Why do they Teach Classical Music theory as the first class?

[Kneesks]

I've been wondering why, besides it being part of the period, Music theory 1 classes teach counterpoint, figured bass and in a style that's very much not contemporary? I've always thought that im our world of constantly evolving music, my AP theory class would've been more up to date on weird harmonies, textures, chord progressions and other things. But it pretty much was just like anything considered classical music(before like 1920?).

I feel like one answer is cause it makes it simple to teach things, but realistically, theres some things I feel like might not really be simple in that manner (figured bass) and you put alot of working into, to from what I've seen, not use much.

[Matt K]

It’s foundational for all western music.

[Mr412]

You should thoroughly know the rules before you break them.

[GabrielRice]

While I agree that Classical Music Theory as it is usually taught is foundational to Western music, I think the OP is asking a basically good question. I've long thought that, once the basic elements of intervals, scales, and chords are established, theory should be taught starting with simple song forms and building out from there.

[Trombonic]

Look at Bach or and Beethoven, for example the "Große Fuge" and the last string quartets and you will find more weird harmonies and atonality than in most Jazz stuff...just look at the score and listen to that stuff...

[AndrewMeronek]

I disagree that classical music theory is foundational to *all* Western music. But, teaching that stuff does put everyone in a university music program on the same basic footing, which facilitates talking about music.

IMHO, psychoacoustics should also be considered foundational music theory and not something encountered in later "advanced" courses, because that is foundational to exploring other musical systems besides the classical tradition, not to mention gaining more understanding of why some rules in classical music theory are the way they are. This has immediate practical application, with the modern emphasis on things like EDM, mixing electric and acoustic instruments in orchestras and film scoring, etc. - and from what I've heard, many universities are doing this.

[BigBadandBass]

I had a wonderful theory teacher in my undergrad who did exactly what Gabe said, we spent the first quarter of the first year doing scales, intervals, chords, basic songs, eventually but after things like all the scales, chords and intervals were memorized. Leading to counterpoint and from there, the rest. Major help with my supplemental education.

In short, why is it taught, simple, changing curriculum is a chore and very hard to do these days. Professors who have taught 10+ years aren’t going to be motivated to scrap that program and schools that have good admission rates with their current program aren’t gonna change. Plus what you’re mentioning, you need to know a lot to get into those more niche areas of the music world. Mixing electronics and teaching all the basics of a daw, proper recording techniques and all that takes way more time and money than teaching a major scale or how to analyze the same Beethoven symphony. Also, AP music theory is not all of music theory, it’s essentially the first semester of what you would get at any 4 year institution.

Contemporary music is also challenging and can be more of a mind melter for the average musician. I would feel very bad for the freshman baritone tasked with learning not only basic vocal techniques but also “eight songs for the mad king” by Peter Maxwell Davies.

[LeTromboniste]

I also agree it's not foundational to all Western music. It's at most foundational for the canon of mainstream classical music, which is essentially about 175 years worth of music.

It's also not taught in a historical perspective either, but as a set of arbitrary prescriptive rules without understanding for the context and reasons of these rules, and how they were formed. These rules do no reflect how the composers and musicians of that time, or any time, thought and approached composition. One of the first things we do when we study early music is essentially unlearn how we've always been taught theory, and learn theory from a historical perspective.

So it's indeed a valid question

[Matt K]

Interesting, at the school I went to it was taught with the historical context there were three classes that were required to be taken in parallel for the first three years, for both semesters of the year: written theory, aural theory, and musicology as well as piano for two of those three years, though it was not required to be taken in parallel. The curriculum dovetailed such that what was occurring in the musicology courses coincided with what was occurring with the theory and did end with 21st century serialism and bebop.

Given that the blues is a fusion of the same western tradition fused with African musical traits, and that the blues is a precursor to almost all popular western musical music, it’s hard for me to see that as anything other than foundational.

Likewise, with other classical forms, the rules of the rigid chorale are not utilized by genres like Serialism much less as a blueprint for the great symphonic works of the Romantic era; however, the rules as taught in early theory classes are intended to teach basic counterpoint and harmony, not orchestration. For example, parallel fifths is a concept that need not apply to large ensembles where the mixture of different timbres is a factor, which is not a consideration in chorales.

But even in the works of Schoenberg, you can see masterful voice leading and careful consideration of the interplay between the various “voices”. An interesting side note is that during the Soviet era in the USSR, works more modern than the Romantic era were frowned upon by the communist party. There were varying periods of ebb and flow; during the Stalin reign, works were supposed to be quite simple and patriotic and composers faced increasing scrutiny until his death in 1954. During the 1950s, some of the works from the 3rd Vieneese school were smuggled in by Soviet musicians and formed an underground counterculture around these works. But the musicians who had these manuscripts and texts about serialism only spoke Russian, not Italian, English, or German. So they “reverse engineered” the works of Schoenberg and the like in the context of what they knew, which was more steeped in Bach than anything more contemporary. The result is some really fascinating stuff. The name I recall is Volkonsky. Worth checking out, it’s very beautiful music. At least if you’re into serialism.

[VJOFan]

My experience was similar to Matt K above. We were told that this was how the writers of chant thought about music. Then the rules of organum followed that. Eventually our professor lit up one day as he introduced the techniques and style of Josquin (yes, it was his thesis back in the day). We moved through to the end of the Baroque in first year and continued through the eras in subsequent years.

It was all Western European focused for the large part We were all studying how to play music from Western European traditions, so it kind of makes sense for utility, if not for equity, diversity or broadening of world view.

The schools I know of now at least have courses as electives to investigate other traditions, so there has been change.

But really, it makes sense to teach the things that will be central to understanding what students will be most engaged in. For example I was very happy my jazz arranging course taught me about extended dominant chords, whole step/half step scales and things like sax voicings. I wanted to arrange for big band and in that course it would have been a little crazy to learn about the tuning of a zither. Not useless, but not at the top of what I needed at the moment.

[Digidog]

The reason for teaching "classical" theory first have, for me, three fundamental reasons:

One is that the practice of how to handle the voicing of f.ex. chorales is the foundation for most "western" music, until only the last hundred, or so, years. Almost all theories of how to follow through on voicings and progressions come from hundreds of years of testing, trying and practising for best effect in the circumstances at hand at the time. So learning "classical" theory, is to me the way of understanding the fundamentals of "western" musical culture.

The second is, that "classical" "western" music isn't as rigid and strict as most people think. The rhythms, the modulations and the colourings can sometimes - even in Gregorian vocal music - be very unexpected, very sophisticated and much more advanced and complex than in 95% of the pop music of today. So there is a lot to learn from old "western" music.

The third is that you learn the rules of music, so you can break, modify and adapt them at convenience, at leisure and in need. It's ironic, but much of what is regarded as the harmonically most groundbreaking pop music was created by artists whom had little knowledge of musical theory, but after all were preceeded by renaissance composers by hundreds of years.

My two cents on this.

[LeTromboniste]

The problem is, the "rules" and the analytical perspective we are generally taught, and the style they describe (and prescribe), represent around 150 years of music history, between roughly 1730 and 1880 and at most 175 years which is at the same time very recent in music history, and very much not actual. This perspective is, generally, grossly inadequate to understand and explain music outside of that period (and quite a bit of music inside that period), on top of the fact that it often doesn't even describe how music was composed or conceived in that very period. Yes, some rules date back to the Renaissance or even to Gregorian chant, but the system as a whole doesn't (try analysing Gabrieli or Monteverdi using functional harmony...good luck with that). The language evolved over times, with quite a few significant quicker revolutions both before and after that 150 year window. Those 150 years are not any more "foundational" to western musical language than the years 1450 to 1600, 1600 to 1750, or 1873 to today. They are seen as foundational only because we've decided to make them the yardstick after which everything else is measured. That is entirely arbitrary and artificial.

I'm not saying we shouldn't learn it. We absolutely need to, at least as classical musicians, because that 150 year period includes most of the orchestral "canon". But to make it the one perspective upon which everything else is built or tagged on is problematic, and emblematic of the idea that 19th century Western classical music is somehow superior to other styles and eras (even if we individually don't believe that, we can't deny that this idea very much permeates the "art music" cultural fabric).

[brassmedic]

Hmmm... music theory is indeed very much "after the fact", but does that make it invalid? Mathematics and physics both are trying to explain things that already exist. Doesn't mean they are wrong.

[Matt K]

I agree. Numeral analysis, voice leading, and counterpoint can easily be used to analyze anything with western pitch class. It’s the first thing I pull out of my proverbial toolbox when I go to learn a jazz standard.

[LeTromboniste]

Hmmm... music theory is indeed very much "after the fact", but does that make it invalid? Mathematics and physics both are trying to explain things that already exist. Doesn't mean they are wrong.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying "music theory" is invalid. I'm saying the pedagogical approach tends to be extremely narrow and would benefit from much broader perspective. I would advocate for having a lot more theory in music curriculum, not less of it. But with a wider range of perspectives the entire time rather than spending years getting more and more pigeonholed into an overly narrow mindset.

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look.........

[brassmedic]

What I'm trying to say is, traditional music theory is not prescriptive. The first person to ever write a dominant seventh chord resolving to a tonic triad wasn't thinking of it in those terms. It's a way of putting into words what our ears intuitively know. And since this vocabulary of music theory does a pretty good job of describing 99% of the music we hear in our daily lives - on TV, internet, movies, theater, shopping malls, etc., it would seem a good starting point. Then a student can branch out into other theory systems, depending what his interests are. That's how it was done when I was in college; maybe things have changed? That makes more sense to me than starting out with some arcane system that accounts for less than 1 percent of the music one is likely to hear in his life. No, traditional theory isn't the only thing that should be taught, but I don't see anything wrong with it being the starting point.

[Bach5G]

“Then a student can branch out into other theory systems, depending what his interests are.”

I think Max has pointed out that the tonal system (Rameau , Bach and others) was already being pushed by Beethoven and then pushed beyond its limits by Wagner and other late Romantics towards the last half of the 19th C. It was, I think, fashionable, in the second half of the 20C to analogize the breakdown of the tonal system to Relativity. I wonder if that’s still the case. In any event, nearly none of that theory was especially helpful to me, not being particularly interested in writing like Palestrina but rather trying to find my way in writing for big band and playing jazz guitar.

[MTbassbone]

I've long thought that, once the basic elements of intervals, scales, and chords are established, theory should be taught starting with simple song forms and building out from there.

mind blown

[brassmedic]

I think Max has pointed out that the tonal system (Rameau , Bach and others) was already being pushed by Beethoven and then pushed beyond its limits by Wagner and other late Romantics towards the last half of the 19th C.

I wouldn't say that. Bach had already written music that defies analysis by traditional music theory. Beethoven, not so much. He was innovative in a lot of other ways, but wasn't really pushing the limits of tonality.

It was, I think, fashionable, in the second half of the 20C to analogize the breakdown of the tonal system to Relativity. I wonder if that’s still the case. In any event, nearly none of that theory was especially helpful to me, not being particularly interested in writing like Palestrina but rather trying to find my way in writing for big band and playing jazz guitar.

Tonal music didn't break down. Some people went in different directions with it, but tonal music is still the vast majority of what you hear in your daily life. I don't recall being taught to "write like Palestrina" in music theory class, so I guess your experience has been much different than mine. But jazz very much resides within the system of Western tonal music that's normally taught in beginning theory classes. Normally, you would take a class in jazz composition or arranging to learn how to write for big band.

[Matt K]

What exactly is it that’s currently being taught that is insufficient be used to analyze Wagner? I recall doing an analysis of Tristan und Isolde in my graduate work, which memory serving is one of the most non-standard tonalities in the western canon up to that point.

[Digidog]

The problem is, the "rules" and the analytical perspective we are generally taught, and the style they describe (and prescribe), represent around 150 years of music history, between roughly 1730 and 1880 and at most 175 years which is at the same time very recent in music history, and very much not actual. This perspective is, generally, grossly inadequate to understand and explain music outside of that period (and quite a bit of music inside that period), on top of the fact that it often doesn't even describe how music was composed or conceived in that very period. Yes, some rules date back to the Renaissance or even to Gregorian chant, but the system as a whole doesn't (try analysing Gabrieli or Monteverdi using functional harmony...good luck with that). The language evolved over times, with quite a few significant quicker revolutions both before and after that 150 year window. Those 150 years are not any more "foundational" to western musical language than the years 1450 to 1600, 1600 to 1750, or 1873 to today. They are seen as foundational only because we've decided to make them the yardstick after which everything else is measured. That is entirely arbitrary and artificial.

I'm not saying we shouldn't learn it. We absolutely need to, at least as classical musicians, because that 150 year period includes most of the orchestral "canon". But to make it the one perspective upon which everything else is built or tagged on is problematic, and emblematic of the idea that 19th century Western classical music is somehow superior to other styles and eras (even if we individually don't believe that, we can't deny that this idea very much permeates the "art music" cultural fabric).

But that just isn't correct.

Everybody, from Gregorius, via Bach and Händel, to Mozart, to Brahms, Wagner, Stranvinskij, Schönberg, Pärt, Barber, Williams, all base(d) their works on what came before them, and the tonal practice that worked with the instruments at hand in the performing situations at hand. The theories that were developed to explain and transfer the knowledge gained, were gradually assembled over something like 1500 years, and the "western" tradition of chordal and tonal progression and form is what have shaped everything from meters, to beat distribution, to tonal content. Hadn't the rules of counterpoint and fugue been, we wouldn't have had twelwetone music by Schönberg and Webern f.ex.

Also note that I'm not saying that any tradition is more important than others, just that besides the Indian tradition of musical theory, the "western" music is the most well formulated tradition, with a written-down history longer than all but the Indian. Had the musical theoretical tradition of India been more influential, all teaching of music theory would have started with that.

Noone stands free from their past, and I just want to point out that the over all dominating tradition of musical theory today is the "western" European, so that's a valid and important start for anybody studying music.

When a student has fundamental knowledge of the major traditions, I'd say that all rules and traditions are off and free for the picking and indulgence at leisure.

[mbarbier]

In short, why is it taught, simple, changing curriculum is a chore and very hard to do these days. Professors who have taught 10+ years aren’t going to be motivated to scrap that program and schools that have good admission rates with their current program aren’t gonna change. Plus what you’re mentioning, you need to know a lot to get into those more niche areas of the music world. Mixing electronics and teaching all the basics of a daw, proper recording techniques and all that takes way more time and money than teaching a major scale or how to analyze the same Beethoven symphony. Also, AP music theory is not all of music theory, it’s essentially the first semester of what you would get at any 4 year institution.

This is a big part of it- there's a significant amount of literature and structure that already exists with western classical music at the presumptive center and it's a huge undertaking to actually remake a department that shifts that. It's a huge amount of money and time that results in the faculty needing to make new materials from the ground up. It's a huge undertaking.

At CalArts, where I teach, we've been working on that specifically since about 2018 and, while it's getting there, it's an unbelievably huge amount of work. It's also a huge debate. At our institution we've got pretty traditional instrumental/vocal (rooted both in classical and jazz backgrounds), composition, and film scoring majors who really need those skills, but also have students there for degrees that don't require one to be able to read music to accel in the program, outside of theory class such as experimental pop, music technology (everything from people making beats, doing hardcore programing, to people who build robots to play music with them), experimental sound practices/sound art, world music (with students there for Persians, Ghanese, North Indian Classical, and Balenese and Javanese Gamelan). It's really become a significant issue of how do you create a base set of skills that allows all the students to communicate with each other (as well as in the professional world) that doesn't make one program exist above the others and also doesn't make students learn systems that aren't necessariliy related to what their actual major is? They've made some really interesting and effective classes, but it's still not fully off the ground and a significan source of debate in faculty meetings after 5 years of discussion. While it's fully necessary for our institution to make this leap, it's a huge amount of work and money that's always going to leave people pretty upset, so I can imagine that alone is enough to scare a lot of insitutions away. None the less how you actually create a basic level of musicial communication that's not based in a single cultural system (if that's actually possible).

[Digidog]

None the less how you actually create a basic level of musicial communication that's not based in a single cultural system (if that's actually possible).

I don't think that is possible. Not in a neutral way.

It is as with languages: the language that takes hold of the majority of the communications, will be the language which everybody set as standards for communicating. That's the reason English is used literally everywhere, regardless of that Spanish or Portugese were spreading earlier, and faster in the beginning.

I think it's a combination of cultural ease, cultural versatility and cultural flexibility that make people use one set of communicational tools over another, and as far as I've seen both English and "western" classical music theory can provide that in their respective fields. There may be better tools out there, but traditions and habits are there for a reason, and it's probably pointless to try to change as a conscious and planned act of efforts. Rather then as a gradual, step-by-step process like the one you mention.

[VJOFan]

It's also economics. English spread with the British Empire having a vast amount of control of trade in the world. That situation was almost immediately followed by the rise of the United States as the biggest economic (and military) power. Hundreds of years of English being the key to making money has had an effect on world culture.

Similarly, symphony gigs are available on every continent (except Antarctica I assume). As mentioned above, the dominant pop music in the world owes a lot to major/minor tonality and scale structures. Perhaps those things were spread along side commerce.

People want to eat, so they study what has a better chance of feeding them.

Not that a music degree per se is a great life bet as a direct pipeline to gainful employment... but if you're in music, you may want to have fluency in the most economically beneficial languages.

[edited to remove one too many “thats”. ]

[Wilktone]

When I was an undergrad our music theory and music history classes were blended for my first 4 semesters. The class was called "Literature and Materials of Music," or L&M. Our first few weeks, if I recall, were keys, scales, chord formation, basics of harmonic analysis, etc. Then we started learning about medieval music history and the theory behind the medieval modes and form. By the end of my freshman year we ended with Bach. Sophomore year we began pre-classical on, ending with mid-20th century. Our history lessons were tied into the theory lessons.

This approach really clicked for me by my 3rd semester with this approach. I feel like I gained a real understanding of the evolution of Western European music and its influence on other musical styles. I feel sorry for the Music Theater majors who were required to take the first 2 semesters of L&M and never got to study music remotely close to what they wanted to perform.

But yes, I agree that music both as art and as a vocation have changed a great deal since traditional music pedagogy developed. I know many university and college music theory programs now include study of jazz, rock, and non-western styles as a unit or three, but they're usually tucked in at the end of the course of study and often seem optional.

As long as we're griping about music theory pedagogy, I always felt that aural skills as traditionally taught (or as I was taught) is outdated too. Aural skills and music theory are two sides of the same coin, and I feel there should be more connection between the two classes. It's also too separated from performing. Sure, we do sight singing and that is definitely valuable, but playing by ear on an instrument needs to be incorporated too. Anyone take any aural skills classes that were tied in with your theory or specifically trained you to play by ear?

[Bach5G]

It strikes me that the common practice period might be as good a place as any to start.