Not too long ago, I decided to put myself through the graded exams of the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (ABRSM) in music theory. It seemed as good a way as any of filling any knowledge gaps that I might have had in this subject, and besides, I hoped that it might help with my sight reading.
The main thing that struck me is how little chord theory they cover. You don’t even meet the three primary chords (the 1, the 4 and the 5 chord of the major scale) until Grade 4, and then only in root position. I was very surprised by this, as I should have thought that this would have been an obvious thing to cover right from Grade 1. Ask anyone who plays the guitar, or writes songs, what was one of the first things that they discovered or were shown: the three chord trick. So why shouldn’t this be reflected in the formal theory grades, right at the beginning?
The other thing that surprised me was the importance placed on certain historic or little-used writing conventions. At Grade 4 we come across “ornaments” – shorthand ways of writing little patterns or motifs. The examples given in the textbooks were all from a certain era, so I’m assuming that these ornaments were something that pertained to a musical style from one particular era in musical history. I can honestly say that I have not come across a musical score that contained one of these ornaments. They are interesting, for sure, but how important are they in the grand scheme of this subject? It seems to me that their importance has been overblown at this level.
At Grade 6 we come across “figured bass” – a type of shorthand convention for keyboard left-hand parts where different inversions of the chord are represented by numerals. Again, this seems to pertain to one keyboard style during one particular era, and I wonder how important it is in the grand scheme of music as a subject.
My final impression at Grade 6 (because that is where I decided to stop) is that all the questions are heavily, heavily skewed towards orchestral music, and demanding a pernickety level of detailed knowledge of orchestral instruments (including knowing their names in about four other languages).
I daresay some examiner somewhere would say I have missed the point, but to me, “music theory” is a generic term covering all the theory knowledge necessary to play, compose or appreciate every musical genre. It’s not, or it shouldn’t be, just about the orchestra.
I could be really cruel and turn the tables, and write my own “spoof” paper to send back to the publishers, with “theory questions” that only a die-hard marching band/drum & bugle corps nut like me would know the answers to. But then, that would be marching music knowledge, and not “music theory” per se, wouldn’t it?
If the exam board would like my input in helping to develop a more “broad church” curriculum that covers all musical tastes and doesn’t channel the student into one genre, then of course they can contact me via this blog. But then, perhaps that one narrow musical genre is where they want us.
Got to go. I’ve got band practice.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Read Full Post »
SevenSigma Project 