-
-
05-02-2017 12:50 PM
-
I had no idea they had music in Harvard to begin with! Anyone ever jammed with or met a Harvard music graduate?
-
I have met several Harvard Music grads and they were highly trained musicians.
Harvard has passed a well known bunch that includes Leonard Bernstein, Elliot Carter, Yo Yo Ma, John Adams, Aaron Goldberg, Joshua Redman, Anton Scwartz, Fred Ho, Tom Morello, and many others:
List of famous musicians from Harvard
By the way, Vijay Iyer is a professor of music at Harvard. Vijay was awarded the 2012 the Down Beat Critics Poll for jazz group of the year . He was also named by Down Beat as the 2010 Musician of the Year and 2012.
By the way, Vijay Iyer is a professor of music at Harvard. Vijay was awarded the 2012 the Down Beat Critics Poll for jazz group of the year . He was also named by Down Beat as the 2010 Musician of the Year and 2012.Last edited by rintincop; 05-02-2017 at 03:18 PM.
-
Oh, yeah, some guy named Bernstein. What a hack...
-
I think anything that helps to get student to think outside the box is good. The codifying of music to make a product schools can charge tuition has killed a lot of the drive to explore, especially today with people clutching dearly to their smart devices 24/7. People today when faced with a question are like Pavlov's dog and instantly go for their devices instead of trying to work through it in their head first. Today they put more importance on speed of finds the answer than even understanding why it's the answer. I've said it and others here it's the process of finding the answer that teaches and teaches far more than the answer does in the end.
Also all the theory get people acting like it's rules or laws and ignoring theory is just labeling observations on something another created without any theory. The cats I hang around talk about how none of this theory existed when Bach was creating all his music, that what we call harmony isn't how Bach thought it was about counter points, chorale writing, lines moving in parallel that created what we now call harmony. Bach and Palestrina and those guy did this all based on sound. The early Bebopper same thing they were the musical rebels and mostly self taught and some teaching of each other through playing in each others bands. Miles and a couple others did go to school for a short time, but their focus in school was their instrument not theory and most dropped out. Everything was about ears and being able to sing ideas to each other. That's something I've learned recently is when talking music these guys aren't big on someone playing to them or playing it back, with them you sang things. I idea being if you can sing it, you know, or know enough to go home and work on it. That the kind of learning I think Harvard might be trying to infuse more of by eliminating some requirements and letting students work with advisors to shape a personal program. (See I did come back on topic
)
FWIW When I was taking Computer Science (extension) classes UCLA they said they were going to eliminate Computer Science as a major and only offer Computer Engineering. UCLA said that computer programming is a trade not a profession and universities are for teaching professions. Well students and others started screaming bloody murder and the school caved in and kept Computer Science. Looking back they were 100% correct and computer programming is trade a basic skill taught to everyone now from kids on up. I think Harvard could be think over codified music is making student too much "paint by the numbers" versus experimenters and explorers looking for new territory.
-
I found this remark from a Harvard music professor telling.
" It’s an organic move for the times, from both where the field is going generally, but also where we are as faculty. It was really about brainstorming ways to reflect ourselves in the curriculum."
-
I was at the concert where Josh Redmond came across the street and sat in with a band. The band was no group of slackers, it was Paul Motian, Charlie Haden, Mick Goodrick and dad, Dewey Redmond. They brought him up to do a number... as Dewey's kid Josh who's at Harvard.
Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
It takes a lot to upstage those cats. Afterwords, they were all smiles and he had the respect of everyone.
Plus, he had the Harvard education to fall back on. Ha ha.
By the way, there are other music schools that would benefit from IMMENSELY in a suspension and overhaul of their music theory. Jazz is one of the most dynamic theoretical arenas and the rules are best when they are accepted as being organic and changing.
I can see how music theory would be an imperative for the self motivated individual. Yeah I do see their point and I agree with it. The water is still there for the horse to drink from but nobody's tying you to the dock.
Good for them.
David
-
But if you are going to arrange for orchestras, the whole traditional approach is pretty useful. And all the ear training is invaluable.
I think the first year where they analyze Bach Chorals is very good. But at my music school they didn't seem to know about teaching melodic theory: the resolution tendency of each note in the traditional major and minor scale (they obsessed on harmonic resolutions) and they did not emphasize the importance of the 6 common melodic embellishment of chord tones. That was quickly passed over and thus I had to train myself later on about these invaluable fundamental techniques. I resent how neglected melodic theory is while almost all of the emphasis is on harmonic theory. I suspect many teachers only knew what was in the books, which is almost 99% harmonic theory.In the second year they make a big deal about Augmented 6th chords and other "chromatic harmony" techniques. And string quartets of the Romantic and late Classic periods. That area of study was not very useful compared to the Bach studies,. They should have skipped ahead to Debussy and then jazz theory, imo. And all along the way they neglect to emphasize that composers are not writing much in the classical styles anymore. I now think in terms of jazz harmony's approach to dominant subs and alterations. None of that Augmented 6th stuff is useful, imo. Also spending a lot of time on Schoenberg 12 tone rows was a waste of my time. And the professors had no understanding and ignored African American classical music: jazz.
-
My ex was a librarian at a Cambridge school. One of her student's mom shared her alma mater so they became friendly. On parents night, Jill introduced her husband "This is my husband Yo Yo, he plays cello and he went to Harvard." Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
It's nice when you can use your Harvard pedigree as a sidenote joke.
Their music program is very hip. I knew Tom Everett and one of the best interviews I ever saw was an informal discussion he had with Jim Hall when Jim had a weeklong residency there. Steve Swallow also had a residency there. Herbie Hancock was a Norton Lecturer and gave a series of really great talks about poetics.
Harvard music grads are rigorous disciplined and insightful thinkers judging by the ones I've met. And some pretty heavy players.
David
-
I believe Mr. Theory, Walter Piston is associated with Harvard.
-
Haha, Tom Morello wasnt studying music in Harvard', thats for sure. But if they invite him to teach there, that would be a smart move. What he can do no formally trained musos can do. Originally Posted by rintincop
-
If you're a voice major how much theory do you need?
At Uni I took some music classes just for fun -- I was a math/computer science major. When it came to things like harmonising a figured bass line, oh my, were those voice majors hopeless. I was such a nerd: I wrote a program to do it for me
-
I was A+ in theory. So now you Harvard telling me it's all not worth much of anything?
Damn singer songwriters crowd, sure they feel like theory is too much for their ability, but they still wanna be in the same league. And probably hip hoppers too. Well, not in my book!
-
One of the first things you do when one culture occupies another people's land and cultural identity is require a new set of rules for language. (The English and Gaelic) and one of the purposes of theory requirement is to superimpose a set of ordering that EVERYONE must be indoctrinated into. While that defines institutional learning, it also represents a stasis in an evolving theoretical basis.
When the theory requirements in many schools were established, they were current. Requirements were the state of the art -to one particular dialect. But theory is being seen now as only ONE way to order the musical language. There is a search for a larger definition of theory that is as loose, yet as dynamic and rigorous as the world the students will graduate into.
At the time Eric Dolphy was alive, he was shunned for not obeying rules of the day. He had to go to Europe to survive. Music schools would have failed him. And they would have failed those who "got" him and practiced thinking that way. Yet as his music became more undeniable, what he was doing crept into curriculae. Now they teach that.
It's a problematic one. Institutions are notoriously conservative and extremely slow moving. The world of music that influences the actual music is much faster and more dynamic. So some kid hears the cats like Binney or Monder and thinks "What ARE they doing? I love it!" and they go to school to learn. How do they learn when the theory they teach and the teachers who teach it don't even know of those philosophies between heaven and earth?
Who at Berklee teaches Eliot Carter? Xenakis? How is indoctrination into a one sided required curriculum keeping the next direction in music from happening?
An interesting question.
David
-
An interesting question, but are the cultural contexts in the musical examples above really all that different? Aren't they predicated on a fair amount of common ground? Does what Bernstein talks about* have no relevance today?
(Genuine questions - I'm interested to learn from others' responses.)
*
-
I just poked around and found an overview of one perspective where this sales pitch (for which I have no interest in; it was just a nice presentation) shows that a music can be built on 7 pitches, place the weight of embellishment, creative improvisation and permutation on the same level as the basic diatonic line... without harmony. Originally Posted by destinytot
Of course this is a different culture than ours. The institution puts it "outside" valid music, but during the 20th century, the concept of cross cultural hybrid threw the conservatory into chaos. Germanic school vs Debussey and the introduction of vertical block harmony, pentatonic scales and non voice led harmonies. Many of his pieces were derived from his assimilation of cross cultural musics. They were different. How they became recognized was a point of conflict and eventual resolution/assimilation. Debussy and Ravel both struggled with acceptance even within their own French conservatory because of different interpretations of "What is valid".
Put on top of that a system that needs to quantify these rules, needs to reward one system (A+) and punish adherence to another (natural 13 on a minor chord? D-) and you've got a system of conflict.
Now maybe a thorough overview and survey of ALL possible musics and their applications that's non graded and a strongly suggested starting point would be just fine for a school, but then how do you grade a creative development in integrative learning? Besides, that's called life.
David
-
I think "indoctrination" is the wrong word. Music theory is an academic subject. One is not indoctrinated into algebra or anatomy or Arabic---one learns them (or not). I think it is the same with music theory. Originally Posted by TruthHertz
Normally teachers at the college level teach what they have demonstrated a mastery of. So even if, as you suggest, conventional music theory is one-sided, what makes teachers trained in that academic subject competent to teach OTHER approaches to music which they have not themselves mastered?
-
Yes, what's represented in the video is from a very different culture. Originally Posted by TruthHertz
I definitely think it's important for education to foster global thinking and to promote (mutual) understanding between cultures. But that needn't mean evaluating all systems according to the same criteria.
Not sure whether the musical differences between the culture shown in the video and ours can be likened to the contrast that Debussy's cross-cultural influences brought to bear.Last edited by destinytot; 05-03-2017 at 01:02 PM. Reason: typos from predictive text
-
Those are good thoughts. Sometimes, though, I look at it like this. I'm not going to school to learn how to break the rules, I'm going to school to learn the rules. I don't need them to teach me how to make my music, I just need to get the tools to do it. Knowing theory could be a tool. Originally Posted by TruthHertz
In my first college I was on a jazz program, I wasn't that much interested in jazz, but I was 'forced' to go to theory and history classes. I'm very grateful I did, now I when I am interested in jazz, I have the info I need that I learned back then. But at the time though, I wanted to play heavy rock, and they don't teach that in music schools as you know, and it's fine, I learned that on my own
-
But Mark, what one learns from the teacher is only as limited, or open ended as the larger parameters by which they're presented. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
Your point about Algegra, or Arabic... Algebra is not a plastic discipline. It deals with the purity of numerical relationships. There may be debate whether it should be taught, but the principles are unchanging.
Teaching music is teaching a dialect of the time, of the place. In the 1940's Hollywood English was taught to screen stars and they spoke in that dialect. It's not what an acting school would teach now.
As far as Arabic, if you taught a version of Arabic that was non standard, it would certainly be a form of indoctrination. When China teaches Mandarin as standard and phases out dialect, it changes the culture. It's called inculturation, It's indoctrination into a way of communicating.
This is why it's such an issue that the language, music and culture of African peoples were supplanted by the slave owners' parent culture. Speaking of which, African music was considered "primative" or not worthy of respect while the culture of European academics and aesthetics was dominant. That's why the hybrid, spirituals, were allowed as folk music but not the drum music of Africa. Even then, the definition of Music did not include Spirituals... until much later.
Music is an evolving discipline. Only one frame of the big picture is ever accepted as canon, none the less academic requirement.
Yes you can teach it, but in doing so, it's as diverse as the administration of the institution dissemenating that viewpoint. It is not algebra. Rumanujan and Steven Hawking... kin in the same club. R.L. Burnside and Wagner, not even close.
Debussy was the foster child of the German musical tradition. But he wasn't a family member of that table, but he was brought up in that tradition. Originally Posted by destinytot
Now he did have a delight and almost obsession with other musical influences and musical cultures. He recognized the limitations of the Conservatory and he did something that set him apart: He changed the music.
A lot was going on at that time, and you know your musical history so I won't get into nationalism here, but the European Germanic conservatory, much like the music schools of today, held the keys (pun intended) to credibility and the standards of musical credibility.
Prior to Debussy, all the tradition was linear. Much as Bernstein points out. His perspective backs the argument that "music" is an evolution of melodic tradition based on the line and polyphony. One viewpoint.
The point I made was that Indian classical music is also a rigourous discipline and music, and it does NOT follow those dictates. We are indoctrinated into thinking of it as "World" music, not subject to the laws and respect of "our" western (academic) traditions.
But let's get back to Debussy. He created a music that was radically different. We don't hear it this way now because he and Bach are performed side by side in concerts and we kinda like them both. But in his day, as in our present, the academic institutions are the defenders of a way of hearing. Their rules assure that the next generations will think, judge and hear consonance, dissonance, meter, and harmony in a certain way.
Debussy broke the harmonic line rules, created the harmonic block thinking that we use in jazz, and even used scales derived from exotic cultures. In his day, this got him thrown out of the club.
Debussy was an embodiment of the dynamic nature of living and changing music. Academics are always several steps behind. They create stasis, and modify and revise incrementally. That's not the same thing, when students rely on the gospel put forth.
Immersed in a culture that saw free jazz as a valid music, I find it beautiful, expressive and a high art. For someone brought up believing in the rules of bebop as being supreme, I feel a lot of prejudice about free jazz, even though I have the greatest respect and a more than casual working knowledge of bebop. Is free jazz judged without inside knowledge? You tell me.
Do we need a place to learn the canon? Yes. Does the institution create prejudices about what music is? Sure. Is this a trend that someone may be trying to address? I should hope so.
This is just one way of looking at it, but it's something I do believe.
My two cent opinion.
David
-
I see that's how you see it. And that is your choice. But I would have no interest in studying music theory if I thought that is what it was. For that matter, I wouldn't study English grammar (or Latin grammar, perhaps the best way to understand English grammar) if I thought that is what they were either. Originally Posted by TruthHertz
Last edited by MarkRhodes; 05-03-2017 at 02:26 PM.
-
Yo, Engli$h grammah changes all da time dawg! We dont need old-ass rulez homie. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
-
Really interesting and thoughtful post. Thanks. Originally Posted by TruthHertz
-
You can learn that at - ahem - 'night school'... Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
-
This is a good move. They want to dwell less on history and theory so students can get into their field of focus more quickly.
Makes sense to me.
This doesn't seem to have anything to do with jazz.
Reply With Quote
2 new & excellent Jazz Comping Truefire...
Yesterday, 10:22 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions