[Smt-talk] First Species Question

[David Froom]

As Donna Doyle points out, DT's Josquin example has a context.  It is  
fabulously beautiful, the way Josquin repeats the measures with the G/ 
F-Eb 2-3 4th beat resolution twice (trading voices) before having the  
soprano leap across to create those beautiful consecutive 5ths.  I do  
hear the 5ths, but, having had this set up by the previous measures, I  
hear the F resolving to Eb as well -- which for me, mitigates the  
consecutive 5th sound at this moment (consecutive 5ths are otherwise  
completely avoided).  Further context is that the section immediately  
following is obsessed with rising 5-6 chains, so-called consonant  
suspension chains, in which the strong-beat fifth is treated as  
dissonant to the 6th.  At least that's what I hear, and when I hear  
it, I connect it to m. 51.

I understand from being a casual reader of this list that DT has a  
great interest in finding historical use justification for what we  
(sometimes mindlessly) teach in our theory classes.  And he raises  
incredibly interesting questions.  But for me, the questions this  
points to are:  what are we really teaching when we teach two years of  
undergraduate theory the way we do?  What are our aims and desired  
learning outcomes?

I am coming at this as a composer who has taught theory to  
undergraduates for 30 years.  I am not a theorist.  I don't write  
papers.  I did well in theory as a student throughout my composition  
training (BA, MM, DMA at fine schools, where I had teachers who were  
among our most prominent theorists), I learned enough theory to be  
able to read theory articles and understand them. I try to keep up  
with the latest ideas about theory pedagogy, and am generally aware of  
some of the hot theory research areas. I am also an excellent teacher.

I have become comfortable with the arbitrary rules we teach.  I do not  
pretend that I am teaching students to write chorales in the Baroque  
Lutheran style -- and I tell my students this. I've tried counterpoint  
both ways (style imitation and strict Salzer/Schachter rules), and I  
prefer the latter.   For me, the ultimate goal of my theory classes is  
to get students to be able to read music with some understanding, and  
to some extent, to introduce them to aspects of tonal esthetics (what  
sounds "good" and why that might be so -- or at least to show them  
that the rule-following exercises usually sound much better than the  
rule-violating ones).

And anyway, when students write consecutive 5ths, they usually sound  
awful!

So for me, writing exercises with strict rules are like writing  
exercises in an English class:  not literature, but learning to  
control the rules as a way of becoming better readers and thinkers.  I  
want my students to be aware of when voices cross or overlap, when  
their writing contains consecutive 5ths or 8ves in two voices, which  
tones are melodically or harmonically dissonant and how the voices  
with those dissonant tones progress.  I want them to understand  
"idiomatic" chord progressions and phrase construction.  I know the  
repertoire is replete with examples of gorgeous music by great  
composers who "break" the rules -- but those are typically for a  
reason, in a context.  Literature and student essay writing are  
different.  Obviously writers who "violate" rules (about punctuation,  
spelling, capitalization, sentence construction, paragraph  
construction, narrative flow) know what they are doing, and do so for  
a reason.  They know those rules, but have expressive reasons for  
ignoring them.  I don't need to have a list of how many times in  
literature one can find missing commas.  I want to know the currently  
understood rules for comma usage, and I want teachers to teach them,  
and I'm not bothered when I see violations of them in fine literature.

I'm not saying DT's interest is misplaced or uninteresting.  It is  
fabulously interesting, and I'm always happy to see his posts.  For  
me, his observations and questions and the discussions around them  
reinforce what I have come to understand is the reason I teach what I  
teach.  I'm not teaching composition in a theory class, and I am  
comfortable with that.

David Froom
Professor and Chair
Music Department
St. Mary's College of Maryland