My colleagues at JMU and I are redesigning our written theory core curriculum, and we're considering moving toward a modular, "menu-based" design rather than the sequence of four courses we currently offer. In other words, rather than moving through Theory 1-4 in order, students will choose courses that interest them from a menu of options that can be taken in (almost) any order. I know Megan Lavengood has done something similar to this at her institution, and I'm wondering: (1) how many others have switched to such a curriculum or something like it, and (2)  if you've gone through such a change, were there challenges you faced that you might share?

Thanks!

John

Are there alternatives to standards-based grading that ensure that the student masters the skills in, say, a level 1 class, before the student moves on to level 2? Any insight you can provide will be appreciated.

Thanks so much,

Guy

Lately, I have been thinking a lot about C-clef pedaogy in aural skills courses. I understand the arguments for students to sing C-clef melodies with letter names (i.e. Karpinski)--that singing letter names (or playing on an instrument from C-clef notation) are essentially the only ways to test that students are reading notes in these clefs (instead of simply transposing them). In general, I agree with this, and I have had my own students sing C-clef melodies with letter names for many years. 

I was wondering if anyone with more aural skills experience than myself has thoughts on this? Do you think it's the best practice for students? Do you think there are additional benefits, or potential drawbacks? Do you have an alternative C-clef pedagogical technique?

Thanks,

Chelsey Hamm 

With appreciation,

Cynthia

Cynthia I. Gonzales, Ph.D.

cg34@txstate.edu

Associate Professor

2018 Presidential Award for Excellence in Teaching

President, Texas Society for Music Theory

Texas State University

I'm about to revise our theory fundamentals syllabus as part of a proposal to add this course into our general education curriculum. The course is already being taught to mostly non-majors, so I'm hoping that being part of the CUNY gen ed. will allow even more students to take the course.

My question to you: have you had experience with teaching a music theory for non-majors course as a general education class, with course outcomes that are also aligned with critical thinking skills?

I am trying to satisfy two outcomes: 1) that students can demonstrate their knowledge of major scales, minor scales, key signatures, intervals, and triads (all lower level recall / knowledge skills on Bloom's taxonomy); and 2) that students also are able to interpret and assess a variety of sources, evaluate evidence, and produce well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence.

I've been teaching this class in a way that really only satisfies the first goal. In my thinking about how to revise the course, I'm wondering if anyone has had experience with such a conversion, and what kinds of assignments / projects might successfully bring the nuts-and-bolts, more abstract theory concepts (esp. for non-musicians) together with the kinds of critical thinking outcomes that form a part of a balanced gen. ed curriculum?

Final idea: I think there might be something to the idea of using recent copyright infringement cases (e.g. Blurred Lines and Marvin Gaye), scaffolding the skills needed to both present music theory concept to peers (i.e. a jury) but to also analyze the merits of a particular copyright argument, supported by evidence.

Perhaps this is also a relevant topic in public music theory?

All ideas and input are appreciated. Thanks!





George

(York College CUNY)

p.s. For your reference, here at CUNY, the gen ed. courses in the "creative expressions" category need to satisfy the following common outcomes:

•    Gather, interpret, and assess information from a variety of sources and points of view.

•    Evaluate evidence and arguments critically or analytically.

•    Produce well-reasoned written or oral arguments using evidence to support conclusions.

I would like the perspectives of  colleagues on any of the following questions: (1) Are you aware of any textbooks that acknowledge and theorize the tension between the absolute definition and the gradated experience? (2) How do you address the tension between these two conceptions in your own teaching? (3) How do you respond to students who recognize this tension and would like you to address or resolve it?    

---Rick Cohn

Just a quick question: is anyone familiar with an anthology for music analysis that uses popular music examples (let's say, anything that's not in the western classical canon). I suspect that copyright clearance might prohibit a publisher from exploring this, but I at least wanted to see if I've missed such a collection.

Also it might be interesting to just start an online compilation of music theory topics and pop songs where the topics can be illustrated, without actually including the notation...

Happy Holidays!



George

==

George Lam

Assistant Professor of Music

York College CUNY

www.gtlam.com

• does anyone know of an especially low-cost or ideally free way to create the test? We are building ours through our LMS (Blackboard) and are looking into using Noteflight Learn, but it unfortunately has an annual license. Are there other ways, either by designing questions to not require notation-based answers, or by using some free or paid-up-front implementation of notation software?
• do you take any steps against cheating, or do you figure that any cheaters will quickly be outed through their lack of fluency?

Now, our minors and also our Music Technology majors need take only Fundamentals and Theory I. Together these students make a majority of our Theory I cohort; for some of them Theory I will be their most advanced theory course. It is also worth noting that the majority of these students have their musical focus in popular, or jazz, or dance music.

We are considering revising our curriculum to cover more ground (particularly more harmonic vocabulary) in Theory I at the expense of...something, likely some degree of rigor or voice-leading detail or partwriting practice. Currently we cover only diatonic chords in Theory I, following a preliminary unit of approx. 3 weeks on strict 2-voice counterpoint. The intent is that whatever we skip or skim over might be reincoporated into Theory II for those students ("traditional" majors) who do continue in our 4-semester theory track.

We are interested in hearing thoughts from anyone who has recently considered the question of breadth vs. depth in Theory I, which I think is much in the air now, or from anyone whose Theory I curriculum leans toward the "breadth" end of the spectrum. Thanks in advance for all advice.

Thanks,

Tahirih

https://doodle.com/poll/93iuvyprnxe5qqct

If you use a text outside of those listed, please post a comment below.  

In a few weeks I will be taking up a position as visiting professor of music at Delhi University in India. Although it is a very large “Central University” the focus in the music department, like at most Indian Universities and music institutions, is almost exclusively on Indian classical music, with some attention to Indian folk music and a little to ethnomusicology. Western music is not taught or well understood. This is quite different from the situations in, say, Japan or China where Western music is taught, often at very high levels, and there are Western orchestras, etc., and a significant cultural awareness and appreciation of Western music.

Delhi University has, for the first time, introduced a required course in “Western music” for all MA students this year. I will be teaching this course.

Given the students’ limited familiarity with western music, their inability to read staff notation, etc., the class will be a combination of a music appreciation 101-type course and music theory 1. In addition, since the students are all trained singers, I will make extensive use of this skill and have them “learn by doing.” (Incidentally and instructively, I taught a few workshops at Delhi U. in January, and by using the Indian solfege system (sa-re-ga-ma) I was able to teach them the soprano and bass parts to a Bach chorale and perform it in two parts. In 5 minutes they sounded much better than my Americn theory students, some of whom play instruments but are weak singers. . . ) It was thrilling.

All of this is to say that I am looking for textbooks. There are some excellent online resources and the students are very tech savvy. However, old dog that I am, I believe a textbook is essential.

I have decided to use Tom Manoff’s “The Music Kit” (4th Edition) which is a good all-around fundamentals text. However, the price—even for used copies—is exorbitant in Indian rupees and far beyond the reach of the students. (I've searched extensively at Amazon an Alibris, etc.)

If you might have a spare copy or two of this particular book (I’m looking for the 4th edition “Workbook”, not the accompanying “Rhythm Reader and Scorebook”) that you are not using or will not use, I and they would be grateful if you could pass them along to me. Used copies are fine. I will reimburse you for postage, packing, and shipping costs. The Fulbright organization and the US Embassy will then bulk ship the books to India for me.

(If you have other extra music theory books, scores, ethnomusicology or  orchestration books you are not using, and which are cluttering up your office, like they are mine, I can donate those to their music library, which is out-of-date and has a very limited collection of materials on Western music. But we should discuss these selections first.)

My main focus is Manoff’s “The Music Kit” (4th Edition) for the course I will be teaching.

Please email me privately if you may be of help in this matter.

With sincere thanks,

David Claman

Associate Professor of Music

Lehman College-CUNY

david.claman@lehman.cuny.edu

I’m writing to solicit some recommendations for helping my university’s incoming freshmen without much (or any) theory experience.

Here’s our current set-up:

1. We administer a diagnostic exam prior to the beginning of the first semester.  It’s very “nuts and bolts” – treble/bass clef note ID, key signatures, major/minor scales, intervals, triads, and a couple of 7^th chords.
2. All students register for Theory 1 and Aural 1, but the students who don’t perform well on the diagnostic exam also register for a class called “Introduction to Music Theory.”
3. This “Introduction” class runs alongside the Theory class.  Theory meets MW (75 min/day), Aural meets TR (50 min/day), and the “Intro” class meets on Fridays (50 min).  Typically, we use this class as a sort of group tutoring setting – “Here’s what we worked on this week.  What challenges are you having with this material?” And, if time allows, “Here’s what we’re working on next week – let’s get a jump start.”

The success of the Intro class has been very hit-or-miss.  The fundamental problem is that the students who “test into” the class are required to take it because of a lack of experience – but that lack of experience doesn’t always translate to “needs extra help every week.”  Many of the students do just fine with the material on MW in written theory, and don’t really need the group tutoring on Fridays.  But some really do need it.  And furthermore, there are always a number of students who *don’t* test into the class who turn out to really need that kind of extra help.

I’d like to be able to allow students to drop the Intro class after a few weeks if it becomes apparent that they don’t need it…and to allow students to add the Intro class later in the semester if they do need it.  But our registration is a bit restrictive – late drop/add fees kick in after the first week of classes…

I feel fortunate that we have this “Intro” class already on the books – it gives us some structure in which to work.  But we haven’t yet come up with a truly effective way to manage it. 

Does anyone have any suggestions for a way that we could improve this situation to help our students be more successful?  How do you deal with these kinds of issues at your school?

[Logistical details:  We typically have between 30-35 students in Theory 1 (one section only), and usually about 10-12 of them are in the Intro class.  We don’t have a grad program, so there are no TA’s to help out, though we do have a small number of upper-class theory/comp majors.]

Thank you for your thoughts!

Zac

One thing I haven't yet figured out is how to incorporate timbre into the Musicianship/Aural Skills component of the curriculum. We do have a lab, taught by another instructor, that currently covers the classics: dictation, sight-singing, and piano skills. Has anyone had any experience developing activities or assignements relevant to timbre in the context of a musicianship class? And have you found ways to integrate them with activities related to the other musical skills that we tend to cover in freshman aural skills?

I did a quick perusal of JMTP and couldn't find any articles specifically on teaching musical color; apologies if I have indeed missed anyone's prior work in this arena!

One idea that comes to mind immediately is some sort of game involving the recognition of different orchestral instruments and instrumental blendings. This is a talent that has (perhaps not surprisingly) atrophied for incoming freshmen. However, as we move away from a strict Western Art emphasis in our program at large, I don't feel as though precious time in aural skills lab needs to be spent helping students make fine differentiations between, say, oboe, English Horn, and bassoon in comparable ranges (as fun as that would be!). More valuable, I'd think, are activities that get students to hear and recall timbre generally, and articulate its quality systematically in many different contexts. A related goal is to be able to specify the subtle differences in performance (esp. vocal technique) that make the sound of specific musicians unique.

[For those that know me well: I confess my interest in identifying and recording birdsong may be influencing my curricular goals here! I'm almost thinking of adopting parts of the wonderful recent Peterson's Guide to Bird Sounds as a "textbook" of sorts. Certainly, if you can teach a freshman to distinguish between a Chipping Sparrow and Worm-Eating Warbler by vocalization alone, identifying an C4 on an oboe vs. English Horn will be a piece of cake!)] 

Thanks!

Frank

We are considering revamping our Musicianship/Sight-Singing/Ear Training sequence. I may put together a survey to find out what people are doing/have done at other schools. But I have a recollection that others may have created similar surveys recently. If so, we would be interested in looking at the data collected, if possible. 

Among questions we are considering:

How frequently do classes meet, and for how long?

How are these classes integrated, or not, with written theory and keyboard classes?

What topics are covered?

What sight-singing methods are used (fixed do, movable do, numbers, etc,)?

How much attention is given to music outside of the Western classical tradition--pop/jazz/folk/non-Western?

If you have done a similar survey, we would be interested in seeing the data.

If no recent survey of this sort has been done, I will try to construct one, distribute it, and share the results with those who are interested.

Thank you,

David Claman Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Music

Lehman College-CUNY

http://davidclaman.com

Some of you know that I have moved on from teaching in music theory, but I am still heavily involved in higher education. I am currently at Southern New Hampshire University working with their non-profit online programs. (You may have seen our commercials!) Anyway, one of the things that I have picked up in the two years I have been here so far is that the courses are designed in a way to measure student learning outcomes. Every assignment as a rubric and all students are measured against the same rubric. Usually they include categories such as exemplary, proficient, needs improvement, and not evident with the typical split of (100% / 90% / 50% / 0%) per each section of the rubric.

What's interesting in this approach is that it allows for us to collect data on how successful assignments are in reinforcing expected outcomes in the course. If students widely struggle on the assignment, then either the content isn't being delivered effectively or the assignment is not adequately addressing that student learning outcome. Being all online, we're able to collect this data and make some really cool observations about trends, student cohorts, assignment success, etc.

It has made me think about how we evaluated and assess how students are doing in the music theory curriculum. I remember grading counterpoint exercises and assigning fractions of points for every note and error. Sometimes you would see some students with "technically correct" counterpoint but nothing that really resembled stylistic writing. Has anyone moved to a model where rather than assigning points to errors that you grade more holistically and the level of proficiency on those skills. For example, a rubric could look like this for a melody harmonization assignment:

This is just an example I whipped up, but it would allow for easy collection of student learning outcomes. For example, if the melody harmonization exercise were to test a student's ability to apply secondary dominants and they did not use any - you might score them as not meeting the style (or perhaps you rewrite the rubric to reflect the need for secondary dominants). Then you can observe quickly how well the class is or isn't learning the material.

In an age where accreditation agencies are pushing for better demonstrations of student learning outcomes under public pressure on the value of the degree, I imagine that we (the music theory community at large) will have to figure out a way to collect this information in a meaningful way. I'm curious if any of you have begun working on similar types of assessment projects and how you are approaching this issue.

Thanks!

I'm wondering if any of you have any tips, tricks, and/or resources related to teaching music students who are dyslexic.  Here are some specifics, to give a bit of context:

Student has issues with sight singing and dictation, and recognizing whether notes ascend vs. descend.  

Student has issues with dictation, unable to write down what s/he hears as occurring, but s/he can explain it verbally.  

Student can copy information from a computer but not from a text, and replying to a question verbally is acceptable, but any written response is way off base.

Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer!  CC