TubaForum.net

The comment about the E# minor chord set me off (I was laughing.)
But I have a question for the theory people out there; yup I took my two years of theory in music school and did just fine, but I was already composing in high school, ended up with a couple things in print, and I know I did not think about theory when writing. I thought about music. Musical form, useful to learn, for me is a different thing than thinking "oh I will follow this with an inverted B# 9 chord" which I never did, and I'd be amazed if any composer ever did.
So what is the point of the type of analysis that labels chords and why do students have to learn this type of analysis?
I'm aware from talking to other people who write, of "two ways of composing;" one of which seems to be intellectual and mentally quite intensive, and the other which seems more intuitive/musical, even though the intuitive/musical may exist within a form. And obviously the old sonata-allegro form is probably never used today, with others being invented as we go along. Arch form, etc, and stuff I've never heard of.
So back to the beginning -- I never saw the point of the chord analysis I had to do in theory class. I found no use for it. What is the purpose?

I taught college prep music theory for several years, stressing chord analysis. I told my students - first, we learn the rules. Then, we break them.
Tim

Music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. Chord labeling is a small part of analysis. Through chordal analysis, we see can patterns emerge, and through emergent patterns throughout a body of work, we can see common tropes form, and in historical context we can become informed about the way composers thought about music through the use of these tropes, and we can start to analyze the way they broke those rules and developed various styles. The way Beethoven manages a development section of a sonata is a lot different than Mozart or (heh) Hindemith.

To me, chord analysis is the first step in really understanding a piece of music and contextualizing it in a corpus of work.

All that said, the way music theory is taught in college is bogus. I taught it because I was being paid to do it like that. But I tried to stress to my students that no, just because you labeled all the chords does not mean you've analyzed the piece. That's like saying you understand the meaning of a sentence just because you recognize all the words in it. It's about context, along with melodic inflection, form (most important IMO), rhythm, and extramusical association.

I find it truly amazing that those who write doctoral theses....... pass, get their grad/doctorate degree, use that thesis as the impetus to then write a textbook further pushing their original point with their own slant on the subject matter. After getting a job teaching at a college or university, then require their students to buy the book, which they wrote......... to further push their own personal point(s)...... offer it for sale to others, which eventually becomes the basis for the new "rules" of music.

My daughter graduated from the Eastman School of music with "Highest Distinction"..... their own term for Highest Honors...... in Horn Performance, and is now at Yale grad school furthering her Horn Performance degree(s). During the last five years, I learned that so many of the "rules" have completely changed from what I was taught during my college career... both undergrad and grad. Things that I was taught in theory class are now completely wrong, go by different names, two different chords put together under one chord name...... the list goes on. I can't even remember what, or how many of these things, have been changed.

As much as I hated going through some of the theory, counterpoint, and form & analysis classes I had to take, I readily admit that as a band and choral director, it came in very handy. On more than a number of occasions, I was able to correct scores, individual parts, even rewrite some music to make it better for my bands and choirs. Not easier..... better.

My gripe is that the new terms, ways of doing things, ways of composition, etc., are not necessarily better. People have just repeated their take on things enough to have someone else agree with them, and by way of constant repetition, get their ways and beliefs accepted as correct, better, and more intelligent, and put into a textbook, from which, other are now learning.

Depending on which era you went through music school, you'll either agree or disagree with me, but nevertheless, a lot of what I was taught has been changed!

I guess my purpose in analysis would be to see if I can find how why a piece of music affects the listeners the way it does.

And my analysis of structure would be to see if I can learn enough about it that I can either reasonably duplicate the form, or understand how to come up with my own.

I've never been very interested in learning the "proper interpretation" of works of music, which has definitely put me on the outs with those to whom that is important. If I can affect the listeners with my interpretation, I have achieved my goal. I think Tabuteau had some really good input on that.

The best book about composition I ever found was one that showed how the melodic content was continued in various ways through the movements of a piece, and that one was an eye-opener for me, finally someone explaining how a multi-movement piece hung together.

Good points. Increasingly, academic music theory is diverging from academic music composition.

Mary Ann wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 5:55 pm I guess my purpose in analysis would be to see if I can find how why a piece of music affects the listeners the way it does.

This is in the realm of music cognition, which is fascinating and which I have 0 expertise in.

WRITTEN chord analysis reminds me of so much other stuff about "college".

Most things taught are "ABOUT" stuff, and very few things that are taught are "how to DO stuff".

Looking at a piece of music's staves and music notes - and being able to "analyze" the chords/etc. (without even being able to hum what's on the page) is sterile.

Listening to a piece and AURALLY IDENTIFYING the chord progressions and (ok) the "form" as well - ON THE FLY...
That's what (would be/could be) useful...but that's not taught, not encouraged to be developed as a skill set, and - certainly - not included in any significant testing.

I scribbled in those chord names (to AVOID reading all those notes, as the chord names gave me music WORDS (vs. musical LETTERS) and the progressions (seen by looking a the chords' PROGRESSION) showed me a PARAGRAPH of music (vs. a sentence of music)...

...and yes, on-the-fly.

When I sight-read classically-based etudes (which typically feature quite a few patterns), I'm not only looking ahead at the chord progressions and melodic patterns, I'm making "intelligent guesses" as to what might come next...(perhaps half to two thirds of which might be correct...??) It's "noisy" (in my head) but I'm hearing not only what I'm playing, but also what I'm about to play.

...to "analyze" those etudes - or "real" pieces (without being able to hear - in my head - how they sound) would be pointless and (as you point out) a complete waste of time...other than (perhaps) to tin-eared theory instructors.

important:
Do not misinterpret what I do (at my level) as "me bragging about having the world's largest ears".
I have "pretty good" ears, and I believe they were developed (not-at-all in "college", but) beginning in elementary school - learning chords and guitar riffs from listening to 45's and 33's...later (an incredible tool) being able to record "records" over onto cassettes, and having the amazing advantage of a PAUSE button.

Regarding graduate students and rules and books…

You know all those conflicting health warnings we hear every day on “the news?” That’s usually graduate students pushing their findings and new rules to advance their careers and books. Without going into my particular health, I just had one of the top doctors in his field (he’s an extremely specialized eye surgeon) tell me to ignore a bit of “information” when my other doctor had me ask him a question. He told us, me and my other doctor, that it was “graduate student nonsense” that included flawed research and finances driven by lawyers. I’m thankful to have a couple of “no BS” doctors.

It’s not just music theory books.