I'd like to submit the following two situations for comment:
1. In aural skills class, a student of mine--a sophomore music major--just finished singing a melody. She sung it quite well: pitch and rhythm were quite good. My only complaint was that the melody was marked Adagio and she sang it at a fairly brisk pace. I asked her if she knew what Adagio meant, to which she responded "I have no idea."
Surprised by that exchange, I gave the class a quiz the next day:
The results worried me: about half the class earned 100%; the other half, not so good (to put it mildly). I had just assumed that they would've been exposed to these terms in ensemble, or private lessons, or music history, or any number of other places. Clearly they have not been, or if they have been, they certainly didn't stick.
2. On the sophomore harmony midterm, I asked students to describe briefly the texture of a movement for string quartet by Webern (op. 28, II, for those of you playing along at home). I had a spectacularly wide range of answers that touched on everything but (what I understand as) texture. Students mentioned dynamics, instrumentation, rhythm, rests, set classes, and more.
When I think of texture, the words that immediately come to mind are monophonic (a single, unaccompanied melodic line); homophonic, which I break down into song style/melody+accompaniment and homorhythmic (i.e., Bach chorale); and polyphonic (multiple independent lines sounding more or less simultaneously). I offer "imitative" as a sub-category of polyphony. As we went over the test, I asked my students if they had ever encountered any of these words in their musical travels. I was met with 27 blank stares. Whether or not they encountered them, clearly they didn't stick.
Here again is a concept that I don't know is the domain of "music theory," per se: I learned about it in music history class (heck, Kamien's music appreciation textbook--as well as many others--teach this early and very clearly).
Should we be teaching the students about tempo terms, texture, putting verbs in sentences, etc., etc., etc.? If not, where else are they going to get it?
I'm thinking more and more about the possibility of a first semester intro to musicianship class that would be required of all students and that would get some of this business out of the way (along with the putting verbs in sentences, general issues of responsibility, and the like).
It seems to me, too, that students are very compartmental. If I learn it in theory class, how could it possibly relate to music history class, or my private lesson? Those are, after all, different things that take place in different rooms with different people at different times.
Thoughts? Similar experiences?
1. In aural skills class, a student of mine--a sophomore music major--just finished singing a melody. She sung it quite well: pitch and rhythm were quite good. My only complaint was that the melody was marked Adagio and she sang it at a fairly brisk pace. I asked her if she knew what Adagio meant, to which she responded "I have no idea."
Surprised by that exchange, I gave the class a quiz the next day:
Arrange the following tempo terms in order from slowest to fastest:
Presto Adagio Allegro Allegretto Largo Andante
The results worried me: about half the class earned 100%; the other half, not so good (to put it mildly). I had just assumed that they would've been exposed to these terms in ensemble, or private lessons, or music history, or any number of other places. Clearly they have not been, or if they have been, they certainly didn't stick.
2. On the sophomore harmony midterm, I asked students to describe briefly the texture of a movement for string quartet by Webern (op. 28, II, for those of you playing along at home). I had a spectacularly wide range of answers that touched on everything but (what I understand as) texture. Students mentioned dynamics, instrumentation, rhythm, rests, set classes, and more.
When I think of texture, the words that immediately come to mind are monophonic (a single, unaccompanied melodic line); homophonic, which I break down into song style/melody+accompaniment and homorhythmic (i.e., Bach chorale); and polyphonic (multiple independent lines sounding more or less simultaneously). I offer "imitative" as a sub-category of polyphony. As we went over the test, I asked my students if they had ever encountered any of these words in their musical travels. I was met with 27 blank stares. Whether or not they encountered them, clearly they didn't stick.
Here again is a concept that I don't know is the domain of "music theory," per se: I learned about it in music history class (heck, Kamien's music appreciation textbook--as well as many others--teach this early and very clearly).
Should we be teaching the students about tempo terms, texture, putting verbs in sentences, etc., etc., etc.? If not, where else are they going to get it?
I'm thinking more and more about the possibility of a first semester intro to musicianship class that would be required of all students and that would get some of this business out of the way (along with the putting verbs in sentences, general issues of responsibility, and the like).
It seems to me, too, that students are very compartmental. If I learn it in theory class, how could it possibly relate to music history class, or my private lesson? Those are, after all, different things that take place in different rooms with different people at different times.
Thoughts? Similar experiences?