study of music theory/ear training

[chopincat]

I'm a teenager who studies piano, but I've never gone to a real "music school." Instead I study with a private teacher. I've studied with her for my entire life and she's wonderful, so I have no intention of leaving her. But because I don't go to a music school, I don't really get the opportunity to study things like advanced theory and ear training. This didn't used to bother me when I was little, but now that I'm older and I realize that music is something I'm really passionate about, I feel like these are things I should know more about. (I don't think there's any way I'll ever be a professional pianist, but I think I want to study music at college and have a music-related career. I have no idea of exactly what career yet, though).

I live in a place where there are a lot of really prestigious music schools with pre-college programs. One of them has a program that allows you to study music theory, ear training and be in ensembles at the school while seeing a private teacher who doesn't work for the school. This would seem like an excellent option for me, except that a) 2+ hours every saturday is a big time commitment for a busy high-schooler (though I think it would probably be worth it) and b) I'd probably have to audition (my friend who goes to the school thinks that it would be very easy for me to get in, but the whole process of preparing and auditioning sounds very stressful to me, and there's always I chance I won't get in).

My other option would be to take AP Music Theory in school next year. I have no idea how much that would cover, but I'm assuming considerably less than an advanced theory class at a prestigious pre-college program (though I honestly have no idea. Perhaps there's someone on this forum who has taken AP Music Theory and could tell me more about it?)

So right now I'm very confused, because there are obvious pros and cons for each option. I'm wondering which option do you guys think would be better for someone who wants to learn as much about music as possible, but probably won't be a concert pianist?

[emill]

x.x.x.x.x.x... I realize that music is something I'm really passionate about, I feel like these are things I should know more about. (I don't think there's any way I'll ever be a professional pianist, but I think I want to study music at college and have a music-related career. I have no idea of exactly what career yet, though).

There you go ....  music seems part of your life and career so it would be best while still young and full of energy to EQUIP YOURSELF with what you could possibly secure and achieve.  I am very sure you realize the stresses and difficulties of someone who goes and decides on a music related career.  I would strongly suggest, you go into the "best" possible you can qualify in.

I am sorry, I can only give a GENERIC ENCOURAGEMENT as I am not a pianist.  I am however a parent to a son who also decided to go into a music related career.  The most I could do is to support him go into the best program his talent and skill can possibly learn and develop from.  I have my fingers crossed, but as a parent, I hope that what we have contributed will carry him through successfully.  GO for the best possible now while still young and "raring" ! !  GOOD LUCK!

[quantum]

I don't think there's any way I'll ever be a professional pianist, but I think I want to study music at college and have a music-related career. I have no idea of exactly what career yet, though.

If you want to have music as a career and study it in college, you must realize there is a certain commitment of time and effort involved.  You just don't get magically accepted into a college program because you have been playing X years.  You need to put in the time to study, and balancing high school work with music studies is a good start.  A professional musician needs excellent project management skills.  Sure it sucks to be doing high school homework when you would rather be studying music, but it would also suck to not get paid for a pro gig because you couldn't find the time to learn your part. 

You need to define now how serious you want to take music study.  If a college education and career in music is what is calling you, be prepared to take the necessary steps that will get you on that path.  Go take those theory and ear training programs. 

Another suggestion, learn to sing.  You don't have to be starring in operas or anything like that, but build up the skills to be a proficient singer.  You will thank yourself in college if you do.  Singing is part of basic  training in college - for all instrumentalists.  Have fun with it and join a choir. 

[chopincat]

Just want to clarify a few things. When I say that I want to study music in college, I don't mean that I want to go to a conservatory, or even study performance, mostly because I don't think I'm at a high enough level to be accepted into either. My degree would probably be a B. A. in something like "Music, General" which doesn't necessarily involve performance at all from what I've been told, though of course I'd want to continue piano lessons. (I'm not even sure that one needs previous experience in things like music theory to major in music, just like you don't need previous experience in psychology to major in psychology). The school I would want to study at would probably be a highly ranked US liberal arts college, because there are other things I want to study in college as well. In terms of academics, I go to a very challenging high school and am a pretty motivated student. I think that the hardest part of the college application process for me will be finding a school that balances high quality academics with high quality music instruction.

Quantum, I actually am already a singer! I sing in two of my school's choirs: concert choir (non-audition) and chamber choir (audition only). I certainly hope that singing will be part of my college music experience!

[louispodesta]

I'm a teenager who studies piano, but I've never gone to a real "music school." Instead I study with a private teacher. I've studied with her for my entire life and she's wonderful, so I have no intention of leaving her. But because I don't go to a music school, I don't really get the opportunity to study things like advanced theory and ear training. This didn't used to bother me when I was little, but now that I'm older and I realize that music is something I'm really passionate about, I feel like these are things I should know more about. (I don't think there's any way I'll ever be a professional pianist, but I think I want to study music at college and have a music-related career. I have no idea of exactly what career yet, though).

I live in a place where there are a lot of really prestigious music schools with pre-college programs. One of them has a program that allows you to study music theory, ear training and be in ensembles at the school while seeing a private teacher who doesn't work for the school. This would seem like an excellent option for me, except that a) 2+ hours every saturday is a big time commitment for a busy high-schooler (though I think it would probably be worth it) and b) I'd probably have to audition (my friend who goes to the school thinks that it would be very easy for me to get in, but the whole process of preparing and auditioning sounds very stressful to me, and there's always I chance I won't get in).

My other option would be to take AP Music Theory in school next year. I have no idea how much that would cover, but I'm assuming considerably less than an advanced theory class at a prestigious pre-college program (though I honestly have no idea. Perhaps there's someone on this forum who has taken AP Music Theory and could tell me more about it?)

So right now I'm very confused, because there are obvious pros and cons for each option. I'm wondering which option do you guys think would be better for someone who wants to learn as much about music as possible, but probably won't be a concert pianist?

One of the common misconceptions/myths is that the great composers of the 18th and 19th centuries all learned their music theory in a music school.  THEY DID NOT!!, even if as a young adult they later studied in conservatory.

What they did was to study composition/theory privately with a well-known/respected composer.  That is the way all of the musicians of this time honed their craft.

Since, you have taken the right path and stayed with your private teacher, then you seek out your teacher's recommendations as to composer-pianists in your area that take on gifted private students.  Whatever you do, don't get anywhere near a college music school, directly or indirectly, in my opinion.

[keypeg]

One of the common misconceptions/myths is that the great composers of the 18th and 19th centuries all learned their music theory in a music school.

I have never heard or read anyone give that opinion.

[keypeg]

One thing nobody has asked yet - Chopincat, what understanding of theory do you have at this point, officially or unofficially, as a starting point?

[louispodesta]

I have never heard or read anyone give that opinion.

Where do I start?  Please read the Wikipedia of any major composer or pianist in the 18th century (or early to mid 19th century), where it says that these great pianists sat in a classroom and studied  music theory they way you and I did.

Even Rubenstein, Gieseking, and Backhaus, all learned their basics this way.  And, they never wrote a single compositional note.

The point is that the music schools and conservatories of this world have perpetrated a propaganda/mythology which promotes modern day university level music education.

Earl Wild could compose and arrange when he was 13 years old, and he didn't learn it any music school.  Please do some research on this subject so that we might positively further the discussion.

And, that discussion is how to actually develop real musical skills in this area.
 

[j_menz]

Where do I start? 

Perhaps by understanding keypeg's objection. What you assert as "one of the common misconceptions/myths" is unfamiliar to her. It is also unfamiliar to me.  You are attempting to debunk a misapprehension nobody seems to have.

[keypeg]

For context, the quote below refers to the preceding:

louispodesta wrote: One of the common misconceptions/myths is that the great composers of the 18th and 19th centuries all learned their music theory in a music school

I responded: I have never heard or read anyone give that opinion.

Where do I start?  Please read the Wikipedia of any major composer or pianist in the 18th century (or early to mid 19th century), where it says that these great pianists sat in a classroom and studied  music theory they way you and I did.

 
You are referring to Wikipedia.  It is one of the resources I have used to learn about pianists and composers, so I double checked four names at random:
Rubinstein - not much is there, except to say that he met two composers, Ravel and Dukas
Schumann - above all his private teacher
Beethoven - his studies with Haydn are mentioned
Shostakovitch - theory studies with Steinberg and Sokolov

It is as I remembered: nothing in the Wikki articles regarding classroom studies.  What I do remember in my (Wikki) readings on various musicians is that those who attended conservatory often got into arguments or were dismissed as "mediocre" because they didn't follow the status quo.

I am not against the actual point you are making.  I just have not run into anyone or anything saying that composers and performers studied theory in the classroom.

.... sat in a classroom and studied  music theory they way you and I did.

I didn't.    Until I was in my mid-fifties, I hardly knew anything formally, though I had played things on various instruments self-taught since I was small.  I had no piano for 35 years - my main instruments were recorders and voice, because that's what I had - and guitar which I used more like a piano.  I then learned theory rudiments via the RCM book; all three levels in a few months and sat the higher two exams.  I was with a violin teacher at the time who urged me to look at these things as a musician, not as a set of rules.  Then I was on my own, began to study the standard "harmony theory" in the way it is taught - at which point I met my present piano (et alia) teacher who brought me on a much broader and more interesting path.  I never got into classrooms.

I have talked to various people I respect who have degrees in music, and whom I consider full musicians - every one of them sees problems with what was taught in the classroom.  So I know where you are coming from.

I think it is more useful to ask the OP what he already knows - the question I asked in my previous post.  If a student gets together with a composer as you suggest, many such composer want a student to at least know fundamental things so they can build on them.  It seems to me that the first step in advising anyone is to find out what they do and don't know.  Would you agree?

[anamnesis]

A more interesting discussion would involve articulating exactly what's wrong with the "academic" music environment, rather than some vague notions.  Any criticism should also explain what in particular makes it fair to criticize the group as a whole rather than individuals. 

Whatever failures you see at that level, there is just much bad instruction done on the private level as well, yet I blame the individuals more than some psuedo-conglomerate.

[chopincat]

Chopincat, what understanding of theory do you have at this point, officially or unofficially, as a starting point?

I mean, because I've played piano for so long I know how to read and write music pretty well. In school they've taught us about modes, major and minor scales, triads, a few different forms (fugue, rondo, and sonata to name a few), alternative scale systems (like whole-tone and pentatonic), and right now we're learning how to use the 12-tone system. I also know some more advanced chords because I play guitar, and a good deal about the overtone series just because I find it interesting. That's about it.

I think it is more useful to ask the OP what he already knows

I'm female actually 

[louispodesta]

I mean, because I've played piano for so long I know how to read and write music pretty well. In school they've taught us about modes, major and minor scales, triads, a few different forms (fugue, rondo, and sonata to name a few), alternative scale systems (like whole-tone and pentatonic), and right now we're learning how to use the 12-tone system. I also know some more advanced chords because I play guitar, and a good deal about the overtone series just because I find it interesting. That's about it.
I'm female actually 

Have you read what she just posted?  One more time: someone has "innocently" posted an inquiry, and then when the facts are known, they were not that "un-educated," at all!

"and right now we're learning how to use the 12-tone system."  You have got to be kidding me?  In my NASNM certified music school, we go nowhere this level.

Methinks, we have be take advantage of/conned.

[j_menz]

they were not that "un-educated," at all!

Luckily, we have you for balance.

[Bob]

Ditto actually... I've always heard composers sprang from the womb as geniuses with music already written. 

The only composer I'm thinking about for schooling... Debussy I suppose.  And then 20th ones being professors.

I've got a master-apprentice type of teaching environment in mind for how they learned.  If they learned theory at all.  It could have been "realized" through composition I guess.  I suppose Bach would have learned/been taught figured bass though.

Vivaldi too... Did he grow up with a music school?  Taught at one later I think.

[keypeg]

Have you read what she just posted?  One more time: someone has "innocently" posted an inquiry, and then when the facts are known, they were not that "un-educated," at all!

"and right now we're learning how to use the 12-tone system."  You have got to be kidding me?  In my NASNM certified music school, we go nowhere this level.

Methinks, we have be take advantage of/conned.

Chopincat did not state in her original post that she was "un-educated".  She stated that she had a private teacher who taught her things, but did not go into the details.  In regards to the 12-tone system, my son studied it when still in high school.  A private teacher can teach many different kinds of things to his or her students.  You wrote yourself about pianists and composers studying theory privately.

I do not like this hostility and suspicion toward others.  It is uncalled for when a student is asking for advice.

I don't know what the NASNM is, or it's significance here.

[j_menz]

I don't know what the NASNM is

Rather uniquely for an acronym, neither does google. Must be the last one left. 

[anamnesis]

Chopincat did not state in her original post that she was "un-educated".  She stated that she had a private teacher who taught her things, but did not go into the details.  In regards to the 12-tone system, my son studied it when still in high school.  A private teacher can teach many different kinds of things to his or her students.  You wrote yourself about pianists and composers studying theory privately.

I do not like this hostility and suspicion toward others.  It is uncalled for when a student is asking for advice.

I don't know what the NASNM is, or it's significance here.

Probably meant NASM.

This one:
https://nasm.arts-accredit.org/

Not this one:
https://www.nasm.org/

[j_menz]

Probably meant NASM.

This one:
https://nasm.arts-accredit.org/

Not this one:
https://www.nasm.org/

Probably. Google apparently assumed I'd be more interested in a Personal Fitness Trainer. Evidently, someone's hacked my searching.

[chopincat]

Have you read what she just posted?  One more time: someone has "innocently" posted an inquiry, and then when the facts are known, they were not that "un-educated," at all!

"and right now we're learning how to use the 12-tone system."  You have got to be kidding me?  In my NASNM certified music school, we go nowhere this level.

Methinks, we have be take advantage of/conned.

When did I say I was uneducated?? And how am I conning you in any way, shape or form?? I was just asking for advice, and you don't need to participate if you somehow feel threatened by anything I am saying. Your level of hostility is kind of creeping me out.

The 12-tone system and almost all the other stuff I listed in my previous post is all stuff I've learned in my public high school. I have no idea why your apparently super-qualified music school isn't on par with the public school curriculum. That's not my fault.

But anyway, I would have no way of knowing how advanced the 12-tone system is, because I have no idea what I don't know. But I have a feeling that there's a lot I don't know and I want to learn as much as I can.

[keypeg]

Chopincat, why not audition for that Saturday course, and if you qualify you can still decide whether to take it.  Work out your schedule and see if you can manage it time-wise.  What do you have to lose?

[chopincat]

Chopincat, why not audition for that Saturday course, and if you qualify you can still decide whether to take it.  Work out your schedule and see if you can manage it time-wise.  What do you have to lose?

I definitely see your point. Right now there's just one problem: I just talked to my teacher about it, and she discouraged me from even trying out. She just said that she thought it would be really intense and a lot of work and that I wouldn't have time for it. I thought that was odd, especially considering that she didn't actually know the program I was talking about (I had to explain it to her). Also, according to the website, the program only consists of two hour-length classes each Saturday. Even if I were to get homework for them, that wouldn't be a crazy amount of work. I also kind of feel the same way you do - that there's nothing to lose in auditioning and if it is something I don't have time for then I don't have to do it. I thought it was really weird that she discouraged me from the get-go. Maybe she's worried about me auditioning and not getting in? Maybe she's worried about losing me as a student? Of course, her word isn't the law and I could still sign up to audition. But it would look like I was over-stepping her and I'd want to really think that through first.

[anamnesis]

It's hard to say because your teacher better understands the context of the rest of your workload than we do, but on the other hand you better understand the context of your own workload and ambitions than your teacher. 

Admittedly, it's really hard to advise without know the actual specifics of the programs, and even your ambitions. 

[keypeg]

If I understand correctly, your music studies are with your private teacher but also in the classroom, because you wrote about your school itself.  If so, then there can also be feedback from your music teacher in the school.  You may also want to talk it over at the place where this course is being taught - maybe with the professor or someone in the faculty?  These theory things can be taught at different levels and from different angles.  The depth (and therefore the work) may be greater than what is taught at the high school level.

The other thing you have to figure out (again) is time.  You must be able to do your regular schoolwork, and have your assignments prepared properly for your private teachers.

[dcstudio]

I think it's great that you want to pursue music full time     

 If you are planning to go to a state university keep one thing in mind--they want your money--they may make you jump through a hoop or two but you will get in.  You have many options for non-performance degrees--theory, composition, music education, jazz studies, music history--there are quite a few degree plans out there.  Go for the Bachelor of Music--the BA isn't nearly as useful.

You have been playing piano your whole life....I would venture to guess that you probably know far more than you realize.  It's your vocabulary that is lacking.  I would take the AP theory class--it will give you more than enough information to allow you into Theory 1 in college.

I had some apprehension about my ability to perform when I entered music school--it really seemed like everyone else there could play better than I could...so I really threw myself into the academic side and studied hard figuring I would at least get better grades than those monster pianists -- and I did.   
 I was music ed and jazz studies--piano concentration.  You will have to choose a secondary instrument most likely--do yourself a favor and minor in voice... even if you feel you can't carry a tune in a bucket   

[chopincat]

It's hard to say because your teacher better understands the context of the rest of your workload than we do, but on the other hand you better understand the context of your own workload and ambitions than your teacher. 

True. I think that my teacher might have a deflated view of what my ambitions are, because from my playing it's pretty clear that I'm not on the professional track in terms of piano. I don't think that she's aware that my musical ambitions stem beyond piano.

You may also want to talk it over at the place where this course is being taught - maybe with the professor or someone in the faculty?  These theory things can be taught at different levels and from different angles.  The depth (and therefore the work) may be greater than what is taught at the high school level.

It would definitely be greater than the high school level. The program is at a school that is widely considered to be one of the three best New York pre college programs. But because most of their students are also taking lessons there and learning how to be musicians, I feel like they would probably have some classes catered to less experienced theory students as well. But you're right, it would probably be a good idea for me to email a faculty member with my questions. That will be my next course of action.

If you are planning to go to a state university keep one thing in mind--they want your money--they may make you jump through a hoop or two but you will get in.  You have many options for non-performance degrees--theory, composition, music education, jazz studies, music history--there are quite a few degree plans out there.  Go for the Bachelor of Music--the BA isn't nearly as useful.

Actually, I'm not planning to go to a state university, but rather a private liberal arts college. Because of my background I'm kind of expected to go somewhere pretty academically rigorous and study some other things besides music, which I don't totally object to. From what I know, Bachelor of Music degrees are pretty hard to come by in smaller schools. I think I'd be fine with a BA, and if I decided I really wanted to study music more intensely I could always go to grad school and get an MM. Honestly I don't know what jobs are realistic for me and what degrees I'd need to get them, but I think a BA would better prepare me for a job in the non-music world, which I'll almost definitely have to take at some point.

[quantum]

Don't sell yourself short when considering non-music jobs for a music focused education.  Do some searching for music and transferable skills.  You may be surprised at what good non-music jobs you can get, if you are able to communicate these transferable skills to a potential employer.

One of the students that studied with one of my music profs decided they wanted to pursue medicine after finishing a music degree.  The person was readily accepted into med school because their musical training was cited for the development of fine motor skills, needed for the type of work the person was seeking.

[louispodesta]

When did I say I was uneducated?? And how am I conning you in any way, shape or form?? I was just asking for advice, and you don't need to participate if you somehow feel threatened by anything I am saying. Your level of hostility is kind of creeping me out.

The 12-tone system and almost all the other stuff I listed in my previous post is all stuff I've learned in my public high school. I have no idea why your apparently super-qualified music school isn't on par with the public school curriculum. That's not my fault.

But anyway, I would have no way of knowing how advanced the 12-tone system is, because I have no idea what I don't know. But I have a feeling that there's a lot I don't know and I want to learn as much as I can.

At this point in time, in the opinion of any college music theorist, in my opinion, you have way more than enough theory instruction to proceed as a pianist.  And, if you have been paying attention, you will now take the final step and start writing/composing your own music.

My ear training instructor at Berklee, Roberta Radley, plainly states that she flunked all of her ear training courses as a student until she had to start writing and arranging (which makes you a functional musician).  And, there are those, myself included, who consider this lady to be the best ear training instructor on this planet!

I live in the USA, with its 644 NASM accredited college/university music schools.  No one, and I mean no one, gets taught 12 tone in high school, much less as a freshman or sophomore at a level college level.

So, get with a composition teacher, and then get on with it.  The bottom line is that you are way over analyzing the situation.

Or, you can, along with over 30,000 students, enroll in Berklee's online program and study under Ms. Bradley yourself, personally.  I did say "over 30,000 students." (worldwide).

Please send me a private message if you desire further information on Berklee.  I am in no way affiliated with this music school.

Good luck to you.

[chopincat]

I live in the USA, with its 644 NASM accredited college/university music schools.  No one, and I mean no one, gets taught 12 tone in high school, much less as a freshman or sophomore at a level college level.

I also live in the US - New York City to be exact - and in my 10th grade music class (which covers 20th century music) at my public high school, we are currently learning about the 12 tone system. I highly doubt we are the only ones, because I go to a strongly academic high school and there are very few musicians in my class. So clearly there are people in the US learning the 12-tone system.

Maybe I am making what we are learning sound more complex than it is. We started by learning about the Second Viennese School and how they developed and used the system, and then we learned how to make a 12-tone matrix. Now we are making our own 12 town matrixes and using them compose short pieces on Garage Band. Besides the composition part, none of it has seemed particularly advanced to me because it is all based on math.

I don't think that NASM accreditation is meaningless, but I do think it's extremely odd that Juilliard, MSM and Mannes aren't on its list, and yet I've never heard of either of the two New York City that are listed, despite living in close proximity to both of them.  To me, 647 (that's the number listed on their website) sounds like a rather small number.

I do appreciate your words about Berklee, as I have always been a little intrigued by it.

[anamnesis]

Well if the OP is interested in something different, but relevant, you could try investigating the differences between this model of conceptualizing music:

https://mathemusicality.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/proganal1.png

Vs

https://mathemusicality.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/proganal2.png

------

"Harmony" in most current pedagogical circles is trending far away from the presentation by Piston or  Kostka/Payne where the essence of music is composed of "objects" placed in some magical order due to either a memorized, learned pattern, or just inspired insight.  

As the author of one of the newer crop of textbooks puts it (The Complete Musician, Stephen Laitz):
 
"Theory and analysis must present music as a process and not series of objects. This is the way composers actually thought about it. The days of freezing music into vertical sonorities and attaching roman numerals to them one by one are hopefully gone because they tell you nothing really about the flow of the music. This is because harmony and melody are inextricably connected. In fact, harmony emerges from the combination of melodic lines.

Probably one of the strongest critics of the previous, object approach is the author of the blog, Mathemusicality:

"The point is that “chord progressions” are not the building-blocks of music. If they have any legitimate role in the analysis of music at all (a notion of which I am quite skeptical), it is as a highly specific (if abstract) type of emergent motivic phenomenon that applies in particular works. But that’s not how they are used in freshman theory. In freshman theory, they are presented as a way of describing (statistically, as it were) the events typically encountered on the musical surfaces of works of a certain historical period. To call this pedagogically unsound would be an understatement; it is downright atrocious. Leave aside the question of how effective this vocabulary is for the purpose of statistical description; the important point is that while wasting their time with these descriptions, the students do not learn (or learn very poorly) the conceptual processes that produce these musical results.

Conceptual processes are the ingredients of music. They are what actually occupy the minds of composers and performers when practicing their art. The actual notes of a piece are the results of these processes, and are thus are in some sense incidental by-products:"

https://mathemusicality.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/how-not-to-teach-music/

The author of blog actually goes so far as to deny chords as the fundamental object to be operated on, and that musical lines are much more fundamental.  It is the deeper alignment, of these lines that creates the vertical sonorities and "progressions" that emerge from music.  He says that the best starting point for musical theory is Peter Westergaard's Introduction to Tonal Theory.  

Under this framework, even the 12-tone system of Schoenberg can be understood via tonal thinking, if you are using the correct tonal thought processes.  There isn't anything qualitatively different about that type of music, but quantitatively.

It's simply more complex.  The impulse to characterize it as something fundamentally different from the music of the past, was simply because we had a bad musical, conceptual framework in the first place.  

https://mathemusicality.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/schoenberg-op-19-no-2/

[chopincat]

Interesting! Sounds a bit like a chicken or the egg question. Theory has always been explained to me in terms of the chord-based model, but now that I'm thinking about, the process-based model seems to make more sense.

I'd have to disagree with you about atonal music though, because in my opinion the process of creating atonal music is fundamentally different than the process of creating tonal music, even if we forget about chords. Atonal music is so heavily based on math and has so many rules regarding things like the repetitions of notes. The fact that an atonal piece is based entirely on a single tone row makes it very different than anything that came before it. I don't know if I would necessarily classify the difference as "tonal" or "atonal" because, as the author of that blog seems to be saying, the idea of calling something "atonal" just because it didn't match our previous understanding of the invented concept of "tonality" is a little weird. But I still think they're very different, even if only structurally and compositionally.

Except now I'm going to contradict myself a little bit, because I'm remembering what I know about the overtone series. The relationship between the dominant and the tonic that is so prevalent in music theory is completely rooted in science, because when we hear the tonic we are also hearing the dominant through the overtones of the tonic (of course, we are also hearing many other things through overtones, but the dominant is far more prevalent). If there are more of these types of scientific relationships within tonal music (I don't know enough about music theory to know if there are), then that would suggest that there is something very fundamentally different about tonal music and atonal music, to the point of physics.

Of course, I don't really know enough yet to really fully answer these questions (which is why I want to learn more theory!), but they're really interesting to discuss!

[j_menz]

Atonal music is so heavily based on math and has so many rules regarding things like the repetitions of notes. The fact that an atonal piece is based entirely on a single tone row makes it very different than anything that came before it.

You're confusing atonality, dodecaphony and serialism. The second Viennese School (Schoenberg) used all three together, but they are severable and many atonal composers employ other methods.

[keypeg]

I live in the USA, with its 644 NASM accredited college/university music schools.  No one, and I mean no one, gets taught 12 tone in high school...

I already wrote that a child of mine did.  His high school had an arts magnet program which might have made it a bit different, and we're also talking Canada rather than the US - but I remember it distinctly.

[chopincat]

You're confusing atonality, dodecaphony and serialism. The second Viennese School (Schoenberg) used all three together, but they are severable and many atonal composers employ other methods.

You're absolutely right. I was referring to the three of them together because the second Viennese School is my only knowledge of the subject thus far. Like I said, I have a lot to learn!

[bernadette60614]

May I suggest googling MOOC list? This will take you to a list of massive on-line courses....free courses which you can take on your own and at your own pace. I didn't do an exhaustive scan of the listing of music theory courses, but there are some.

I know that I frequently take breaks from my work and too often end up watching puppy videos on youtube. My resolution for 2015 is to take the 3 hours a week I spend on web wasting and devote them to learning from tersoria, which is a web based music theory site (I think not advanced enough for you!)

[chopincat]

I know that I frequently take breaks from my work and too often end up watching puppy videos on youtube. My resolution for 2015 is to take the 3 hours a week I spend on web wasting and devote them to learning from tersoria

I always think it's funny when people say stuff like this. I mean, I'm a big procrastinator too, but I wouldn't procrastinate from working on music! Music kind of is my main form of procrastination, in a sense. I would never be able to treat music like really hard work because there is too much real hard work in my life (or in my case, homework).