[Smt-talk] MISSING THEORY COMPONENT?

Mon May 26 06:35:37 PDT 2014

Devin,

Please forgive what appears to be my inexactitude when I said that most theory textbooks do not cover melody. What I should have said was that they do not provide instructions on how to write a double period that is attractive, coherent, and memorable, with proper control of cadences, chord progression, and nonharmonic tones. Miguel’s book is a classic case in point. He does a nice job of cover melodic development but does not provide any help for someone who wants to write a popular song. The melody I was thinking of was the kind of lines we sing around camp fires or hum to ourselves or even national anthems.I like to take theory instruction one step at a time: write a melody, then add a bass line, then add a third voice, and finally do four-part writing.

While I am taking pot shots at competitors I should also mention that major textbook publishers seem to think it is OK to ask theory students to shlep around a four-pound book that covers four semesters of material. Books like Miguel’s are best left on one’s desktop to be used as a reference and not carried to school each day. I have always contended that beginning theory students are overwhelmed by 900-page textbooks when what they need is a kind of easily portable Michelin Guide to the essentials of musical practice. I know that publishers force authors to create encyclopedic works when most of the material in the book is extraneous. I am also not a big fan of books that contain 500 musical fragments. I teach music from complete pieces only.

Steve

Dr. Stephen Jablonsky, Ph.D.
Music Department Chair
The City College of New York
Shepard Hall Room 72
New York NY 10031
(212) 650-7663
music at ccny.cuny.edu

America's Greatest Chair 
in the low-priced field

On May 26, 2014, at 1:56 AM, Devin Chaloux <devin.chaloux at gmail.com> wrote:

> I find that these broad generalizations/exaggerations are what tend to derail the cordial conversations we have been having over the past week. "There are no melodies in contemporary textbooks" is an inflammatory post. Of course this is not true! Some texts might not emphasize melody a lot. But others do place some importance in melody. The Aldwell/Schachter was mentioned. I'd like to also note that Miguel Roig-Francolí's text "Harmony in Context" (2nd ed.) as another contemporary text that discusses melody in some detail. I find it to be a nice balance between harmony, melody, and rhythm...especially harmonic rhythm.
> 
> Its Chapter F (optional beginning chapter) is a fairly extensive section on counterpoint with a fairly good introductory set of guidelines for writing a good melody (aimed at students with little to no experience in doing so). Roig-Francolí continues the discussion of melody into chapter 1 (The Connection of Chords) with a subsection on "Melodic Style" (pp. 120-121) including contour graphs visually demonstrating aspects of good melodies. Chapters 11 and 12 (pp. 274-307) are devoted exclusively to melody (Melodic Organization I: Phrase Structure and Melodic Organization II: Thematic Development and Phrase Extension). In the accompanying workbook, melodic exercises begin in chapter 1 and become increasingly more complex into the Augmented Sixth Chords chapter (chapter 25). By this point, theory teachers certainly could--and should--implement model compositions. .
> 
> I'd also like to offer my support for Mark Yeary's method too. I think that melodic thinking will become more important as we aim to incorporate more popular genres into our pedagogy.
> 
> As theorists--or musicians with an "abnormal" love for music theory ;-) --we have the ability to extemporize on many of the subjects in the textbooks. We, unfortunately, are not the only ones teaching theory classes in collegiate music curricula. The seeming structured nature of these texts aren't meant to constrain the way we engage music theory pedagogy. I've never understood why this list has spent so much blood, sweat, and tears in suggesting otherwise. :)
> 
> Best,
> 
> Devin Chaloux
> Indiana University
> Ph.D. in Music Theory (enrolled)
> University of Cincinnati - College-Conservatory of Music
> M.M. in Music Theory '12
> University of Connecticut
> B.M. in Music Theory '10
> 
> 
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Ildar Khannanov <etudetableau at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Richard, Steven abd the List,
> 
> of course, I exaggerated! There are some very good melodies. Aldwell and Schachter is my favorite textbook. It is serious and profoundly professional and there are some good melodies, especially from Baroque style. 
> 
> However, on average, our textbooks are focusing on other aspects (which are very important), i.e., figured bass tradition. I only wish that the fb would be supported by enhanced melody harmonization exercises, so that the fb would be improvized at the keyboard, and not realized in written take home assignments.
> 
> For your fun, I attached a melody from Igor Sposopin'g textbook and its possible harmonization. Dear Steven, yes, you are right, it is not the hw 1. And yes, your metaphors can be continued: harmonizing this melody may feel the same as suddenly, when chewing on chocolate candy, biting on a shard of glass. Or hitting a brick wall. Dr. Sposobin has done this on purpose, I believe!
> 
> By the way, I have finished writing a textbook with melodies borrowed from Sposobin. If anyone would like to help me with pre-publication reading and assessment, please, email me privately.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ildar Khannanov
> drkhannanov at gmail.com
> 
> 
> 2014-05-26 5:02 GMT+04:00 Richard Hermann <harhar at unm.edu>:
> 
> Dear Ildar,
> 
> You might recheck the Aldwell and Schachter, Harmony and Voice-Leading. I assigned settings from it that were 18th- (chorales) and 19th-century (melody and accompaniment )in style and technique. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rick
> 
> Richard Hermann, PhD, Prof. of Music
> Regent's Lecturer
> Univ. of New Mexico
> harhar at unm.edu
> 
> 
> On May 25, 2014, at 12:05 06, Ildar Khannanov <etudetableau at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Stephen and the List,
>> 
>> you hit the spot! There are no melodies in contemporary textbooks. There is everything possibly imagined but no melody. I do not remember a single one after using them for years. In contrast with this, in my very old Igor Sposobin and Co textbook there are melodies. You can throw away the text if you do not like it but the melodies--ah, those nice melodies, written by composers of Romantic style in the first half of the 20th century--are magnificent. And each chapter ends with some 20 to 25 melody harmonization assignments. More than half of the textbook is melodies and explanations to their harmonization. It was so easy to understand the jazz standards and all other forms of melodicity after learning harmony with this textbook. It borrowed some materials from Richtee and from Louis and Thuille but melodies in it are original.
>> 
>> Later on in USSR they published some newer textbooks. They were more up to date but I would not recommend melodic material. Boring. Something has disappeared from music after WWII.
>> 
>> Happy Memorial Day!
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Ildar Khannanov
>> Peabody Conservatory, Johns Hopkins University
>> etudetableau at gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 2014-05-23 8:54 GMT-04:00 Stephen Jablonsky <jablonsky at optimum.net>:
>> Yesterday I administered the last of my final exams for my 100th semester of teaching so it was a very special day. I am still basking in the glow.
>> 
>> 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?
>> 
>> Back in the day, before I became chair, when I taught Theory 1 I always included a section on the composition of folk melodies in my syllabus. Because I am a composer I know that everyone of my students is a potential composer. Their ultimate success in this endeavor will depend on the degree of their talent, training, and time (The Three Ts) spent struggling to organize sounds and silences. Since I am a stickler for nonharmarmonic tones I find that they are best taught by having students use them in the composition of melodies. By writing folk melodies student learn about phrase structure, cadences, and contour in ways that are more lasting than just analysis alone. I am sure that all of you who teach theory know that beginning students have a difficult time discerning the harmonic implications of melodies and so it is hard for them to sit at the piano and harmonize a given tune. If they are taught to create melodies built on simple chord progressions they struggle less.
>> 
>> If any of you would like to receive a copy of my chapter on the composition of folk melodies from my Tonal Facts & Tonal Theories I would be happy to send you a pdf file.
>> 
>> I should mention that in Theory 2 I have my students write original melodies to the chord changes of the American Standard Songbook. The best students in the class come up with amazing solutions that employ melodic development, sequences, and the construction of well planned and executed climaxes and conclusions. Along the way they gain familiarity with secondary ii-Vs and modal borrowings as well as chromatic appoggiatures and piquant suspensions.
>> 
>> 
>> Dr. Stephen Jablonsky, Ph.D.
>> Music Department Chair
>> The City College of New York
>> Shepard Hall Room 72
>> New York NY 10031
>> (212) 650-7663
>> music at ccny.cuny.edu
>> 
>> America's Greatest Chair 
>> in the low-priced field
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140526/b1731921/attachment-0002.htm>