Comments on: Music Theory: Answering “The Why”

By: Cathy

Cathy — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:24:01 +0000

Interesting post. I truly never understood the point of analyzing a piece of music by identifying the chord progressions until I studied Schenker analysis. Then I was finally able to see what made a piece of music “work.”

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 24 May 2010 19:28:54 +0000

@Trier i think composition and transcription should go hand in hand, but the part of the theory can focus on the journey into finding out through transcription and analysis “why” and “how” a specific element of music “works”

being able to sing it, solfege it, play it on a primary instrument, and eventually notate it are really important steps to develop that kinesthetic response to making, performing music, and understanding how music works.

as you know the idea of making everybody a composer in any music class is problematic (and can be traumatic), but giving students a wide range of tools to figure out “why” and “how” (which i should have been more clear about in the original post) great music works should be the focus of our pedagogy.

if it’s only on paper it really doesn’t exist.

By: Trier Music

Trier Music — Mon, 24 May 2010 16:20:16 +0000

Right on. You say “learning ‘theory’ should be synonymous with teaching how music works” – what about learning by doing, learning theory by creating and notating music? So, for example, instead of notating a prerecorded melody, the students would invent a melody, sing it into a recorder, and notate it? Just a thought.

On the other hand, we shouldn’t assume every musician wants to be a composer, and if a student has a sudden crisis of confidence (“but my melody stinks!”) then the whole assignment could suffer…

By: paul

paul — Thu, 20 May 2010 18:03:19 +0000

nate,

good points,

i’m a big fan of the rogers (and the equally important karpinsky book ‘aural skills acquisition’). have you tried to analyze and perform other works “apples to apples” of Ran? does she use that same harmonic language in other works? i agree on the micro level maybe the question isn’t why but how? in the big picture comparing to other works you might get an idea of what choices were made and decide in the big picture “why” by looking at how these pieces are similar or different.

because i’m a ‘maker’ i never have been interested in separating theory from performance practice and to me why and how are interchangeable. it’s not just enough to be able to analyze how things work, it’s important to be able to use that information to make your own decisions and come up with a “why” in your own mind.

at the end of the day if we are able to answer why and how, then we are also able to make some pretty informed decisions of what makes a piece “work” (isn’t that the same way you make a cabinet) and with that information we can give our friends (and students) the tools to make things instead of just study them.

By: NateCourtright

NateCourtright — Thu, 20 May 2010 17:32:47 +0000

I don’t totally agree with that point that analysis should focus on the “why” of music. While why is a part of it I think it must be used with “how.” The two are dependent and build upon each other. Why inevitably leads to how and vice versa. i.e. I realize Shulamit Ran is using frequent whole tone passages in “Soliloquy” which leads me to try and figure out more in depth how she is doing this and once I figure it out leads me back to why she does and why she chooses to use it in certain places. Mike Rogers says plainly in his book “Teaching Approaches in Music Theory: An Overview of Pedagogical Philosophies” stating “Analysis seeks to answer “how?” and “why?” questions… to come to understand, from the inside out, why and how a piece of music works, to recreate the process by which it grew to life in the composer’s mind” Musicologists know a great deal of the “Why” in music but theorists best couple this why with how.
In any case I’m sure your students are in great hands.