If you would like to participate in discussions, please sign in or register.
Resolved: The weighting of the undergraduate music theory curriculum for most university-level music programs in favor of the common practice period and its pop & jazz extensions has the (intended or unintended) consequence of limiting the creation, exploration, discovery, effectiveness and enjoyment of a growing repertoire of non-CPP works.
One specific example that sticks out is found in most core theory requirements I have reviewed & which I commented on in a footnote in my most recent blog entry:
Music theory today is stuck on the currently popular distinction made between "tonal" and "post-tonal" theories. This unfortunate bifurcation appears to have arisen in part as an attempt to improve on the term "atonal." But it has mostly caught on due to its pedagogical utility. In undergraduate music curricula, traditional "tonal" theory is unquestioningly required in all cases. "Post-tonal" theory – a potpourri of ideas about an increasingly large body of works that have in common only their inability (or mulish refusal) to fold into the comparatively well understood orbit of "tonal" works – is at best an elective or add-on. It is difficult to deny that this effectively ghettoizes all musics and their associated theories that lie outside the bounds of common practice "tonality" and its contemporary extensions to pop and jazz.