Monday, September 7, 2009
Pedagogical musings
In the last 10 years or so, there's been a profound shift in pedagogical focus in the teaching of music history. One important school of thought maintains that the "great man" approach, whereby one focuses in detail on the most important composers of an era, minimizes the contributions of many composers (some of them women) who were, in their time, well known and highly esteemed. Our class will spend most of our time on the music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven--probably the three most important composers of the Classical era--with occasional glances at Domenico Scarlatti, C. P. E. Bach, J. C. Bach, Christoph Willibald Gluck, Giovanni Battista Pergolesi, and Johann Stamitz. I have taken some effort to make sure that the class will not simply focus on the great composers and their works, but rather try to give a sense of the actual cultural context in which they worked and lived: that's why we will read the accounts of people who were there at the time (most of whom are not composers), think about how performers approach the music, consider the audience, aesthetics, and so on. But I've decided to emphasize the music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven because so much of their music remains in the concert repertoire of orchestras (and bands!), choirs, ensembles, and soloists, and that it's appropriate to focus in depth on the music of these composers rather than give another cursory overview of a lot of composers in the way I'm obliged to do for the undergraduate music history survey. What do you see as the the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd like to see what I think about this question after the class is over, having experience a more "great man" centered class.
ReplyDeleteFrom my experience in 501 and 502, I felt like the more cursory style benefitted me in the way that any introductory course does. We learned very little (a kind of preview) about a lot of people, and as a result got the chance to get a feeling for our interest or lack thereof in the subject matter. It was also an opportunity to gain knowledge of the resources if we wanted to investigate music history more on our own. We attained written sources (Norton Anthology Set) for researching topics further, and more importantly, I think..we were introduced to composers and performers who we could listen to (or watch) on our own time. I liked this in that it was like a teaser, giving us a little bit of everything out there, so we could be motivated and informed to investigate/read/listen more ourselves.
As for what I think I will like about this class, it seems like a more in depth experience with these topics (if only with a few major composers) will give more memorable as well as useful knowledge. By doing further analysis of a subject past surface level memorization, I think you naturally gain a greater understanding as well as a personal connection with a subject. For me atleast, this kind of learning gives a more lasting impression of a topic, while still encouraging a continued interest in pursuing it (whether by listening to the music or reading about it, or by playing more of the music).
-Kristen Schwerin
I believe that the amount of material covered in 501 and 502 was appropriate, taking into consideration that they are survey courses. However, I believe it is difficult to hold onto all of the information covered in the 501 and 502 courses, simply because there is so much ground covered in so little time.
ReplyDeleteI do like the idea of concentrating on the big composers of the Classical period - after all, Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn arguably have had the most influence on music since their time than any other composers. Beethoven is the center face in concert hall decorations for a reason. I believe that by concentrating on fewer topics/composers, we will be able to retain the information better, as well as have a better understanding about the composers, their music, and their influences on composers who came after their time.
I agree with a lot of what Jeff and Kristen said. The way that other history classes are run, it is a lot of memorizing. I can honestly say that I do not remember much from my past music history class, or any class dealing with history in general. It seems that most of the history classes are set up to memorize names and dates, but are not really set up for thinking. However, an advantage is that it is easier to understand things chronologically.
ReplyDeleteIn the style that we are learning in this particular setting I find it really interesting which does change the pace for the different history classes I have taken. It invovles much more thinking which I think overall will help us understand the classical era a lot better then just memorizing the dates of the composers and pieces. It does have a disadvantage that it is a little more confusing. Like we talked about in class, the book is a little harder to understand compared to reading a modern textbook that spits out facts. That could just be because we are used to reading textbooks over a book similar to the one we are using in class. Overall I think that the advantage of deeply learning compensates for the confusion and for the memorizing of the other method. I also think it is important to focus in on a few composers. There are many composers, probably some that I don't even know of, but it is obvious that Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven strongly influence music and the classical era. I am interested in learning more about them throughout the semester.
-Kelsey Parrillo
There's always a tension between memorizing and thinking creatively. Some professors I talked to in Faculty Senate were very critical of the Discovery-based pedagogical model that we are trying to switch to at UNH. (A footnote for those of you who haven't heard this word "Discovery" in this context: all it means is that in addition to learning facts and other kinds of information about a subject to become competent in it, students should also have the opportunity to experience what it is like for a person who is actively working in the field. In performance, all or most of us get a Discovery-based experience because we're studying under or playing for musicians and conductors who perform regularly in various kinds of situations. But for the academic side of music, it's a little harder to learn to think how a musicologist thinks, or how a theorist thinks. It does require some background knowledge, for sure, but more important, it involves knowing what kinds of questions musicologists (or theorists) ask, and what kinds of methods they use toward answering those questions. (I'll continue this in a new blogpost.)
ReplyDeleteThis tension between memorization and understanding is an interesting one. In many ways, both the "Great Man" approach and the overview approach fall on the side of memorization. In an introductory-type course, the depth of study on any single topic or composer is extremely limited. To achieve understanding in such a course, additional effort by the student is required. Since expanded factual study of a topic is an important part of understanding (certainly not the only part)the great man approach should be more supportive of an environment of understanding. However, if the goal of a more focused approach to music history is indeed understanding, than the degree of success is determined by the students. It seems to me that success (as defined by a grade)is achievable through both memorization AND understanding in both class formats.
ReplyDeleteI am personally most interested in using the cultural, philosophical, political and aesthetic knowledge of the time period being studied as a tool for understanding the art forms better. I think this will provide a certain advantage towards "understanding" that is maybe missing if these aspects are not considered.
Overall, each style of presenting the material serves its purpose. As Kristen said, the cursory overview attempts to provide students with a shallow foundation covering a lot of area. Courses with a narrower focus can then add knowledge to that foundation in more specific areas.
Also, the "great man" approach, combined with creative thinking and an attempt to understand, can lead to questions regarding why those Greats are considered to be as great as they are. It is interesting to see, out of all of the people who have existed and all of the things that have been done, which people and ideas are still with us. Why are those three composers the dominant representatives from the Classical era? What was it about them when, as you say, there were hundreds of other composers equally well known in their time...
ReplyDelete