Why is music education centered around theory

[bobsguitars09]

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?

Shouldn't it be more centered around LISTENING? and getting good at being able to play off what others are playing? rather than memorizing what substitutions go where? instead of that.. HEARING those things and playing them and THEN applying theory? shouldn't the theory come after?

Was the current common system for music education made the current way to satisfy the higher ups to approve the standard of music education because it looks better on PAPER for the higher ups? and the fact that the higher ups only look at what looks good on paper because they don't know music?

and doesn't this breed the same thing becoming the norm?

[cosmic gumbo]

You seem to be very misinformed about music education, where do you get this information?

[Irez87]

Gumbo, that's how they taught it at CCNY. And that's how they used to teach it at Berklee (I dunno if they still do).

That's why I have a distaste for theory. It is definitely necessary, but the way it is taught is backwards. I agree with Bob,

I mean, what about bob?

Seriously, I do agree. The way it should be taught, is by front loading it with ear training until you can hear basic cadences and how pitches work against harmony. Then, you teach the theory so that people can hear the ideas in their heads instead of just reading about them. I actually appreciate theory a heck of a lot more now because I am starting to hear how it all fits together.

Yikes, there I go again with my ear training... Someone restrain me. He he

Be prepared to be misunderstood, Bob.

Keep sailing Bob, keep sailing

[fep]

It's not...

Ear training classes
Music Composition classes
Music performance classes
Specific instrument classes and private instruction
Recording Studio classes
Music arrangement classes
Recital
Band

and yes, theory classes

but definately not centered around music theory

[Irez87]

At CCNY?

At CCNY, they had a mickey mouse "ear training for jazz musicians course"...

I can only speak from my college experience, but ear training and musicianship were treated like second class citizens. They had some basic solfege course and some rhythm training exercises that involve clapping...

My combo classes were the real bread and butter and where most of the learning happened, though I really sucked then (I am now mediocre)

However, the theory sequence was really robust. Jazz Theory I-IV.

If I were to revamp the program, I would have a whole sequence of solfege. It would range from singing basic triads to singing diminished melodies and compound intervals within a progression. Then I would have a whole sequence of rhythm ear training taught by a top drummer, Eric Harland maybe? Then I would tell Jeb Patton to come on by and teach a sequence on harmony and voicing.

The performance aspect would be the following. 2 years of the blues (in all its incarnations) 1 year of rhythm changes. 1 year of standards.

After 2 years of the sequence, I would introduce Bach Chorales and Counterpoint. After 3 years, Jazz theory in the context of big band arranging...

But, that's only a dream. I think they need people who are knee deep in music education to head these departments. They don't have to be killing players (let the professors take that role) but they have to have a keen idea of how music works and how the brain processes music.

I'm a SPED teacher by trade, so what do I know...

[GuitarGerry]

It's not...

Ear training classes
Music Composition classes
Music performance classes
Specific instrument classes and private instruction
Recording Studio classes
Music arrangement classes
Recital
Band

and yes, theory classes

but definately not centered around music theory

+1, when I studied everything was centred around hands-on experience (ensemble playing etc), alongside intense aural training (some of which was done in the context of playing situations). Theory was essential, but only part of my education.

It's easy to think that everything is theory based, because there's so much access to information these days (books/vids etc).

[Irez87]

yeah, there are a lot of books out there... ***Looks at shelves of music books***

It was through Bruce Arnold that I embarked upon my "intense ear training" studies... I'm still at it, and I still go to his apartment to study new material with him. Now my playing experience is all about getting my arse handed to me at NYC jam sessions and playing with these cool dudes in Brooklyn.

[cosmic gumbo]

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.

[Irez87]

I started learning guitar at 11, but it was wrooock and wroollll...well, really, it was Tom Petty and the Beatles (look at my hair for chrissakes )

I didn't start music theory until 10th grade in high school. Wish I started on classical guitar. But... WROOCK AND WROOLL!

[GuitarGerry]

I started learning guitar at 11, but it was wrooock and wroollll...well, really, it was Tom Petty and the Beatles (look at my hair for chrissakes )

I didn't start music theory until 10th grade in high school. Wish I started on classical guitar. But... WROOCK AND WROOLL!

Funny, but it was almost the reverse with me. I started classical guitar lessons aged 7 and hated it. When I was 11 my mother pulled the plug on the lessons. The teacher said that my brother and myself would never make guitarists. From then on I was self taught. Managed to cop a few Chuck Berry licks off records and it's been a downward slide to hell ever since.

[fumblefingers]

as a music major many moons ago i can remember the 4-year breakdown to have been something like this:

16 hours of theory
52-55 hours of other music courses


So, that's about 30% of total requirements devoted to theory. My reaction is the same as Cosmic Gumbo's.

[fumblefingers]

Q. How can you tell when you have been a successful music major?
A. When you can do the following seven things:

1. Play what you hear
2. Hear what is played
3. Write what you hear
4. Hear what is written
5. Play what is written
6. Successfully break down, analyze, and explain music
AND
7. Teach or tutor all of the above to someone who can't yet do those things


That is the central goal of music education, although not the only goal.

[fumblefingers]

Here's a contemporary sample.

If you count ear training ("Aural Skills" and "Jazz Aural Skills") it's 19 hours of "theory". If you don't count ear training it's 12 hours of theory.

So, 19 of 80 hours is 23.75% of total requirements devoted to theory and ear training.

https://music.unt.edu/sites/all/uplo...STRUMENTAL.pdf

[Irez87]

Fumble, I am getting close to achieving those points now, 6 years out of college. All good, I'm enjoying the journey. I proposed something new for my ear training journal that you all might like. Check it out. I promise, no talking over drones

[rangemaster]

Hey all; I'm brand new here. I read this post with fascination & for what it may be worth, would like to throw in my 2 cents. Music is a language. In fact. It's the largest one on the planet. ( Yes bigger than math) Hence; think of communication. You may feel that theory is drudgery. but you can use it to enhance your ability to get your point across. It's not always what you say, but how you say it. With music, think inversions, reharmonization etc. This requires a degree of theory. Do you use the same chord voicings all the time? Do your progressions always start on the root? Do you understand how & when substitutions can be used? Do you get my drift? Theory gives us this to work with. It's a door-opener and an eye-opener. Take the time and make the effort to learn the language; and yes. ear-training,. dexterity and all the other cool stuff is equally important. Thanks for letting me rant

Rangemaster

[Groyniad]

music theory is an attempt to describe what is happening in music

playing music is not an attempt to describe what is happening in music (!!)

the only way to learn to play music is to play music (this is the same with a lot of things - the only way to learn to speak french is to speak french - the only way to learn to catch is to catch etc. etc.)

but that's a head - fluck if ever i saw one - because (roughly) what you need to do to learn how to do something requires that you already know how to do that thing...

one way to try to cope with this hf is to somehow try to use talking about the thing as a way into learning how to do the thing

but how the hell can you use e.g. talking about football or catch or playing guitar to learn how to play football or catch or the guitar?

that looks like a very hard question to answer - and its easy to be very dismissive of the whole business of trying to talk about music - to describe its basic features in words - because it looks so totally impossible to get from talking about e.g. harmony to playing harmonic accompaniments to melodies etc. etc.

but how the hell else are we meant to respond to the hf?

well - by singing tunes we like - by harmonizing tunes we like - by drumming - by humming

yes - those are probably methods less likely to lead to abject failure

[wolflen]

its the ol' catch 22 trick..your new to job market-job hunting for first job--want ad: experienced only!..how do you get experience if no one will give you the chance to gain it..

my attraction to jazz was watching it on TV..Dr Billy Taylor had a show..where he would rip apart a jazz tune and explain what you are hearing and why..now I had no reference to what he was talking about..but I KNEW I had to learn it..

If your hunger is to play music I would suggest you start playing it..yes it is going to be very difficult and sound awful..but when you have your training wheels on and you begin the long journey..you realize you need to understand what you are hearing..why do sounds work together..how do you produce them on your instrument..getting a good teacher is often advised..but what do you need to learn?--many teachers don't start at that point..they start teaching you things that they think you need..which may be more harmful than good at that point in you development..

many guitarist begin with learning a few chords..and not having any idea why they may work together..now the natural progression for many is to get frustrated by not knowing what to learn or how to learn it to get beyond where you are..

the cliché-"you cant get there from here" may apply..getting a teacher that knows where you are is very important..learning a bit more than you know may increase your desire to continue learning more..ahh that is the trick..

when I started to hear terms like G7b5 and "a minor third higher" " the two chord" etc.. I wondered if I "needed" to learn this stuff..how would it help me where I was at present..the term "music theory" was a recurring sound in my journey in the study of music..so I took some local night school classes "theory-101"

terms like scales, major and minor .. triads..intervals..major 7ths etc seemed like a foreign language..but I stayed with it..and tried to apply it to my playing..it was difficult..it didn't sound like "music" to me yet..scales exercises-what good are these going to do for me today?..

I took another theory class "theory 102" now it showed some song structures and how some of the triads and intervals etc applied to playing music..ahh haa...and it began..

so now I could play scales and knew how to form chords and play some songs and knew about progressions..now..where is the "jazz stuff" ..

when the student is ready-the teacher will appear..I know it sounds silly..but then..I began to study with Ted Greene

a good teacher is not going to show you what to learn..they teach you HOW to learn..in a way we are all "self taught"
if I want to learn how to move a progression onto a different string set..I have learned how to "teach myself" to do that..same with any and all concepts of music..

they best teacher will take you only so far..and then..you have to teach yourself

[BigDee62]

There really is some crazy misinformation here, but Fumblefingers gave you the correct lowdown, go back and read his post.

I have a degree in theory from North Texas and was accepted for a PhD in theory at Yale.. Even though I majored in theory and not performance, I still had to do juried recitals. I had to be able to do all the things Fumblefingers said. My sister is a prof at Berklee and contrary to what's been claimed here, Berklee is the same way.

Theory is important, but definitely not to the exclusion or at the expense of performance.

[cosmic gumbo]

Music education centers around performance if you are being educated to be a performer.

[Groyniad]

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'

[GuitarGerry]

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

Bingo. Aside from Classical lessons as a kid I'm self taught and my experience of having a guitar tutor when I studied was mixed. For various reasons I barely learned a thing from him. However, there were many around me, both teachers and pupils (not necessarily guitarists), who became my informal tutors. In the past, musicians got that sort of informal education on the bandstand and hanging with musicians is still an important way to learn...even if it's 'only' at music school.

[destinytot]

Q. How can you tell when you have been a successful music major?
A. When you can do the following seven things:

1. Play what you hear
2. Hear what is played
3. Write what you hear
4. Hear what is written
5. Play what is written
6. Successfully break down, analyze, and explain music
AND
7. Teach or tutor all of the above to someone who can't yet do those things


That is the central goal of music education, although not the only goal.

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

[Irez87]

Okay, let me revise. I am fine with theory. However, I believe theory should be front loaded and accompanied every step of the way with in depth and serious musicianship and ear training. If you can hear the theory on the page, you are much more likely to access that theory in your improv.

I am aware of that now.

Just my 2 cents

[christianm77]

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?

Shouldn't it be more centered around LISTENING? and getting good at being able to play off what others are playing? rather than memorizing what substitutions go where? instead of that.. HEARING those things and playing them and THEN applying theory? shouldn't the theory come after?

Was the current common system for music education made the current way to satisfy the higher ups to approve the standard of music education because it looks better on PAPER for the higher ups? and the fact that the higher ups only look at what looks good on paper because they don't know music?

and doesn't this breed the same thing becoming the norm?

That's a really good question.

I would say the main reason is the one you have given.

Furthermore it is necessary for a jazz course to have specific jazz theory of harmony that will look mysterious to the classical cats who run the department, yet be easy to teach and asses via conventional academic methods - lectures, assignments, etc.

This has affected the evolution of jazz in the past 40 or so years.

[christianm77]

Q. How can you tell when you have been a successful music major?
A. When you can do the following seven things:

1. Play what you hear
2. Hear what is played
3. Write what you hear
4. Hear what is written
5. Play what is written
6. Successfully break down, analyze, and explain music
AND
7. Teach or tutor all of the above to someone who can't yet do those things


That is the central goal of music education, although not the only goal.

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.