In the second post of this series, I suggested three possible alternative paradigms to music theory as it is traditionally taught: a music perception/cognition approach; a performance studies approach; and a semiotics approach. In this post I'll talk a bit about what a music perception/cognition approach might look like as an undergraduate four-semester sequence, as well as the pros and cons of such an approach.
(A brief disclaimer: I wouldn't classify myself as a "cognition guy," so please let me know if my facts aren't straight. I should also say that I'm proceeding under the distinction that music perception is how the sounds go into our ear and are processed by our brain; cognition is how we understand those sounds. I could see a two-semester course in perception and a two-semester course in cognition taking the place of the traditional four semesters of harmony.)
An approach to music theory through music cognition would attempt to answer the question "what happens when I hear music?" or perhaps "how do I hear music?" This approach would be much more empirical than music theory as it is taught now, and, as a result, possibly easier for the students to follow.
At Texas Tech (and at many other institutions, I think), we treat aural skills as a lab class that accompanies the written theory sections. In the music perception model, aural skills could really become a lab class, with students designing and carrying out experiments based on the material being discussed in the lecture.
As I've said in the other posts, all students would need a semester of basic music notation literacy: spelling scales, intervals, triads, etc. in order to have a common language in which to converse. Other fundamental concepts in this approach would be basic acoustics, and some anatomy and physiology (at the very least of the ear and brain).*
The curriculum would then progress by looking at music fundamentals through the lens of music perception. David Huron's book Sweet anticipation features some material that might serve as a good starting point. Chapter 5 of Huron's book discusses statistical properties of music. Huron cites studies that survey a wide variety of musics--not just Western art music--and arrives at a set of parameters that are common to the majority of them. Huron (and the researchers he cites) discover that melodies tend to use small intervals; that large leaps are more likely to ascend and that steps are more likely to descend; that a progression of steps wants to continue in the same direction by the same size interval; and that melodies tend to be arch-shaped. Most of this is musical common sense, I would say, but Huron supports all of these assertions with empirical data. What's more is that he frames the discussion in terms of expectations: here's what we expect music to do. This certainly opens the doors for a variety of in-class experiments, compositional and improvisational activities, and analysis of aberrant cases.
Probe-tone studies could provide an introduction to tonality and non-chord tones. In a probe-tone study, listeners are provided with a series of notes called the "context." A probe tone is then played and the listener is asked to rate how well the probe tone fits into the context. Given a context of the C-major scale and the probe tone C, most (if not all) listeners would say that the C definitely fits into the given context. Given again the C-major scale context and a C# probe tone, most listeners would say that it does not fit very well with the given context. These experiments could then be used to discuss non-tonal musics by giving a variety of contexts and probe tones, possibly even probe chords or probe sets.
Huron's article "Tone and Voice: A derivation of the rules of voice leading from perceptual principles" (Music perception 19/1 (2001)) could serve as an introduction to part writing. An exercise might consist of having students analyze errors that would confuse the listener with reference to the principles outlined in the article. Such an approach--one rooted in perception--would allow for this exercise to work with a variety of musics. One could discuss the deviation from these principles in a work of, say, Webern.
Any number of the available perception and cognition studies could be refined for incorporation into the undergraduate curriculum. Upper level courses might venture into the realms of cognitive science (conceptual metaphors, embodiment, etc.), brain disorders and music (amusia, perfect pitch, etc.).
To conclude, here are what I see as the strengths of this approach:
The disadvantages:
Next time, I'll talk about a performance-studies approach to music theory. Comments, as always, are welcome.
*From a purely practical standpoint, courses in this curriculum could count towards any science core curriculum requirement that might be in place at an institution. As n undergraduate, I earned math core curriculum credit for my 20th-c. theory requirement and science credit for a computers in music course. This double-dipping might allow for students to take more credits in music theory since they don't need 3-6 credits of an outside science. Alternatively, the A&P and/or acoustics classes could come from outside the school of music and count as their science electives, while offering the students more than just a cursory view of both topics.
(A brief disclaimer: I wouldn't classify myself as a "cognition guy," so please let me know if my facts aren't straight. I should also say that I'm proceeding under the distinction that music perception is how the sounds go into our ear and are processed by our brain; cognition is how we understand those sounds. I could see a two-semester course in perception and a two-semester course in cognition taking the place of the traditional four semesters of harmony.)
An approach to music theory through music cognition would attempt to answer the question "what happens when I hear music?" or perhaps "how do I hear music?" This approach would be much more empirical than music theory as it is taught now, and, as a result, possibly easier for the students to follow.
At Texas Tech (and at many other institutions, I think), we treat aural skills as a lab class that accompanies the written theory sections. In the music perception model, aural skills could really become a lab class, with students designing and carrying out experiments based on the material being discussed in the lecture.
As I've said in the other posts, all students would need a semester of basic music notation literacy: spelling scales, intervals, triads, etc. in order to have a common language in which to converse. Other fundamental concepts in this approach would be basic acoustics, and some anatomy and physiology (at the very least of the ear and brain).*
The curriculum would then progress by looking at music fundamentals through the lens of music perception. David Huron's book Sweet anticipation features some material that might serve as a good starting point. Chapter 5 of Huron's book discusses statistical properties of music. Huron cites studies that survey a wide variety of musics--not just Western art music--and arrives at a set of parameters that are common to the majority of them. Huron (and the researchers he cites) discover that melodies tend to use small intervals; that large leaps are more likely to ascend and that steps are more likely to descend; that a progression of steps wants to continue in the same direction by the same size interval; and that melodies tend to be arch-shaped. Most of this is musical common sense, I would say, but Huron supports all of these assertions with empirical data. What's more is that he frames the discussion in terms of expectations: here's what we expect music to do. This certainly opens the doors for a variety of in-class experiments, compositional and improvisational activities, and analysis of aberrant cases.
Probe-tone studies could provide an introduction to tonality and non-chord tones. In a probe-tone study, listeners are provided with a series of notes called the "context." A probe tone is then played and the listener is asked to rate how well the probe tone fits into the context. Given a context of the C-major scale and the probe tone C, most (if not all) listeners would say that the C definitely fits into the given context. Given again the C-major scale context and a C# probe tone, most listeners would say that it does not fit very well with the given context. These experiments could then be used to discuss non-tonal musics by giving a variety of contexts and probe tones, possibly even probe chords or probe sets.
Huron's article "Tone and Voice: A derivation of the rules of voice leading from perceptual principles" (Music perception 19/1 (2001)) could serve as an introduction to part writing. An exercise might consist of having students analyze errors that would confuse the listener with reference to the principles outlined in the article. Such an approach--one rooted in perception--would allow for this exercise to work with a variety of musics. One could discuss the deviation from these principles in a work of, say, Webern.
Any number of the available perception and cognition studies could be refined for incorporation into the undergraduate curriculum. Upper level courses might venture into the realms of cognitive science (conceptual metaphors, embodiment, etc.), brain disorders and music (amusia, perfect pitch, etc.).
To conclude, here are what I see as the strengths of this approach:
- Because it's brain-based and not score-based, it has the ability to transcend repertoires, putting them all on more or less equal footing
- The availability of empirical evidence to support the claims, as well as the repeatability of these experiments will doubtless be more compelling to students
The disadvantages:
- Music perception and cognition has, to some extent, only been able to grapple with the simplest elements of music. A discussion of the perception of musical form, for instance, might be off the table (are there studies to this effect? Perhaps Robert Gjerdingen's recent book might be a good starting point)
- To do this right, departments might need to purchase a fair amount of lab equipment. I suspect most of this would not be terribly expensive, but it's a significant additional expense none the less.
Next time, I'll talk about a performance-studies approach to music theory. Comments, as always, are welcome.
*From a purely practical standpoint, courses in this curriculum could count towards any science core curriculum requirement that might be in place at an institution. As n undergraduate, I earned math core curriculum credit for my 20th-c. theory requirement and science credit for a computers in music course. This double-dipping might allow for students to take more credits in music theory since they don't need 3-6 credits of an outside science. Alternatively, the A&P and/or acoustics classes could come from outside the school of music and count as their science electives, while offering the students more than just a cursory view of both topics.