Part 4: Contextualizing Music History

Like music theory, music history has long been a standard course of study for any music program, but one that I have seen many students struggle with. Memorizing dates and names can feel dry compared to the creativity that drew them to music in the first place. Music history keeps its place in music programs because history contextualizes music in a powerful way. We can understand why composers wrote the way they did because of their historical precedents, political climate, and cultural influences. 

A key question in the conversation about music history is this: does great music hold its value beyond the context of its creation?

I argue it does, and the test to prove that theory lies in listening. 

Many listeners have profound experiences with music that they neither understand in terms of theory, or know in terms of history. There’s no doubt that theory and history open many new ways to connect with music, or can even increase the chance of profound experiences with music–but we must remember that there’s a way to bypass all that study and knowledge by connecting simply to the sound itself and the thoughts and feelings it conveys. In listening theory, we call this “using the feeling filters.” However, approaching music in this way is rarely a teaching priority. I believe that stems from a lack of knowledge about listening as a skill. 

Both music theory and music history can be taught more effectively if done in the context of listening. Listening takes the academic, fact-centered approach and enriches it by adding just the right amount of feeling to complement the thinking. Of course, studying music in a feeling-centered way isn’t as measurable and verifiable. But if history is taught for facts about music and composers alone, then it won’t ever compare to the potent experiences that any unlearned musician might have. 

This article is part four of a series on listening theory. Stayed tuned for part five next week!