Recently in our department we've been talking about two main philosophical approaches to teaching theory. The first approach involves teaching students to become keen analysts by having them look at and study a lot of music and write about what they uncover. This approach is, of course, supplemented by a variety of part-writing type exercises. As a final project in a course like this, we might have students write a paper detailing their analysis of a Mozart minuet.
The second approach is compositional. Students are taught to emulate models from the past by composing original music that manifests a set of stylistic conventions. A final project in this class might involve asking the students to compose a minuet in the style of Mozart.
Certainly most theory curricula exhibit a balance between these two things, but it seems to me that the analytical approach is gradually usurping the compositional approach.* Forgive my generalizations, but it seems to me that the compositional approach stems from a time when composition and theory were basically the same thing, hence, this approach is favored by an earlier generation of pedagogues. It also seems logical to me that this approach is favored chiefly by composers. Music theorists (i.e., not composers who teach theory--again, I'm generalizing) seem to prefer the more analytically oriented approach.
This dichotomy raises the question (to me, at least): what should students be able to do when they complete the undergraduate theory sequence?
I've heard complaints from a variety of sources (sometimes myself included) that our students can't part-write. I'm forced to wonder, though, is that really so important to an understanding of how music works? What if they can't part-write their way out of a paper bag, but have a keen eye for uncovering the motivic structure in a Beethoven piano sonata? What if they can't part-write but can compose a prelude in the style of Chopin? Of course, both of these tasks would be difficult (but not impossible, I suspect) without a firm grounding in part writing. We might ask, which of these students has a greater understanding of the music that they are studying?
At Texas Tech, we have a very large music education department, and many of them are band people. Most of the literature that these people have played/will play/will conduct does not hail from the common-practice era, but rather from the last century or so. I think we could say the same about the choir students as well. And most of it is not strictly atonal in the Fortean set-theory sense. Will these students be able to engage their repertoire using the tools we give them in the undergraduate core theory sequence? We also have a Vernacular Music Center that trains people in the musics of a variety of cultures. Will part writing, stylistic composition, or anything we do in the undergraduate sequence help these people? I suspect not.
Part of the issue is understanding the repertoire the students bring with them into the classroom. In the past, students could be expected to arrive on campus and be more or less familiar with the canonical works of Western music. Students had the sounds of Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, and Mahler in their ears, and could thus relate fairly easily to what was being taught in the theory curriculum, which was designed precisely to illuminate that kind of music. Today, however, it seems like the students come in with a much different repertoire--film music, video game music, wind ensemble music, contemporary choral music--and thus are baffled when Music Theory doesn't seem to tell them very much about their music.
During our summer session, Dr. Martens will be offering a Wind Music Styles class, which, as I understand it, will be a survey of wind band literature from the past 100-150 years examined from an analytical perspective. The class is targeted at Master's students who are returning to TTU for the Master's degree (we have a summer Master's program in music ed.) after being in the schools for any length of time. This course takes the repertoire which many of these students are probably familiar (I suspect they'll at least feel more at home with this literature--even if they don't know it--than they would with Bach, Haydn, and Beethoven) and examines it on its own terms.
Now there are certain elements that I think must be addressed regardless of instrument, major, favored repertoire, etc. Students should be able to read, spell scales (not just major and minor, but octatonic, pentatonic, whole-tone, the modes, etc.), identify intervals, read rhythms--basically that which is taught in a fundamentals class.
But what happens after that? Is common-practice harmony still so important? If not, what will take its place?
I'll speculate on these issues in the next few posts. I would welcome your speculations in the Comments...
*witness a variety of recent textbooks written by people who are predominantly theorists (Clendinning/Marvin, Gauldin, Roig-Francoli**) as opposed to those written by composers (Kostka, Kennan, Piston).
**Roig-Francoli is quite an accomplished composer, but it seems to me he has a bigger footprint in the theory world.
The second approach is compositional. Students are taught to emulate models from the past by composing original music that manifests a set of stylistic conventions. A final project in this class might involve asking the students to compose a minuet in the style of Mozart.
Certainly most theory curricula exhibit a balance between these two things, but it seems to me that the analytical approach is gradually usurping the compositional approach.* Forgive my generalizations, but it seems to me that the compositional approach stems from a time when composition and theory were basically the same thing, hence, this approach is favored by an earlier generation of pedagogues. It also seems logical to me that this approach is favored chiefly by composers. Music theorists (i.e., not composers who teach theory--again, I'm generalizing) seem to prefer the more analytically oriented approach.
This dichotomy raises the question (to me, at least): what should students be able to do when they complete the undergraduate theory sequence?
I've heard complaints from a variety of sources (sometimes myself included) that our students can't part-write. I'm forced to wonder, though, is that really so important to an understanding of how music works? What if they can't part-write their way out of a paper bag, but have a keen eye for uncovering the motivic structure in a Beethoven piano sonata? What if they can't part-write but can compose a prelude in the style of Chopin? Of course, both of these tasks would be difficult (but not impossible, I suspect) without a firm grounding in part writing. We might ask, which of these students has a greater understanding of the music that they are studying?
At Texas Tech, we have a very large music education department, and many of them are band people. Most of the literature that these people have played/will play/will conduct does not hail from the common-practice era, but rather from the last century or so. I think we could say the same about the choir students as well. And most of it is not strictly atonal in the Fortean set-theory sense. Will these students be able to engage their repertoire using the tools we give them in the undergraduate core theory sequence? We also have a Vernacular Music Center that trains people in the musics of a variety of cultures. Will part writing, stylistic composition, or anything we do in the undergraduate sequence help these people? I suspect not.
Part of the issue is understanding the repertoire the students bring with them into the classroom. In the past, students could be expected to arrive on campus and be more or less familiar with the canonical works of Western music. Students had the sounds of Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, and Mahler in their ears, and could thus relate fairly easily to what was being taught in the theory curriculum, which was designed precisely to illuminate that kind of music. Today, however, it seems like the students come in with a much different repertoire--film music, video game music, wind ensemble music, contemporary choral music--and thus are baffled when Music Theory doesn't seem to tell them very much about their music.
During our summer session, Dr. Martens will be offering a Wind Music Styles class, which, as I understand it, will be a survey of wind band literature from the past 100-150 years examined from an analytical perspective. The class is targeted at Master's students who are returning to TTU for the Master's degree (we have a summer Master's program in music ed.) after being in the schools for any length of time. This course takes the repertoire which many of these students are probably familiar (I suspect they'll at least feel more at home with this literature--even if they don't know it--than they would with Bach, Haydn, and Beethoven) and examines it on its own terms.
Now there are certain elements that I think must be addressed regardless of instrument, major, favored repertoire, etc. Students should be able to read, spell scales (not just major and minor, but octatonic, pentatonic, whole-tone, the modes, etc.), identify intervals, read rhythms--basically that which is taught in a fundamentals class.
But what happens after that? Is common-practice harmony still so important? If not, what will take its place?
I'll speculate on these issues in the next few posts. I would welcome your speculations in the Comments...
*witness a variety of recent textbooks written by people who are predominantly theorists (Clendinning/Marvin, Gauldin, Roig-Francoli**) as opposed to those written by composers (Kostka, Kennan, Piston).
**Roig-Francoli is quite an accomplished composer, but it seems to me he has a bigger footprint in the theory world.