Conferences and journals within the field of music theory have shown a shift in the representatio... more Conferences and journals within the field of music theory have shown a shift in the representation of popular music, non-Western repertory, and nontraditional analytical approaches within paper presentations, poster sessions, and articles. Despite an advancement beyond the traditional canon within the larger discipline, many music theory classrooms still reflect a Western Art Music-heavy canon and, inherently, a system of valuation that can marginalize students within an increasingly socially and culturally diverse university system. A survey-based study investigating the influence of this valuation system was run with the cooperation of twenty-one North American colleges and universities. Using both qualitative and quantitative questions, the research showed that many students find that the more "influential" composers within music theory significantly fall within the Western Art Music tradition. Despite student interest in diverse repertory and the efforts of faculty to include it, it appears that students continue to perceive that the W.A.M. canon is still the integral, defining genre for music theory as a field. This study reveals a "hidden curriculum," or an implicitly taught concept or group of concepts that is conveyed indirectly through course material, examples, or pedagogical focus. Ý Musical art, as we hear it in our day, suffers if anything from an overdose of masterworks; an obsessive fixation on glories of the past. This narrows the range of our musical experience and tends to suffocate interest in the present. 1 The above quote from Aaron Copland expresses a sense of frustration about the state of both music performance and composition and the limited lens through which we often value music. Though Copland is not speaking to it directly, at a broader level, he is also commenting on how pedagogues instruct both students and audiences in what and, perhaps more importantly, who is important. While in the 1960s, modernity and a focus on concepts and rigorous, category-based methodologies for teaching and learning predominated, what Copland is responding to is a larger set of problems and questions that are still relevant within both music performance and academe: who is allowed to have a voice? Who is allowed to set traditions? Who is viewed as valuable, and who is expendable in the eyes of canonical "tradition" and conceptual integrity? These questions, which have long been debated by those in music academia, 2 are 1
Conferences and journals within the field of music theory have shown a shift in the representatio... more Conferences and journals within the field of music theory have shown a shift in the representation of popular music, non-Western repertory, and nontraditional analytical approaches within paper presentations, poster sessions, and articles. Despite an advancement beyond the traditional canon within the larger discipline, many music theory classrooms still reflect a Western Art Music-heavy canon and, inherently, a system of valuation that can marginalize students within an increasingly socially and culturally diverse university system. A survey-based study investigating the influence of this valuation system was run with the cooperation of twenty-one North American colleges and universities. Using both qualitative and quantitative questions, the research showed that many students find that the more "influential" composers within music theory significantly fall within the Western Art Music tradition. Despite student interest in diverse repertory and the efforts of faculty to include it, it appears that students continue to perceive that the W.A.M. canon is still the integral, defining genre for music theory as a field. This study reveals a "hidden curriculum," or an implicitly taught concept or group of concepts that is conveyed indirectly through course material, examples, or pedagogical focus. Ý Musical art, as we hear it in our day, suffers if anything from an overdose of masterworks; an obsessive fixation on glories of the past. This narrows the range of our musical experience and tends to suffocate interest in the present. 1 The above quote from Aaron Copland expresses a sense of frustration about the state of both music performance and composition and the limited lens through which we often value music. Though Copland is not speaking to it directly, at a broader level, he is also commenting on how pedagogues instruct both students and audiences in what and, perhaps more importantly, who is important. While in the 1960s, modernity and a focus on concepts and rigorous, category-based methodologies for teaching and learning predominated, what Copland is responding to is a larger set of problems and questions that are still relevant within both music performance and academe: who is allowed to have a voice? Who is allowed to set traditions? Who is viewed as valuable, and who is expendable in the eyes of canonical "tradition" and conceptual integrity? These questions, which have long been debated by those in music academia, 2 are 1
Uploads
Papers by Eric Gilson