Re: [Harp-L] Reading Music

[sheltraw@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Hi Iceman

The distinction between the definitions you gave is not clear enough for
me. Also, taken separately the definitions do not appear clear enough for
me. In the scientific realm theory predicts and predicts well. This is what
one would refer to as an operational definition. What does theory in your
definition do - ie what is its operational definition?

PS: I don't think this is about semantics. I think it is about clarity.

Cheers,
Daniel


> Daniel,
>
>
> I think we've gotten into semantics and once removed from the issue.
>
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but you are focusing on the definition "theory -
> a statement or set of statements designed to explain a phenomenon or class
> of phenomenon" while I am using the definition "theory - a set of rules or
> principals designed for the study or practice of an art or discipline".
>
>
> Same word - two different interpretations. Yours may be coming from your
> scientific background and not a background in music education. Mine is
> just the opposite.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sheltraw <sheltraw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Harp L Harp L <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 9:22 pm
> Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Reading Music
>
>
> Hi Iceman
>
> I'm still not sure what it is that you want to teach about harmony. Do
> you want to teach a particular "theory" connected with harmony? If so
> then what theory? Can you state it? If it is theory then it should have
> predictive value. Do you want to teach an awareness of the different
> sounds of intervals that constitute a particular? This would be an
> example of what I referred to as taxonomy. Or do you want to teach
> something altogether different from these two examples?
>
> You may have noticed that I am not happy with what passes as theory in
> music education world. In my world there is a clear difference between
> theory and taxonomy.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
>
>> Daniel,
>>
>>
>> ah, no wonder I never learned taxonomy in music college. It doesn't
>> really
>> exist in that world...now I'm back to my original question of how to
>> teach
>> theory without using notation.
>>
>>
>> Since you asked for a specific example, I'll choose one ... 4 part
>> harmony, one of the foundations for modern chord voicings, also known as
>> functional harmony. Bach was a master at this and the result was four
>> lines that moved independently in linear fashion, but when approached
>> vertically, created chords. It was one basis for our "chord changes"
>> today. As you can see, this encompasses both harmonic structure of a
>> tune
>> and the harmonization of a melody at the same time.
>>
>>
>> When learning music theory in college, this is considered one of the
>> sources for what we do today. It includes voice leading, linear ideas,
>> harmonic structure, rhythm and a basic understanding of what makes so
>> much
>> of music "work", in a sense. Charlie Parker's solos owed a lot to this
>> source and to Bach, for example.
>>
>>
>> In approaching an instrument such as harmonica, which is linear and also
>> chordal, this foundation really strengthens and gives good logic to
>> approaching soloing and accompaniment. Granted, it is not necessary for
>> all those interested in music to learn, but is valuable nonetheless.
>>
>>
>> One could spend years learning by ear what works and what doesn't, or
>> spend a much shorter time learning theory for an inherent and deeper
>> understanding of how music works. I always seek the shorter path to a
>> musical goal.
>>
>>
>> If you can show how functional harmony can be taught without the use of
>> music notation, I would be totally enlightened.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>