Pedagogic Representations of Tonal Music and the Problem with Assumptions
There is an ultimate dichotomy which exists within the pedagogical outlines of music, that is the objective versus the subjective. The uniqueness of music as an art form lies in its ability to reckon with time; it’s ephemeral and fleeting in the ‘truest’ sense, and only really becomes tactile and lasting in its notation. Within the teaching of music, there is an emphasis on objective rules and outlines, supposedly in an attempt to give an otherwise ethereal and spiritual experience some meaning and value in an academic world. Ultimately, this dichotomy looks at how music is heard with reference to two different lenses of listening; the objectively and the subjectively good.
In my experience, the teaching of music begins with what we describe as tonal music. This is the foundation for understanding the study, a kind of default. On the spectrum of listening, this particular lens is guided by structure and rules. We are taught that tonal music relies on the relationships created by harmonic devices; simply the creation of tension and release. This objectivity is therefore guided by analysis, and so we are often introduced to the studies of Heinrich Schenker.
Schenker outlined what many in the Western world assume as the basis of music theory. A set of analytical tools applied to 18th century German music, which set out the tonal components of ‘good’ music. This structural objectivity which Schenker produced, has been held tightly within musicological discourse, for which is used to identify and defend musical genius — specifically in the works of German composers like Bach and Beethoven, the very individuals whom Schenker idolised; “the theory has no application to the works of the non-genius”. So what is the non genius?
According to Schenkerian analysis, the non-genius is pretty much anybody who deals with tonality in a different way. So whilst this form of analysis is important and relevant in understanding Western music, it can’t, and shouldn’t be applied to musics outside the styles which Schenker determined as ‘good’.
But we are still faced with the issue of absolutism and unrealistic pedagogical weighting placed on Schenker’s work. Eg. USYD’s ‘Fundamentals of Music’ class is essentially 13 weeks of figured bass. Interesting, relevant, and important? Yes, definitely. But is it an appropriate snapshot of the fundamentals of all music? Definitely not.
“Reducing music history to a pageant of masters is, at bottom, lazy. We stick with the known in order to avoid the hard work of exploring the unknown.” — Alex Ross The Rediscovery of Florence Price
This has since resulted in the argument that what we understand as music theory, has foundations in racial supremacy, and that it should be left in the past. This is where I find issues in how ethical highroads are taken, and result in the rallying for a complete disregard of valuable work.
Surely the solution in finding issues with a lineage of proclaimed universal musical language, we need to relook at musical pedagogy through a 21st century lens. Schenker should remain in the curricular as he tells specific truths integral to understanding a type of musical experience, just not in all musical experiences. There is definitely value in action, but that action needs to be guided by an educated perspective, not just a loud one. In this case, eliminating voices does not oppose complacency, in fact it’s just as dangerous to modern pedagogy as having a singular default and applying it to everything.
This leads nicely into the young person’s revolt against Leonard Meyer’s work on emotion in music. We find comfort in our own subjective voices, even at the extent of a true understanding; I would argue that an entirely subjective view can reduce the value of music, and in fact is a bit of a cop out in explaining musical effect. This is the other end of the dichotomy, the mass protection of the subjective; “We stick with the known in order to avoid the hard work of exploring the unknown” — the ‘known’ in this case, refers to our own experience.
We tend to defend the spiritual and beautiful within music, and argue that emotion of course must exist there. Any rejection of this entire subjectivity, is thus rendered by some as a “pathetic and cynical” approach— I think we owe it to ourselves to branch out a little bit further than our own deep-rooted convictions.
Meyer claimed that emotion itself can’t exist within sound, rectifying this idea with the suggestions that what does exist within music, is something analogous to emotion. The analog of feeling as Meyer suggests, is tension and release — components of tonal music, translated through harmony. We are able to detect a blue mood tied to the notes of a minor scale, but do we actually feel sad when we hear this progression of notes? Perhaps the emotion in music, exists in the experience of it; whether that be the writing process, the performance aspect, or the listening of it.
Perhaps if we give different voices a chance to speak, we will create a musical pedagogy more realistic of the musical truths in which we find ourselves.
Comments