Naming notes vs. audiation: a conversation over Twitter

Interesting conversation I thought worth sharing. Please respond if you'd like.

[I added additional comments in brackets]

  musicteachstuff robert hylton

Music lesson Plan "Naming Notes" worksheets "If they can't name notes then they can't build scales and chords" #mused goo.gl/UxBbx

[Seeing this tweet prompted me to respond right away—essentially because I hold off teaching theory—such as lines/spaces and durations (quarter/half/whole, etc.)—until I can’t go any further without it. Which is pretty far. Dare I say, sometimes further than many music teachers can go musically. I know I’m a heretic.]

rizzrazz Eric Rasmussen

@musicteachstuff But a 2 y/o child can speak well but can't tell you how to spell. Theory, intervals and note naming is overrated. #musiced

musicteachstuff robert hylton

@rizzrazz I agree that you don't need theory to enjoy and create music but you do need theory to understand it? ;)

@rizzrazz Eric Rasmussen

@musicteachstuff That's exactly what I'm not saying. A very young child doesn't understand the alphabet, but does understand his language.

musicteachstuff robert hylton

@rizzrazz So are you saying that children should not be encouraged learn to speak at a more advanced level that when they were 2 years old?

[ musicteachstuff robert hylton

Oops I just tweeted with the language skills of a (drunk) two year old! Kind of defeated my own argument? Bah! ]

[I didn’t see this tweet until later as I wasn’t mentioned. No, you didn’t defeat your argument, but interesting that you responded this way.]

rizzrazz Eric Rasmussen

@musicteachstuff That would be ridiculous. I'm saying that knowing the alphabet doesn't increase vocabulary or understanding.

craigdab Craig Dabelstein

by musicteachstuff

Understanding theory doesn't help you understand the meaning of music, the Melos. Music theory is important for composers, not listeners.

musicteachstuff robert hylton

@rizzrazz I would tend to disagree but I think that curiosity is way more important than knowledge? Music theory is not "rules" but options?

rizzrazz Eric Rasmussen

@musicteachstuff Music Theory is a way of explaining *in language* what works and doesn't work in music. "Rules" are always broken. Ear>all

musicteachstuff robert hylton

@rizzrazz Music theory is a framework that we can adhere to or disregard at will. It's just a way of helping us to understand if req'd?

rizzrazz Eric Rasmussen

@musicteachstuff The best I can say is through the kids. No theory involved here. http://bit.ly/eWEQyd @craigdab #theoryisgoodtho--atitstime

[This is the same old video many of you have seen. If not, take a look. These 1st and 2nd graders have no theoretical understanding, but they do “name” what they can audiate.]

musicteachstuff robert hylton

@rizzrazz @craigdab Just because good things can happen without theory surely does not mean that good things can only happen without theory?

rizzrazz Eric Rasmussen

@musicteachstuff Totally agree with you, with the caveat that audiation is coupled with it. @craigdab #seethelasthashtag?

musicteachstuff robert hylton

@rizzrazz @craigdab Seems fair to me!:) Goodnight folks!

rizzrazz Eric Rasmussen

@musicteachstuff Goodnight and thanks for the shop talk. Love it.

Comments

[Elissamilne.wordpress.com]

Love it. There's also the issue that 'theory' often doesn't very accurately relate to contemporary meaning-making processes in music - so we're using language about music (and rubrics for describing what it does) that are less than optimum for the experiences we are wanting to discuss.

All this energy invested in 'theory' with young instrumentalists would be better redirected into 'audiation' - and the whole theory thing will unfold incredibly easily and naturally from there. If we teach children pattern-perceiving and pattern-reproducing skills first, then the 'theory' work is done. [Some bold generalisations!]

[Juliekastner]

Great discussion! I agree with what you're saying, but perhaps what you are talking about with young children is not an absence of music theory but a reconceptualization of music theory from something that is formally taught through language, to something that is cognitively understood and applied through active music-making. Perhaps the theory is still there, but not in the way that most of us learned music theory through our undergrad classes. Just a thought!

[Dr. RizzRazz]

Hi Julie,

I appreciate your thought and it made me think about what you were saying. Still, I come back to this:
Theory is usually absent in the "thing" itself. It's a theory. It's an abstraction from the thing you're trying to understand. For example, in music, there is no perfect 5th that actually has any meaning. Even if there were a perfect 5th in a piece, which one is it? C to G? Even that's insufficient information. C to G in D dorian means something quite different than C to G in C major. Theory is imposed to try to make order out of something that isn't already there. Rules are broken all the time. Bach broke voice leading "rules." Analyzing this response (in language) theoretically won't help you understand what I'm trying to communicate. Neither will breaking apart a symphony, or even a song, into its component parts to help you understand what is actually there: the music. Only what hits your ears and makes "musical sense" in your brain—audiation.

Looking forward to rebuttals or more thoughts.
Thanks!