Pop / Classical

[Sean Malone <spm29386@oregon.uoregon.edu>]

I certainly agree that one can find pleasure in many disparate sources of
music. As a theorist myself, the music I've studied and teach in an academic
setting comes primarily from the western tradition. Bach is as vital to me
as air and water, but I have equal interests in jazz and progressive rock,
having built a recording career with musicians such as Bill Bruford (Yes,
King Crimson) Reeves Gabrels (David Bowie) Trey Gunn (King Crimson) Steve
Morse and others. Gratuitous plugs aside, it's important to understand why
some might receive "the hairy eyeball" from their college music teachers.

I personally believe that it is vital to a student's education to assimilate
their own musical interests into their education. However this must
necessarily be done within a certain context.

The difficulty in disseminating pop musical practices is that they more
often than not depart from any kind of common practice, like the one we find
in western classical music. Because of this it becomes nearly impossible to
produce models that a student can grasp, because these models are constantly
changing. The music from right before Bach up until the early Romantic Era
has properties that can be more easily codified, though they too always
present departures from "practice." I think the most important thing to
realize is that music theory is only a summary of musical practice, and when
we look at individual works, rarely do we come up with the perfect sonata,
or perfect symphony etc. Instead we try to use music theory as a point of
departure - a common language that helps us better understand those
departures.

For my own classes at least, I too teach from the western tradition
primarily, but prefer to supplement their education with current popular
music. An augmented sixth chord, either from Mozart or Radiohead, is still
an augmented sixth chord. However, the context of Mozart's time and music
make it easier for a student to apprehend not only the grammar of music, but
it's evolution as well.

Ultimately we have to sometimes separate the music that only gives us
pleasure from the music that gives us pleasure *and* offers important
pedagogical tools. I would never discourage anyone from listening to any
kind of music, but in order to teach the language of music it's important to
choose from time-tested sources.


However, this is only in the context of teaching music at a university. And
it's not to say that pop music has no pedagogical value - just the contrary.
But what we can learn from pop music comprises only a small, and sometimes
separate space in the continuum.

I disagree strongly that: "our educational traditions (fez-wearing music
teachers) which suggest the two kinds of music are hostile to one another
and can't survive together in a cultured mind and heart" because our
teaching tradition simply does not promote this. We all may have had a less
than enthusiastic teacher who dismissed pop music, which is a shame, but to
offer that this is part of our "educational tradition" is inaccurate.

Remember the context where this supposed "hostility" occurs, and the
conflict is never over the heart, or of culture, it's over what are the most
appropriate tools with which to teach the language of music theory. There
are plenty of college courses devoted to pop music and culture, where
classical music has little place. The confluence comes to fruit in each
individual person, who finds that beautifully ineffable ecstasy from
listening to music.

Sean Malone
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~spm29386

>
> There's plenty of room in the human brain to love both Bach and Janis
> Joplin. It's our educational traditions (fez-wearing music teachers)
> which suggest the two kinds of music are hostile to one another and
> can't survive together in a cultured mind and heart. How many music
> teachers have given the hairy eyeball to a student who got caught
> bringing his/her beloved CD of Pop du Jour to class?
>