[Smt-talk] MISSING THEORY COMPONENT?

[Mark Yeary]

On 23 May 2014, at 08:54, Stephen Jablonsky <jablonsky at optimum.net> wrote:

> Since we are talking about ideal theory curricula I thought I would mention one of my pet peeves. A survey of the leading music theory textbooks reveals that they are missing a component I consider significant––melody. The authors of most theory textbooks seem to think that music theory is all about harmony, counterpoint, and voice-leading. But that is the theory of multi-voice textures. When do our students learn to construct single lines, the things we all hum as we go about our day?
> 

Bingo. Melody. I find it frustrating that theory instructors begin Theory I (after "reviewing" fundamentals) with triads, Roman numerals and the like, and then wonder why their students' chorale-style model compositions sound so unidiomatic. Perhaps it's the utter lack of the study and practice of melody—the thing that serves as the historical backbone of Lutheran chorales? (At least one textbook—_Harmony and Voice Leading_—acknowledges that it is not, in itself, a comprehensive guide to "music theory.")

How do we learn to construct melodies? The same way we learn to construct anything of import: exposure, familiarity, imitation, assimilation, innovation. I would imagine that composition could be an integral part of a separate solfège course; I've been encouraged to see a dual solfège/harmony track in several of the programs mentioned in the recent "redesign your theory curriculum" thread begun by Anna Gawboy.

Within a holistic theory/musicianship course, one approach to adding a melodic component—proposed and implemented by my colleague at UofL—is the use of "familiar tunes" in different tasks. Take "Happy Birthday to You," for example. Ask students to sing it. Sing it using solfège; that starting note is not the tonic, is it? Sing it using rhythm syllables; is it simple or compound? Now write it out. Transpose it. When these students get to second-year theory, I ask them to harmonize it—with a root-position bassline, then with a more stepwise bass. Orchestrate it. Write a theme and variations for it. Make it minor! Make it octatonic! Make it sound like Debussy! Stravinsky! Varèse! Glass! And so forth. Everything we do can be centered around the melodic line, and this is what we do as musicians: if there is a melody, make it sound good.

A less conservative approach that I've considered is progressively adding voices throughout the curriculum. Begin with melody: solfège, harmonic implications of scale degrees, and the like. Then, on to two-part counterpoint; from there, harmony may be introduced in two forms, continuo-style (which is like adding figures to two-part counterpoint) and chorale-style. Utterly impractical within a two-year sequence, perhaps, but still worth exploring. I've come across a textbook—Horton and Ritchey's _Harmony Through Melody: The Interaction of Melody, Counterpoint, and Harmony in Western Music_ (Scarecrow Press, 2000)—which others considering this approach might find valuable.

Regards,
Mark

--
Mark Yeary, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Music Theory
School of Music, University of Louisville

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140525/df4884a8/attachment-0002.htm>