[Smt-talk] Princeton and Theory

[Stephen Jablonsky]

David's post begs the question "What do we mean by teaching theory?"

From my vantage point it seems that the job of teaching theory involves three things: (1) rudiments and labeling, (2) analysis of complete pieces, and (3) composition. Item number 1 can be handled by most any competent musician. 
It should start with the naming of chords and the identification of nonharmonic tones, something today's students struggle with mightily. Assigning chord functions with numbers should come later.

Item number 2 is up for grabs. There are many people teaching theory who have little or no real experience at composition. They are usually very bright and musical but have not spent the countless hours of making compositional choices that are the hallmark of any composer. I have often wondered whether composers make better theory teachers because they understand the process of creating music from scratch? (Should a food critic have to know how to cook?) Over the past decade I have seen so many theory articles in scholarly journals with astounding charts, graphs, and mathematical calculations that dazzle the eye but seem to avoid what is essential to the understanding of the magic and mystery of music created by the masters. The desperate attempt to understand the compositional process of inspired geniuses often seems futile or at least humbling. It is analogous to the attempt to understand human beings by counting their bones and muscles and studying their chemistry--it is highly informative but tells you nothing about the Hamlet, the Ode to Joy, or the Sistine Chapel.

This brings us to item number 3. Is composition part of the theory curriculum or is it a separate item? Theorists very often shy away from including real compositional instruction in their syllabi and for good reason. That may be the reason that so many theory books spend almost no time discussing the structure or composition of melodies. Composition instruction begins with melodies. Most everybody goes right to the chord stuff. A few theorists I know like to teach species counterpoint because it is rule driven and is easy to teach by prescription, but never get to the less structured realm of tonal counterpoint. I have always felt that students should be able to write melodies in a variety of styles on a given chord progression; folk tunes in Theory 1, 32-bar standards in Theory 2, and free composition in Theory 3.  The Bach chorale stuff should come later if at all. My colleagues and I buried Riemenschneider long ago in favor of Gershwin, Berlin, and Porter, and yes, the Beatles. Rather than stick to the age- old model of SATB instruction I like to get the students to be able to write in a variety of piano textures starting with just a melody and a bass line, then we add one note to the right hand, and later a third note. Three semesters later we end up with advanced jazz voicings.

Prof. Stephen Jablonsky, Ph.D.
Music Department Chair
The City College of New York
160 Convent Avenue S-72
New York NY 10031
(212) 650-7663


On Nov 22, 2010, at 8:15 AM, David Froom wrote:

> On 21 Nov 2010, at 11:31 AM, Jane Clendinning wrote:
> 
>> . . . and all the more reason for universities to hire persons (no matter what their degree name) who have intensive training in and deep understanding of music theory and who are active in music theory circles (which means they have a way to continue learning) to teach music theory content beyond the most basic.
> 
> The issue for me is what is meant by "beyond the most basic," and by what is meant by "active in music theory circles."  The US has a long and rich history of composers being involved in the teaching of music theory and composers writing theory textbooks.  Before theory doctorates were as common as they now are, I suspect that most theory teachers at most institutions were composers. This was true for me as a student during the 1970s, and it is still true in many places.
> 
> If by "most basic" you mean undergraduate curriculum, and if by "active in music theory circles," you mean, at a minimum, reading lists like this one or keeping up with the most recent materials of undergraduate theory pedagogy,  I can agree with you.  I suspect, though, that many would like to require much more involvement with music theory circles and be far more restrictive about teaching.  In my experience, active composers have been among the most gifted theory teachers, throughout the curriculum.  While there are many composers who are active in the theory field, and some of those among the most distinguished theorists (while lacking theory degrees), there are also many more who have chosen to devote all of their creative energies to composition while remaining curious about theory and while continuing to be effective and inspiring theory teachers.
> 
> Composers teaching theory are not the equivalent of trombonists teaching clarinet (or theory).  In the legitimate attempt to define areas of expertise and claim territory, it would be a tragedy, I think, and to the serious detriment of the field, were this to lead to the elimination of active composers who don't write articles from the theory classroom.
> 
> David Froom
> Professor and Chair
> Music Department
> St. Mary's College of Maryland
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20101124/e8e0d944/attachment-0004.htm>