresy to talk about intervals that way!
NM: "The learning experience is shunted when people learn robotically using only a computer and a screen. Education always has been and always will be an art facilitated by educators in a live setting and SUPPLEMENTED by technology, books and other methods!"
DeleteJR: So. Very. Yes.
I personally have always been better at sight singing opposed to written theory. I think that this is so because singing, hearing pitches and relating notes to one another come quite natural to me. Although I do have perfect pitch, if you were to pay attention to my sight reading performances in class, they are not always perfect. One may think, "well, if you have perfect pitch, then why can't you read music perfectly?" My response to that would be it's not as easy as it may seem. When I speak of something that is "natural", I specifically mean something that I others or myself do not have to think about. It's even beyond the things like knowing your ABC's, because that is initially something that is taught, where as having perfect pitch is something that I would describe as something that I can "feel." But, when singing in solfege, what I am seeing and hearing, along with what I am thinking and saying are all somewhat different. I have done well with sight singing in the past, because I was able to create a personal connection with all four aspects, opposed to before I came to YSU, when all four of those things seemed to be serparate.
ReplyDeleteI believe I have struggled with written theory simply because I did not put in the time and brain power it took to actually make written theory as natural as my ability to hear pitches. It has been obvious that this would take more time, and unfortunately I have been known to be quite lazy when it comes to adapting to new things that don't come "natural" to me. I believe that written theory can become one in the same with sight singing, it just takes more practice. For example, growing up in church, I have always been able to harmonize at least a third above someone singing any given pitch as a reference. The fact that I grew up around four part harmony all the time allowed me to eventually be able to harmonize whenever I want to. If I were to practice four part writing in the Western Style of composition over and over until it all came natural to me, I believe I wouldn't have a problem. Another factor to consider is the rules that come along with written theory ("rule" is a very scary word). But just like singing in tune is a rule, these rules of written theory can be applied and then used for greater benefits (like getting good grades in theory) that will eventually be a part of life. Maybe.
Shanyse, Thank you so much for your honesty. I can't tell you how proud I am of where you've come, your development as a musician, and perhaps MOST importantly, your ability to self-reflect so wisely. Keep it up, girl!
DeleteWhen I began formal instruction on sight-singing and dictation at YSU, I'd already had some experience from my high school's theory course. I'd sung in an internationally known show choir, the Youngstown Connection, and various high level ensembles that helped train my ear. Yet, when it came down the Musicianship 1, I was mediocre at both. A lot of my experience had actually hindered my progress because I'd learned bad habits. As the semesters went on, my sight-singing drastically improved first through singing chord progressions with Dr. Reale; however, took another 6 months for my ears to fully grasp the understanding of listening to chords as a whole entity rather than individual solfege intervals. I began to hear a diminished seventh chord as opposed to stacked minor thirds. By the time I was in musicianship 4, I could sight-sing anything, dictate melodies with few mistakes, and finish all four voices and roman numerals in harmonic dictations in three to four listenings. I think back upon the image Dr. Root drew on the board of the brain, and how appropriate that image is for the idea of sight-singing and dictation “living” symbiotically off of each other. Without my abilities in singing, my ears would've taken much longer to develop to the level they are now.
ReplyDeleteAs to the specific piece, I can't say, but I remember sitting in orchestra and looking at my easy part in this piece. Being a bassoonist, our job in orchestra is to either chameleon ourselves with other instruments or stand out as the ridiculous color that suits the passage. In the piece we were playing, I saw an F# that in the next measure was written at a Gb. The modulation was made apparent by the key change a few bars later, but I took my horn off my face when I played those two measures of whole notes because I realized “this is a pivot chord modulation using an enharmonic respellling of the chord!”. It was only because of my training in dictation that I could hear that the two chords, even with upper voices changing, were of the same quality. I thought of that moment when I read the quote given in no2. I also linked the idea of listening with playing. If I had a dollar for every time I'd heard a conductor say “you're playing/singing AT the music, instead of performing it”, I would be well on my way to buying my own Heckel. (for those of you who don't know, Heckel is the KING company of bassoons, of which damaged/used models sell for roughly $20,000). Going along with the coin metaphor, it brought an image to my mind of aural skills being a quarter within a change purse of the musical journey. Through ear training alone, I feel like I'm twice the musician I was as an incoming freshman because I have learned not only the function of notes within a chord, but I can feel modulations and harmonic progressions on an entirely different level.
DL: " In the piece we were playing, I saw an F# that in the next measure was written at a Gb. The modulation was made apparent by the key change a few bars later, but I took my horn off my face when I played those two measures of whole notes because I realized “this is a pivot chord modulation using an enharmonic respellling of the chord!”"
DeleteJR: I love this story, and have a similar one (involving a Gr+6 modulation, even!) but in my story I was driving and missed my highway exit. (Thank God I didn't crash!)
When I was introduced to ear training, I had no previous knowledge of what it entailed. As I learned it though, I always thought of dictation and sight singing seperately and it wasn't until a year or so into my classes that I actually made the connection of how the two relate, I think that was because I was unsure how to think of it and how it actually worked. When I began, I was strong in dication and had no problem writing down the melody, it came very easy to me, but I was not the best sight singer. I knew how to match pitch and where the pitches “lived” in a scale, but I always had a hard time when there were any big interval jumps. As I made my way through theory, I started to see my dication skills were becoming weaker as my singing became stronger. I am still unsure why or how that had happened. I almost feel as if I was learning so much at once that my brain was having a hard time processing and grouping the different pitches, chords, intervals, etc., and that is my only idea of why that happened. Today, I still might be slightly ahead in sight singing. I have tremendously excelled in both areas, but still have a hard time figuring out what the first pitch of any dictated melody is. (Am I just thinking too much?)
ReplyDeleteIn real music, I get very excited when I can identify “sol-la-ti-do” (that being really the only thing I can identify), I can't recall the exact song, but I hear those pitches in almost everything I listen to. It wasn't until I was done with theory 4 that I was able to hear these things, even though I had been hearing those pitches for years previous to that. I know what to listen for, but still have a hard time finding certain chords or intervals in real music. I actually have an easier time hearing things I've learned from theory in my classical repertoire that I study, than I do in today's “pop music.” Even though the majority of today's music is composed in I and V, I can hear certain chords a lot easier in a Debussy Sonata. I feel like I spent most of my time being prepared more for the “classical” sound as opposed to what music is today and that is why I can analyze a piece from decades ago easier than today's music (even though, isn't today's music “simpler” than the classics?)
NA: "I actually have an easier time hearing things I've learned from theory in my classical repertoire that I study, than I do in today's “pop music.” Even though the majority of today's music is composed in I and V, I can hear certain chords a lot easier in a Debussy Sonata. I feel like I spent most of my time being prepared more for the “classical” sound as opposed to what music is today and that is why I can analyze a piece from decades ago easier than today's music (even though, isn't today's music “simpler” than the classics?)"
DeleteJR: I have a theory about this...I wonder if it's because the "Classical" rep is accessible through notation? Any classical piece you hear has a written score to go with it, whereas pop music, by and large, exists only in sound. Maybe you hear the chords in the Debussy because at some point you've seen them written down. Maybe?
Honestly, it’s really hard for me to write about this for two reasons:
ReplyDelete(1) I can get on my soapbox about ear training for hours.
(2) I agree with Rogers on most things.
The first thing I want to cover (and I’m going off-questions here) is on page 108-109. Rogers talks about each 7th chord having it’s own “flavor.” He talks about the tendencies and functional neutrality of the Mm and mm chords, respectively, but he writes about the fully diminished chord as a “trouble” chord. I wonder if this relates to what we talked about in class on Monday, how you can hear things in a certain way if you think it’s a possibility (imagine me singing “here comes the bride” to a minor 7th). Does this “trouble” idea apply the same way? I think it could, especially distinguishing between half and fully diminished. Even MM could feel “dangerous” to certain ears. Personally, I think it’s hard to stereotype (if you will) a chord in a certain setting. It may not always apply to all students.
I really appreciate how Rogers talks about contextuality of ear training. If I advocate for anything as a theory pedagogue, it’s applicable learning and usable skills. A specific example of this is the infamous “Do-Ti” test. If you don’t know what this is, it’s about recognizing diatonic chords using “Do” and “Ti”. If you can comfortably sing “Do” with a chord, it’s (most likely) either I/i, IV/iv, or vi/VI. If you can sing “Ti”, it’s iii/III, V, or viio/VII. The last chord, ii, is usually heard with a strong “Re”. Understanding this test and practicing it with a lot of different types of music, specifically that a student enjoys listening to, will help a student hear chords. Rogers talks about the importance of listening on page 113. I totally agree with him that students try to hear too much on the first playing. I really love the chord dictation that students practice here at YSU. It’s good for them to listen for chords and chord function, not getting lost in melodic lines and notation.
I remember learning the “Do-Ti” test and just feeling like it changed everything. It became (and continues to be) a game to figure out the progression of a song as quickly as I can. Training my ear in this way has helped me to distinguish between chords with only a little context. It’s a wonderful skill to have, and I really enjoy teaching students how easy chord detection can be.
OMG, how could I have forgotten about the "Do-Ti" test. It's not in my notes form last time because Dr. Wallace (from Dallas Baptist U, for those who don't know her) was a guest in my class and she talked about it. Let's hit this on Wednesday!
DeleteIn other news, I just had a tutoring session on hearing Pre-dominants with an Ear Training 3 student. (S)he insisted on trying to hear chord quality ("oh yeah, that's obviously a dominant 7th chord." Well no, it was actually half-diminished) instead of listening for CONTENT. (Is there a "Le"? A "Fi"? Both? Neither?)
In the previous topic of discussion we spoke about music theory and how learning intervals, scales, and other basic concepts is often mistaken to be the final destination in our music theory education. The truth is that what we learned in our theory classes solely comprised the tools absolutely needed to be able to take the next step towards making practical, logical realizations about music. I believe the same can be said in terms of learning to recognize interval/chord qualities and inversions of chords. The ability to quickly recognize these individual phenomena without context is also just the beginning. Therefore without a context they represent nothing more than exercises for skills that, without a practical application, remain inconsequential. It is with putting these skills into a practice that makes them worthwhile. The author provides an interesting quote in regards to this: "Have you ever heard someone read a sentence in a language not completely familiar to him?……no matter how correctly without grasping in his own mind the musical idea which the composer had, the phrase is bound to sound as lusterless and unintelligible as a sentence read aloud by an uncomprehending reader."
ReplyDeleteWithout stretching my comments to an unreasonable length, I'll share a little bit of my personal experiences in regards to ear/mind training to offer perhaps a different perspective: Before I began studying at Youngstown State University I had absolutely no training in music theory, intervals, transposition, chords or anything of that nature. I was fortunate, however, to perform in Cleveland in a variety of ensembles during my high school years. With these experiences also came an exposure to a variety of musical styles. Without any formal training in music theory (or my instrument for that matter) I had to rely heavily on what I heard in ensembles and from the musicians around me. This created a necessity in part for recognizing the recurring harmonic patterns in music and how these patterns affected melodies and interpretation of music. With this said, I felt pretty confident in my lab classes because I was forced to train myself to listen and therefore built responses for that particular skill (to make reference to the "feel" that Shanyse was talking about earlier). This is what I believe Rogers was trying to distinguish as the difference between ear and mind training.
ReplyDeleteLMJ: "Without any formal training in music theory (or my instrument for that matter) I had to rely heavily on what I heard in ensembles and from the musicians around me. This created a necessity in part for recognizing the recurring harmonic patterns in music and how these patterns affected melodies and interpretation of music."
DeleteJR: I love this story too! I had a similar experience in my childhood to yours (and probably even more so, to Shanyse's.) I grew up hearing, and later singing, four-part harmony in church. My parents--and my grandmother-- were church musicians so I was basically immersed in these sounds all the time. When college theory came around, it was really just a matter of labeling what I'd been hearing all my life.
My sight-singing training began in my competitive high school choir. We would compete ever year and as part of the competitions were to sight-read 3 pieces of music. Solfege sight-singing would be drilled daily with moveable “do” and “la” based minor. It was so ingrained in our brains that we could sing any song by sight. I also had lots of practices at sight reading rhythms and pitches from playing the alto saxophone, so utilizing both skills helped tremendously when I had to apply them in college. When I started music theory at the collegiate level, it was the first time I was introduced to any method of dictation. At first it proved feel natural, I could generally hear the rhythms and pitch relations and know how to notate them based on what I had sung (or played). I didn’t even seem to have any problems with atonal dictation or sight-singing (and that stuff can get pretty strange!)
ReplyDeleteWe used the MacGamut software to practice dictation, and at this point is when I feel my abilities went downhill. I can only think that it is the uncertainty that occurs with midi files, because when I heard a regular piano I could still figure out things just fine. (I’m curious as to whether or not anyone else has this kind of problem?) Nowadays, I find that I can still sight-sing fairly well because we utilize the ability in the choirs here. In regards to dictation, I feel as though it could pose problems here and there because I have been out of practice. I don't think that I have a preference to learning either "first" but I do think that both should be practiced diligently until they feel like a natural ability.
Well, I've never been a MacGamut fan. I do think that it can supplement "real-music" exercises, but unfortunately teachers can come to rely on it too much. This happens for a variety of reasons--many well-intentioned--mostly the fact that there is so little class time in which to get everything covered, so dictation gets "outsourced."
DeleteI think there are better ways to accomplish the same things though. Happily, there is a trend in ear training pedagogy toward transcription homework--listening to real music and either writing it out, or answering questions about it.
Thanks, everybody for these wonderful comments! They will make great class discussion on Wednesday.
ReplyDelete