Why is music education centered around theory

[christianm77]

I guess I was confused about the OP, music education is in public school and private lessons that usually begin at a young age. You don't begin your music education in college, it starts years earlier, where you learn your instrument and play music, very little from a book except sheet music. Theory is not needed to perform and is not part of fundamental music ed and training.

It doesn't begin this way for many guitar players, so there is a cultural difference.

I often think this is why pianists often assimilate chord/scale theory much better than guitarists. They already understand functional harmony because they have already played loads of classical stuff. Many (most?) guitarists on the other hand have been playing harmonically static popular music, improvising on the pentatonic etc.

[fumblefingers]

These are excellent objectives, and it's very helpful to see them set out straightforwardly - THANK YOU.

Sure thing.

I don't want to imply that most undergrads achieve that by the age of 22 if they weren't well on their way when they arrived as freshmen. It's a tall order, but a good goal, and worth continued effort post graduation.

[BigDee62]

theory should be ... accompanied with ... musicianship and ear training ...

When I was a university music student many decades ago, the class description was "music theory AND ear training," and it always included sight singing (very useful but widely hated, ha ha!). Every music degree program, whether performance, composition, or theory, required these classes as well as private instruction on your instrument.

What you are arguing for is actually the norm, at least at any reputable music school in the US.

[fumblefingers]

This is great stuff.

Points 6 and 7 I would say are somewhat more academic. I would hate the idea of analysing a Parker solo with CST though... I would do it if I needed to pass a grade. I think the way theory is taught on jazz courses, and the extent to which students are encouraged to seek out information is important.

Most of the good teachers seem to realise the lectures are essentially a formality anyway, and encourage student to transcribe and listen as much as possible.

Understood, but 6 and 7 are not necessarily restricted to bebop, or even jazz. And they also imply that one is able to teach fundamentals to a beginner, like a child. Or, one could give tips to a fellow musician who has never learned a particular thing or perhaps forgot it.

Points 6 and 7 are also not limited to micro analysis, there's macro too.

So for macro analysis, one could first identify the form, period, style, etc. of a piece. One could determine - is it symphonic form, concerto form, sonata form, song form?

For jazz it's mostly song form, so one could examine - is it AABA, ABA? Period & style? Key? Key centers and modes? Functional and non-functional harmonies? Rhythm, rhythm, rhythm, etc. Lastly, you could get to the notes that Parker played.

[BigDee62]

I don't want to imply that most undergrads achieve that by the age of 22 if they weren't well on their way when they arrived as freshmen

Ummm, actually ... What I saw was that music profs aggressively weeded out music students - since there aren't music jobs for everyone who wants to play music for a living.

So in fact, these basic skills were pretty well covered by everyone who completed the degree program. If you couldn't do it ... you became an English major.

[BigDee62]

That reminds me ... One of the most talented keyboardists I've ever known was dyslexic, so the sight reading requirements knocked him out. He actually did get an English degree, and then went gigging with the same music profs who failed him.

But he was an unusual exception. The music degree is the best chance for a lot of these students to become successful musicians.

[fumblefingers]

I think you went to a tougher school than I. Much tougher, to be fair.

[destinytot]

This is great stuff.

Points 6 and 7 I would say are somewhat more academic.

+1

For me, points 1 to 5 call for having enough vision to submit to the discipline of becoming a Xerox machine.

But it's easy to let being a Xerox machine become an end in itself.

I aspire to having the level of knowledge and skill of a Xerox machine, and to having the character to apply that knowledge and skill in ways that go beyond mimicry. The pursuit of culture involves wrong turns and life-long learning as a springboard for self-expression.

While I respect the discipline and rigour of the academic world, and I have high regard for teaching as a profession, playing music is so personal that I could never let it be prescribed by anyone but myself - not even the 'burning bush', Berklee (whose books and courses are great) - because I believe in learner autonomy and self-guided study.

However, I also believe in co-operation - and I'm very grateful for the time-saving tips, advice and information I pick up here.

[fumblefingers]

i've been a phd student then a university lecturer for what feels like my whole adult life

i still can't imagine what studying jazz music at university could be like

the idea of it being a discipline at a university makes no sense to me whatever

i think i was very lucky to be studying a mainstream subject at university (one that consists in reading/writing) and playing jazz gigs with musicians who were light years ahead of me at night.

i would imagine that its the incidental benefits of jazz at university that make it valuable. i.e. the fact that lots of young people who are crazy about jazz music get gathered together

it really has to be what you dig about the music - and what music you dig - that motivates and directs your musical 'education'

Well i don't know. When you remove improv how is it so different from traditional music education/training? Then you add improv training, which many universities don't do so well, I'll admit.

When it comes to teaching a person the night life and hanging out/drinking and skirt chasing, now that's just easy. If they don't figure it out on their own just send them to me, lol.

[fumblefingers]

+1

For me, points 1 to 5 call for having enough vision to submit to the discipline of becoming a Xerox machine.

But it's easy to let being a Xerox machine become an end in itself.

I aspire to having the level of knowledge and skill of a Xerox machine, and to having the character to apply that knowledge and skill in ways that go beyond mimicry. The pursuit of culture involves wrong turns and life-long learning as a springboard for self-expression.

While I respect the discipline and rigour of the academic world, and I have high regard for teaching as a profession, playing music is so personal that I could never let it be prescribed by anyone but myself - not even the 'burning bush', Berklee (whose books and courses are great) - because I believe in learner autonomy and self-guided study.

However, I also believe in co-operation - and I'm very grateful for the time-saving tips, advice and information I pick up here.

Sure. But the flip side is that one is expected to already be something of an advanced player when they show up as a freshman, and the other point is that it's all over by 22 if one goes full time. So one has the rest of their life to "be all they can be". A 4-year degree is designed to give you a leg up that you leverage the rest of your life. Life is not about those 4 years.

[Drumbler]

Why is music education mostly centered around theory and memorizing things from a book instead of PLAYING and TRANSCRIBING and THEN putting the pieces together? when the GOAL is to be able to PLAY?

The reason is because you don't need to go to music school to learn how to play and transcribe.

You just listen to music and transcribe it. Then play it. You do it the best you can and if it is not exact it is no big deal, that is your "style". You can play with others and pick things up.

It's the difference between being a football coach and being a football player. To be a coach you need to apprentice under a good coach who will teach you X's and O's.

To be a player you take the ball and run (or throw or catch it or knock someone down).

Many great players didn't go to music school. Some did but it's not necessary to become a good player.

You don't need to go to music school to learn to read music.

[christianm77]

Understood, but 6 and 7 are not necessarily restricted to bebop, or even jazz. And they also imply that one is able to teach fundamentals to a beginner, like a child. Or, one could give tips to a fellow musician who has never learned a particular thing or perhaps forgot it.

Points 6 and 7 are also not limited to micro analysis, there's macro too.

So for macro analysis, one could first identify the form, period, style, etc. of a piece. One could determine - is it symphonic form, concerto form, sonata form, song form?

For jazz it's mostly song form, so one could examine - is it AABA, ABA? Period & style? Key? Key centers and modes? Functional and non-functional harmonies? Rhythm, rhythm, rhythm, etc. Lastly, you could get to the notes that Parker played.

That's kind of what I mean. I think there are as many ways to analyse as you can think of, and I think all musicians, even those who don't have a conventional theory background do this in one way or another. It does sound like this sort thing can get boiled down to CST style theory for jazz... which is only one way of doing things.

[christianm77]

+1

For me, points 1 to 5 call for having enough vision to submit to the discipline of becoming a Xerox machine.

But it's easy to let being a Xerox machine become an end in itself.

I aspire to having the level of knowledge and skill of a Xerox machine, and to having the character to apply that knowledge and skill in ways that go beyond mimicry. The pursuit of culture involves wrong turns and life-long learning as a springboard for self-expression.

While I respect the discipline and rigour of the academic world, and I have high regard for teaching as a profession, playing music is so personal that I could never let it be prescribed by anyone but myself - not even the 'burning bush', Berklee (whose books and courses are great) - because I believe in learner autonomy and self-guided study.

However, I also believe in co-operation - and I'm very grateful for the time-saving tips, advice and information I pick up here.

I think my misgivings about the jazz education system's approach to teaching theory came out in a conversation I was having with a fellow guitarist, regarding the origin of chord III7.

He was adamant that the correct interpretation of this chord was that it 'came from' the IV melodic minor - i.e. III altered.

I wanted to point out that the composer of Sunny Side of the Street or Someday My Prince Will Come, almost certainly hadn't conceived of it this way - that it might be thought of as borrowed chord from the relative minor, or an interrupted relative minor cadence, and that the original parent scale would almost certainly be VI minor - basically that the chord drops straight out of common practice harmony. The IV melodic minor is an option for improvisors, nothing more.

Whether or not I was right or wrong, or whether there is a right or wrong is not the point - it was more that he had taken his lectures as the end of discussion on the matter. He then tried to enlighten me about melodic minor harmony by showing me his lecture notes.

It wasn't like he'd spent any time looking at music and drawing his own conclusions, which bothered me. He was a graduate of a top UK conservatoire, BTW...

The info is out there, not least in the music itself, I am often surprised at the lack of curiosity around.

[fumblefingers]

That's kind of what I mean. I think there are as many ways to analyse as you can think of, and I think all musicians, even those who don't have a conventional theory background do this in one way or another. It does sound like this sort thing can get boiled down to CST style theory for jazz... which is only one way of doing things.

i don't follow you point about CST??? sorry.

[mr. beaumont]

cST is a concept...not a method.

Why do people have such a tough time with that?

[Irez87]

I think we differ on what we consider "ear training". I consider it to be more comprehensive than clapping rhythms and singing solfege.

Solfege is more than just singing a line with one or two accidentals in one key. Solfege, as it applies to jazz, is being able to sing any note in any key. That means being able to sing a C natural in B major. Or being able to sing an F in A major. Also, most of what we play is comprised of compound intervals. Therefore, for me at least, interval ear training does not work. Hearing how notes function in a key area works, for me at least. Last, but not least, a key area may not be major or minor. A key area could be dominant (such as the blues), a key area might be diminished, whole tone, a hexatonic scale, or a set notation figure such as 025 (note-whole step-two and a half steps).

To understand theory from an aural point of view, you have to understand, sonically, how modulations work. To understand figured bass, you have to understand how voicings work, sonically. In order to understand comping, you have to understand how phrasing works, by internalizing tempo, and not relying on the metronome giving you quarter notes or half notes. To understand poly rhythm, you have to hear how the superimposed rhythm floats above the home meter.

Of course, you don't have to go this route. By this is just a taste of how "the ear leads the mind" with ear training. For more, go to my Ear Training Journal. I am not an expert, but I've devoted 5-6 years of daily study (without falter) to this type of in depth study.

Just clarifying, I will shut up about ear training on this thread for now.

[christianm77]

i don't follow you point about CST??? sorry.

Merely that some jazz educators tend to look at everything through this filter. My experiences with jazz education have been that note choices in solos and chord choices in compositions are usually analysed this way.

[christianm77]

cST is a concept...not a method.

Why do people have such a tough time with that?

Because it is not always taught that way. Or at least wasn't to me.

My experiences of jazz education are a bit limited, so I might well be blowing the CST thing out of proportion. It's just that every time I talk to jazz graduate about harmony they start going on about modes. There's nothing wrong with that per se (they are good sounds) just that there's one main way of analysing things. It's striking to me that a lot of the music composed by jazz graduates uses modal/non-functional harmony, for instance. This might be fashion, but I think it's also based on what they are taught.

Anyway, the CST thing is not the issue and I don't want this thread to become a 'let's slag off CST' fest, apologies if that's the vibe. I'm more interested in the teaching methods implied - harmony lectures are very 'top-down' - as an educator I would be interested in exploring the students capacity for developing their own understanding of music through classroom exercises and discussion. Obviously this would be dependent on having small class sizes, but it could actually be a lot less work on the part of the educator.

[fumblefingers]

Merely that some jazz educators tend to look at everything through this filter. My experiences with jazz education have been that note choices in solos and chord choices in compositions are usually analysed this way.

Everything? or harmony?

Anyway, having some rules and conventions certainly makes good sense.

Then, composers and improvisers tend to break the rules, hopefully intentionally.

[GuitarGerry]

Because it is not always taught that way. Or at least wasn't to me.

My experiences of jazz education are a bit limited, so I might well be blowing the CST thing out of proportion. It's just that every time I talk to jazz graduate about harmony they start going on about modes. There's nothing wrong with that per se (they are good sounds) just that there's one main way of analysing things. It's striking to me that a lot of the music composed by jazz graduates uses modal/non-functional harmony, for instance. This might be fashion, but I think it's also based on what they are taught.

Anyway, the CST thing is not the issue and I don't want this thread to become a 'let's slag off CST' fest, apologies if that's the vibe. I'm more interested in the teaching methods implied - harmony lectures are very 'top-down' - as an educator I would be interested in exploring the students capacity for developing their own understanding of music through classroom exercises and discussion. Obviously this would be dependent on having small class sizes, but it could actually be a lot less work on the part of the educator.

The approach that teachers on courses take is individualistic. Institutions also vary in their approach, so it's not wise to generalise IMO. For example, where I studied the main tutor deliberately avoided ALL mention of modes. He assumed that our heads were full of that stuff to begin with (and he was right), so we went right back to basics: chord tones and their ornamentation, followed by analysis of the whole be-bop era (again, all harmony based). We had a workshop by a course-leader from another music school that also ran a jazz program. He was more open in his approach, but he still started with those basics.

When I studied, very few students were school leavers. Most were in their 20s; one or two much older. We were all used to doing our own thing and already had experience of playing jazz, so I don't relate to your suggestion that music students lack the capacity to understanding/develop their own ideas if they've been spoon-fed theory at Music School. Creative people will be creative no matter what. Everything I leaned at music school was in addition to what I was studying/learning on my own initiative. Plenty of opportunity to discuss ideas with other pupils and lecturers too.

I did meet one guy who'd been to GIT in the US. Listening to tapes of lessons he'd had with various guitar tutors, there was clearly a lot of amazing info discussed and explored in personal lessons. However, the theory side of things was rigid. A huge folder full of formulaic handouts. The guy didn't have a clue how to use any of it...all rather pointless IMO.

Pardon my ignorance, but what does 'CST' stand for? Googling around, I can't find an explanation that makes sense.

[fumblefingers]

It's striking to me that a lot of the music composed by jazz graduates uses modal/non-functional harmony, for instance. This might be fashion, but I think it's also based on what they are taught.

as an educator I would be interested in exploring the students capacity for developing their own understanding of music through classroom exercises and discussion. Obviously this would be dependent on having small class sizes, but it could actually be a lot less work on the part of the educator.

Point 1: Yes, chicken and egg. Per Miles' influence, things have been very modal since 1959


Point 2: that sounds nice but would be a practical disaster for freshmen and sophomores

[fumblefingers]

The approach that teachers on courses take is individualistic. Institutions also vary in their approach, so it's not wise to generalise IMO. For example, where I studied the main tutor deliberately avoided ALL mention of modes. He assumed that our heads were full of that stuff to begin with (and he was right), so we went right back to basics: chord tones and their ornamentation, followed by analysis of the whole be-bop era (again, all harmony based). We had a workshop by a course-leader from another music school that also ran a jazz program. He was more open in his approach, but he still started with those basics.

When I studied, very few students were school leavers. Most were in their 20s; one or two much older. We were all used to doing our own thing and already had experience of playing jazz, so I don't relate to your suggestion that music students lack the capacity to understanding/develop their own ideas if they've been spoon-fed theory at Music School. Creative people will be creative no matter what. Everything I leaned at music school was in addition to what I was studying/learning on my own initiative. Plenty of opportunity to discuss ideas with other pupils and lecturers too.

I did meet one guy who'd been to GIT in the US. Listening to tapes of lessons he'd had with various guitar tutors, there was clearly a lot of amazing info discussed and explored in personal lessons. However, the theory side of things was rigid. A huge folder full of formulaic handouts. The guy didn't have a clue how to use any of it...all rather pointless IMO.

Pardon my ignorance, but what does 'CST' stand for? Googling around, I can't find an explanation that makes sense.

Chord Scale Theory.

[fumblefingers]

The reason is because you don't need to go to music school to learn how to play and transcribe.

You just listen to music and transcribe it. Then play it. You do it the best you can and if it is not exact it is no big deal, that is your "style". You can play with others and pick things up.

It's the difference between being a football coach and being a football player. To be a coach you need to apprentice under a good coach who will teach you X's and O's.

To be a player you take the ball and run (or throw or catch it or knock someone down).

Many great players didn't go to music school. Some did but it's not necessary to become a good player.

You don't need to go to music school to learn to read music.

that's is true, you needn't go to school and take all those courses to learn your instrument. some players are terrific by the time they're 17 years old.

but then, by going to a great school:

1. you'll probably have access to great instrumental education from otherwise inaccessible instructors (for the most part)
2. you'll have access to a variety of ensemble situations that would likely be difficult to reproduce outside
3. you'll learn sound theory, composition, and arranging and you'll learn them better - why? because you won't be offered the option to "learn" it from an armchair while sipping a glass of wine and watching the boob tube. you'll have to complete the homework almost daily. we learn more by doing then by reading alone.

[fumblefingers]

The approach that teachers on courses take is individualistic. Institutions also vary in their approach, so it's not wise to generalise IMO. For example, where I studied the main tutor deliberately avoided ALL mention of modes. He assumed that our heads were full of that stuff to begin with (and he was right), so we went right back to basics: chord tones and their ornamentation, followed by analysis of the whole be-bop era (again, all harmony based). We had a workshop by a course-leader from another music school that also ran a jazz program. He was more open in his approach, but he still started with those basics.

When I studied, very few students were school leavers. Most were in their 20s; one or two much older. We were all used to doing our own thing and already had experience of playing jazz, so I don't relate to your suggestion that music students lack the capacity to understanding/develop their own ideas if they've been spoon-fed theory at Music School. Creative people will be creative no matter what. Everything I leaned at music school was in addition to what I was studying/learning on my own initiative. Plenty of opportunity to discuss ideas with other pupils and lecturers too.

I did meet one guy who'd been to GIT in the US. Listening to tapes of lessons he'd had with various guitar tutors, there was clearly a lot of amazing info discussed and explored in personal lessons. However, the theory side of things was rigid. A huge folder full of formulaic handouts. The guy didn't have a clue how to use any of it...all rather pointless IMO.

Pardon my ignorance, but what does 'CST' stand for? Googling around, I can't find an explanation that makes sense.

Yeah, the GIT 1-year total immersion concept... I went to a similar school once (Dick Grove School of Music, in Studio City)

The real problem isn't the pedagogical info (IMO), it's the 1-year concept. In college there is cramming of course, but 1-year? It's just not enough time. It's better than nothing though. One really has to apply themselves during and after the training.

Over the years, both GIT and Dick Grove matured towards offering BA degrees. Howard Roberts and Dick Grove are gone, and MI offers 1,2 and 4 year programs now.

[GuitarGerry]

Yeah, the GIT 1-year total immersion concept... I went to a similar school once (Dick Grove School of Music, in Studio City)

The real problem isn't the pedagogical info (IMO), it's the 1-year concept. In college there is cramming of course, but 1-year? It's just not enough time. It's better than nothing though. One really has to apply themselves during and after the training.

Over the years, both GIT and Dick Grove matured towards offering BA degrees. Howard Roberts and Dick Grove are gone, and MI offers 1,2 and 4 year programs now.

Ah, that makes sense. The guy only went for a year so we assumed he'd dropped out, because he was such a flake! Yeah, it's ridiculous to think you can absorb that amount of info in a year.