[Smt-talk] Theorists and scientists

Sun Jul 8 10:29:03 PDT 2012

Dear List,

I'd like to come at Ildar's questions from a different perspective.  

As a composer who teaches undergraduate theory, I have been following this conversation with great interest.  Right now, I share theory teaching with a theoretically-inclined musicologist (small liberal arts college with lots of bases to cover in a small department). At my current position and elsewhere, I've shared theory teaching responsibilities also with theorists, ethnomusicologists, and composers.

I'm much closer to the end of my academic career than the beginning.  When I was in college, most theory teaching (across the country) was done by composers.   Most undergraduate theory books were written by composers.  Theory was a young field, and where it existed, it tended to share administrative and intellectual space either with composition departments or musicology departments.  

Throughout my career, I have worked with and have studied with theorists, some very prominent, most excellent scholars.  As a graduate student, I concluded that I probably was capable of writing theory papers at a level comparable with those being published, but chose not to.  I decided that I would not want a job that required me to invest most of my time doing theory writing and research.  I wanted to direct my energies towards composing (and I've had quite a satisfactory composing career).  I also did not want to teach theory graduate seminars.  I did, and still do, have a great interest in teaching undergraduate theory (particularly the first two years).  And I keep an eye on the music theory world (including regularly reading this list).

I've noted differences in the ways theorists, ethnomusicologists, musicologists, and composers teach undergraduate theory.  Assuming a high level of skill at (and interest in) presenting the materials of core undergraduate theory, each brings something extra:  ethnomusicologists have particular authority in the realm of cultural associations, musicologists in historical associations.  Composers often have a high facility at manipulating notes (improvising with chalk at the board, quickly getting things to sound "better").  I would not say theorists have no capability in these areas -- no more than I would say that composers have no capability in theory.  The best musicians often can do it all, and most of us have abilities and interests beyond our narrowly defined specialty.  But each of us tends to do best what we do regularly.

I also note differences when the teachers have a high level of piano skills, enough to show how different theoretical interpretations might manifest in different performances; and including the ability to improvise, particularly if they can demonstrate, on the spot, differences among different writing solutions.  It may be that this kind of piano skill is as important as anything else.

I agree completely with Ildar that Music Theory is a demanding profession.  And though I know of non-theory-publishing composers who give spectacular graduate theory seminars, I would agree that generally speaking theorists are better equipped to teach higher levels of theory (upper division and graduate).  I also think theorists are more likely to inspire students to consider pursuing theory at a graduate level.  

However, I'm not certain that hiring a composer or other person who doesn't have a Ph.D. in theory jeopardizes the academic component of lower-division, core theory teaching.  I suspect, given the right person, that it does not.  I suspect, also, that for students who are headed towards performance, composition, ethnomusicology, musicology, or education, that non-theorists can be highly effective teachers, assuming they have a high level of theory skill, have the piano skills, and have an interest in continuing to improve as theory teachers.  

I know there are composers (and representatives of other specialities) who will seem to express enthusiasm for teaching lower-division theory at the time of hiring, but who secretly hope to get away from that after getting tenure.  There are theorists who also hope to get away from lower-division theory teaching, wanting to move towards exclusively running graduate seminars and guiding dissertations.  But there are also those of us who consider teaching lower-division theory among the most exciting things we do.  

For these reasons, it is disheartening for me to see a job posting restricted to Ph.D.s in theory when the theory teaching responsibilities will be undergraduate.  This is especially true in small departments that lack specialists in the other disciplines (departments that don't have composers, for example).  

Most of the musicians of my generation learned theory from composers.  I'd really hate to see that disappear.

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

On 7 Jul 2012, at 3:27 AM, Ildar Khannanov wrote:

> Dear Michael  and the List,
>  
> I think this discussion is as important as it is difficult to bring to a decisive conclusion. Who would argue that composers can become good theorists? On the other hand, there are two questions which can be of interest to any Search Committee hiring a composer for the position of a theorist:
> 1) How much time, actually, a candidate had invested in study of music theory per se? A mere fact that someone is a "composer" does not merit for desirable level of knowledge and skills in music theory. For example,  if there were two additional seminars in music theoy taken by a grad student in composition, resulting in some record in the transcript, this does not seem to be enough to teach 2500 years of theoretical achievements;
>  
> 2) How much time and energy a candidate is willing to invest in the work in the field of music theory after being hired? Will it be just a rutine job which covers for expenses incurred by active composing and promoting one's compositions? How often a candidate will be able to attend conferences, prepare and give papers, publish articles and books? Without this component, teaching music theory becomes another case of Mozart's Effect discussed earlier.
>  
> Music theory is a very demanding profession. In fact, it is the most academically demanding course of study in music.There are many things that a theorist should know. Riemann and Schenker studied law at a certain time of their careers. Is it important? Yes, inasmuch a theorist wants to form and defend his or her ideas. Knowledge of history of Europe is ultimately important. How about philosophy and math? Languages? Skills in harmony, cp and form must be on the level, exceeding that of any other major.
>  
>  If the two questions above are not answered, hiring a person who is not a theorist would jeopardize the academic component.
>  
> Best wishes,
>  
> Ildar Khannanov
> Professor of Music Theory
> Peabody Conservatory
> solfeggio7 at yahoo.com 
> 
> --- On Fri, 7/6/12, Michael Morse <mwmorse at bell.net> wrote:
> 
> From: Michael Morse <mwmorse at bell.net>
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Theorists and scientists
> To: smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
> Date: Friday, July 6, 2012, 7:57 AM
> 
> Professor de Velde,
> 
>   Although they may not articulate it directly, the reason so many here insist on musicianship and composition skill for theorists is because of the conception of music experience it can provide. Bluntly, the statement "music theory is the theory of music" depends entirely for its sense on that capacity. And even the most tenaciously blinkered positivist would agree that such a conception is not to be established by merely postulating a simplistic and arbitrary definition.
> 
>   For those of us who disagree that music theory is or should be a science, there is historical evidence in the futility so far of quantitative methods, and their copious but strikingly meager results. And there is a plain and axiomatic reason for this ongoing failure: qualitative problems cannot be solved quantitatively. Or, more precisely, quantitative analysis only succeeds to the extent that what is being quantified is coherent.
> 
>   I do agree that there are scientific dimensions to music theory and musical experience. Pythagorean investigations into the properties of scales and tonal systems are an indispensable part of the theoretical canvas. But these are not exceptions to my blunt generalizations; the calculable differences in intervallic structure of the various maqams, for example, and of untempered pitch systems in western music history, are entirely tangible elements of the music experience. Calculating these differences is substantial and germane music knowledge.
> 
>   But not everything in music is calculable. I don't agree that abjuring quantitative methods amounts to embracing anti-rational sentimentality, or some dingbat essentialism that tries to claim with a straight face that music "is" emotion rather than notes or numbers. On the contrary; it is music; that's more than complex enough!
> 
>   Music theory succeeds when it remembers its subject matter. And there are still many of us who disagree that psychology is a science, for just that reason. It was the science of "mind"; then, no, it was the science of "behaviour"; now, no again, it is the science of brain physiology processes. The last has worked a charm, because psychologists can poach from a real science. Unless and until it can come up with a substantial subject matter of its own, however, it will remain on the fringes of science. We in the music community have especially strong reasons to feel this way, given the spectacular recent charlatanism of the "Mozart Effect." To tar all psychology with the brush of that incident would be unfair. But, alas, it does illustrate the problem: quantification can never precede clear analysis of the subject matter. It will be "time" for computers to create symphonies when they're human. That's not sentimentality; that's respect for science.
> 
> MW Morse
> Trent University
> Peterborough, Oshawa
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org