[Smt-talk] Keyboards for theory classes?

[Benjamin, William]

Dear list members:

This is one of those topics that get recycled every few years, and not only in forums like this one, but in departmental meetings. 

It seems to me that the question of whether to base the theory curriculum on keyboard work is inseparable from the subject matter that one wants to teach.  The classical-music canon was largely written by composers who learned their craft, as children, realizing figured bass partimenti and engaging in related activity.  This is true whether or not they were also, even primarily, string or wind players. Since the 18th century, and down to our own time, the theoretical mainstream has derived from this pedagogy because the music we study--even if using all sorts of new ideas--was constructed with an underlying four-part continuo texture at its base.  This is as true of Wagner and Brahms as of Bach and Mozart. It is even true of much early 20th-century music. So if you want students to get to know this music as deeply as possible, the best way top do it is to engage them at the keyboard. This is the case whether one is talking of acquiring basic knowledge, about chordal voice-leading, or doing what is necessary to understand this music in depth: making reductions.

If one has other aims in mind--concentrating on other repertoires, working in variable tuning systems, teaching musical thinking mainly through "original" composition, or even focusing on the standard repertoire but with an emphasis on things other than chords (there are ways to do this), the keyboard may not be so advantageous and could even become an impediment.  Perhaps the day is approaching when the hegemony of standard tonality over theory courses will end.  I see little evidence of this yet, but I suspect it is what some on this list would like.

As to Rick Cohn's comment that there are very fine theorists who aren't keyboardists, this goes without saying, or should.  But today there are very fine theorists whose expertise does not lie in  tonal music.  So we return to my basic point: what do we aim to teach?

Finally, whatever it is that one wants students to learn, it is hard to imagine a music curriculum in which the musical imagination didn't have a physical component, one of kinaesthetic imagery associated with making musical sound.  So it seems to me pretty close to essential that the teaching of music theory be connected to physically making sound in some way. To be honest, though, I don't think that confronting eighteen-year-olds with keyboards for the first time is the way to do this. A rare individual can pick up keyboard knowledge at this stage, but most music students are better off relating to the instrument they play (I don't think the solo voice is much help here, but rich choral experience is invaluable). Unfortunately, it is not easy to devise teaching materials for tonal music based on the physical imagery that derives from playing a cello or a bassoon.  People who play those instruments ought to be able to write superb bass lines, but if the course is about nothing but four-part chords, they will be at a disadvantage. Margaret Faye, who did a Master's with me a while back, and is now completing a DMA in bassoon at Indiana, wrote a good thesis setting down a basic pedagogy for using single-line instruments to teach harmonic paradigms.  A lot more of this kind of thing is needed.

Of course, the physical imagery one might connect with making sound could be quite various. One might try to teach music theory by allying it with dance. Just a crazy idea (and I probably wouldn't have taken the course), but we live in a crazy world.

Bill Benjamin



On 2014-05-06, at 11:02 PM, Justin London <jlondon at carleton.edu> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
> 
> As one of those guitarists-with-no-keyboard-chops (and one of those music-psychology-theorists to boot), there are many things I might say in response to the keyboard discussion so far.  But I will limit myself to two points, which, while I doubt will change anyone’s mind about whether or not to use keyboards in the theory curriculum (and to what extent), I hope will at least get us thinking a bit more broadly.
> 
> The first has to do with the efficacy of keyboard skills/practice for aural skills, as it has been claimed that keyboard players have better ears.  This may well have been observed—I trust Donna Doyle on this—but not, perhaps, because it is the piano practice per se.  It is well established from studies in musical memory and pitch perception that familiarity with particular sounds/timbres enhances our recognition and reproduction abilities.  I don’t have perfect pitch, but I do have very good pitch memory for E-A-D-G-B-E when played on a guitar, in the requisite octaves (that is, a kind of highly context specific sort of perfect pitch). Similarly, performance in musical memory tasks is better when one hears a melody played one’s own instrument; this has been documented with various musicians on their primary instruments.  So, here’s the rub for aural skills and the piano: if we give our melodic and harmonic dictation tests from the piano (and especially if we play chord progressions in characteristic keyboard voicings), then (a) pianists will have a natural advantage, as they are far more familiar with the sound of the piano and its characteristic harmonies, and (b) any practice a non-pianist has at the piano will enhance their aural skills when they are assessed in this way.  It would be interesting to see if the piano advantage still holds if, for example, one gave all of the melodic dictation examples (both drills and tests) for an entire semester on the violin. 
> 
> And it may be even more simple than the timbral familiarity of the piano: keyboard harmony is a way of getting students to spend (more) time learning melodic and harmonic patterns and structures, so they will (naturally) tend to do better recognizing those patterns and structures in scores and by ear.  Suffice to say, there are numerous “potential confounds” and “hidden variables” in claims that the various benefits of keyboard skills are simply due to the keyboard itself. 
> 
> My second point, and here I am in great sympathy with Stephen Soderberg, is that the emphasis on keyboard skills, harmonic praxis, and musical repertoire gives our students a very skewed understanding of how music works.  The piano is a very weird instrument, but because of its ubiquity, we don’t notice that its fixed pitch and temperament, characteristic attack and decay, spectral uniformity, and other characteristics make it unlike most other instruments and instrumental and vocal ensembles.  As a result, broad aspects of our student’s (and perhaps our own) musical understanding (consonance and dissonance, chord voicing, voice leading, articulation, etc., etc.) become warped due to the very peculiar acoustics and ergonomics of the piano.  The piano is a magnificent achievement of 18th and 19th century technology, giving musicians a polyphonic instrument with great tonal and dynamic range.  These days, however, musicians can and do do a lot more, using the full range of technologies available to them when they compose, record, and perform their music.  Might we also think about bringing some of these technologies into our classrooms, and exploit the doors of musical understanding that they can open for our students(?)
> 
> Best,
> Justin London
> 
> *************************************************
> Justin London
> Professor of Music (and other stuff), Carleton College
> Department of Music
> One North College St.
> Northfield, MN 55057 USA
> +1 507-222-4397
> 
> Affiliated Researcher, Centre for Music and Science, University of Cambridge
> Visiting Professor (2014), University of Jyväskylä, Finland
> jlondon at carleton.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org