Much of what I have been writing so far has been aimed more at professionals, mainly music educators, like myself. That's why there is a slew of technical jargon, half explained. I am writing to document what I have been working on for the past several years: attempting to come up with a curriculum/course that emphasizes hearing harmonies, learning repertoire,1 and creating new music both spontaneous (improvisation) and planned (composition).
The best way to learn about music is to make it. Truly, it's better to play, say, Bach poorly than not at all! Am I gonna pay to hear you? No, of course not. The mere idea of a financial transaction tied to playing Bach is the infiltration of businessification2 into every aspect of our lives. It misses the whole point. The point is, there are benefits to playing music that you do not get just from having it go on in the background, even when you do not play at a professional level. Many people recognize this; we call them amateurs. We need more amateurs.
But amateurs should have a helping of understanding with their music making. It is absolutely enough to know "play this chord here and switch to that chord there and keep it steady." There are many things that we understand without having names for them. You will get by and have meaningful experiences. Yet, having names and considering structure and thinking about how those things are working in the socio-emotional and socio-political realms, for example, add to our experience and understanding.
I read an article about someone who was working as a teacher, offering online tutorials in some capacity, who said, “I hope that people don’t know that much about the guitar, because I think knowing too much about music stifles your ability to try odd things.” This is a huge misunderstanding about learning. The willingness to try odd things is a separate phenomenon from how much you know. The history of music is filled with people who knew music and its structures inside and out, who were exceptionally willing to try odd things. It's just that although most of the people you can name qualify (say, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Ellington, Parker, Coltrane, Prince, Bowie…), their ideas are now mainstream — not to mention the folks who are still considered out there in one way or another (Cage, Oliveros, Coleman, Feldman, Taylor…). I want you know as much as you can because it will stimulate your curiosity to try odd things! You'll be able to really recognize — that is, hear — what's actually odd and what's status quo.
It is true, I will readily admit, that education (and particularly Classical Music Education) is by-and-large a conservative endeavor. We are in the business of passing on tradition. The best education, however, has its senses and sensibilities pushing and reaching out in all directions, ever questioning.
I am slowly going to add more materials geared toward those who are teaching themselves: explanations of the terminology, exercises/activities to support the understanding of said terminology, suggested plans of going through the songs. I will also add more information, particularly as the song post count gets higher, to help people find the materials they need, such as indices.
And yes, eventually, we will get to songs with three chords.
As my advisor Joe Straus always says, “teach the canon, expand the canon.”
That’s not a real word, you say? It is now.