Customer Reviews

Lies My Music Teacher Told Me

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Apparently this book is a lot more controversial than I thought, judging from the profusion of Amazon reviews, both positive and negative, some showing rampant misunderstandings of music theory (worse than Eskelin's!). Yes, there is a little problem with Eskelin's tone in the book. (Eskelin talks down to his audience, spends too much time trying to justify himself through his credentials and ego-puffing anecdotes, and tries unsuccessfully to use simple English and simple concepts to explain music theory--the result being occasionally almost incomprehensible prose and sometimes bad grammar.) No, the "revelations" in the book are not so revolutionary or controversial that the book deserves its title. And yes, he sometimes mixes up musical terms, and even gets a few facts wrong. (You're waiting for the "But", right? Be patient, it's coming!)

I am a music theory professor, and have talked at length with many music theorists about theory pedagogy, and even have presented a paper on theory pedagogy at a conference. In my experience, in most music theory classrooms and private studios, too little emphasis is put on the way of teaching that Eskelin tries to model in his book. Eskelin, having not thoroughly studied the history of music theory or current music theory research, theory pedagogy research, and music perception and cognition research, ultimately is not as successful as some more experienced writers/teachers might be. And yet some of the alternatives to traditional ways of presenting musical fundamentals that Eskelin discusses in the book are still quite worthwhile. (Note: Most of the material taught in the book is simply musical rudiments, building blocks, notation, and practical information. These are not really music theory, which studies the structure, form, design, aesthetics, meaning, and interpretation of real music, and also speculates more abstractly about musical structure and aesthetics.)

Eskelin perhaps conflates the concepts of musical meter and time signature. But his general approach is a good one, even if oversimplified. Basically, all meters can be categorized based on the relationships among three related pulse streams (felt or implied beats, not necessarily heard beats): the measure (or bar), the main beat, and the beat's first level of subdivision. The reason why it is called a time signature and not just a meter signature is that it tells a musician more than just the meter (information that is encapsulated entirely into the top number of the time signature). A time signature tells how the meter will be written in note values (what note value gets the main beat, information that is encapsulated into the bottom number of the time signature), and even sometimes a general tempo range for the piece. Although 2/2, 4/4, and 2/4 are all simple duple meters, pieces written in cut time (2/2) are typically felt differently from pieces written in common time (4/4) or 2/4, or else we wouldn't have music written in each of these time signatures.

One particularly important point that Eskelin makes is that some less sophisticated musicians think that scales are merely technical exercises, when in fact they are tonal resources--systems of potential harmonic relationships within a key. While Eskelin blindly perpetuates Hindemith's conflation of the terms root and tonic, his espousal of emphasizing this perspective when teaching about scales is still good advice. To accomplish this a teacher can tell students to write their scales in thirds, or descending, or in a random order, always without using the key signature (using accidentals instead) or using a different key signature entirely, or to name the nth scale degree of any key using the proper accidental. Teachers can also have their students memorize all of the diatonic intervals using singing exercises that are structured like games. (I know that these are not revolutionary ideas, but I wish that my theory teachers had done this with me!)

There is one important error in Eskelin's book that I must point out in this forum. Eskelin provides the just ratios for all of the diatonic scale degrees and intervals, including the just major third 5/4 (the interval from a major triad's root to its third). (And yes, there are just ratios for dissonant intervals too, because dissonant intervals are formed as a result of the combination of consonant intervals. This is why it is a system of just intonation, and not just a scale of just intervals.) Eskelin then tells anecdotes of how he trains singers who are used to hearing equal temperament how to lock in their harmonies as justly tuned chords. When Eskelin tells us that singers have to place the third of a major chord higher than in equal temperament it becomes apparent that he has not done his math homework. The just major third 5/4 is less than the equal-tempered major third 2^(4/12) =~ 1.2599, meaning that it is lower, not higher. (I also have trouble with the notion that we all somehow hear everything in equal temperament all the time in our imaginations, but--since I can't tell you the alternative tuning in which people imagine music--that's an argument for another day.)

If you are the type of person who believes everything that is presented in black and white print, then this book is not for you. If you are the type of person who reads skeptically, critically, and analytically, then this book may or may not interest you. (You will probably find Eskelin's ideas somewhat less exciting than promised.) If you have had a relatively poor musical education, then this book might be enlightening. If you want to improve your way of teaching music, then this book may have a few hints that could help you. I still find myself recommending this book despite its obvious flaws, simply because it brings together a lot of information from many different sources (mostly uncredited) into a quick and easy read.

I've docked this a star for its smarmy, unctious, obnoxious manner of presentation. It violates two of E.B. White's cardinal rules (as set forth in "The Elements of Style"): 1. Do not affect a breezy manner. 2. Do not talk down to your readers. ("Lies" calls itself an exposition for grownups--or adults, as we grownups usually prefer to refer to ourselves-- but it treats its readers like particularly backward children.) (It also consistently violates another of E.B White's rules: it forgets that "hopefully" is an adverb and uses it instead as a synonym for "I hope" or "let's hope".)

Prospective purchasers should be cautioned that "Lies" is written from the standpoint of a singer and implicitly assumes its readers are primarily interested in singing. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, but readers who have experience with singers and vocal teachers (and who are not themselves singers) should know why I point this out.

The "lies" referred to in the title are essentially simplifications, and this book essentially replaces them with other simplifications. Certain remarks it makes concerning rhythm are apposite, but it says nothing about rhythm that isn't better said in Paul Creston's much earlier "Principles of Rhythm". Although "Principles of Rhythm" is not cited, this section seems to me something of a watering-down, mangling, and misunderstanding of it.

Tuning is much more problematic than "Lies" suggests. "Lies" confounds Pythagorean and just tuning. It doesn't notice that a diatonic just tuning, within a SINGLE "key", contains analomous intervals: a wolf fifth and a Pythagorean minor third, or that there exist paradigmatic ratios for only perfect intervals and major and minor thirds and sixths, not for augmented and diminished intervals, not for seconds and sevenths. These other ratios are always derived as RESULTANTS from the very tempered, Pythagorean, and just SCALES "Lies" eschews. For a charming, lucid, and accurate introduction to tuning and musical acoustics, read instead "Science and Music" by Sir James Jeans.

To sum up: I recommend for interested laymen "The ABC of Music" by Imogen Holst and "Science and Music" by Sir James Jeans. I recommend for musicians and music students "Principles of Rhythm " by Paul Creston. I recommend for writers, editors, and publishers "The Elements of Style" by E.B. White and William Strunk.

This book will surprize you! My initial impression, based on the title alone, was "Oh no, not another one of those books". But as I thumbed through it, I was pulled in by some real "truths" that I was aware of (such as well-tempered vs. "natural" tuning). I think that the explanations are quite clear and presented in a straight-forward and interesting way. There is some real theory in there such as the Hindemith concept of intervals and the tritone theory for key identification (for the technically inclined)

I can see from comments by other reviewers that there were some objections that really amount to differences in style and delivery ("eccentric"?) rather than content. I personally found the author's sometime glib comments and interesting sidetracks rather refreshing. Let's be honest, this topic can be dead-dull if not mixed in with some lightness and humour- which probably explains why the thornier matter of musical theory is usually relegated to graduate seminars and dusty textbooks!

As both a scientist and musician, I think this book achieves it's goal in an interesting and informative way by trying to make critical concepts of music theory accessible and relevant to music as we hear it. It does this by challenging the crutches of the well-tempered piano and the limits of musical notation.

Like anything in life, you can get out of this book what you want. You can read it as a expose of "lies", or as an attempt to make music relevant to how we really hear it- which is what I think the author tries to communicate. It's up to you!

This book says that "Yankee Doodle" and "Old McDonald" (grownups?) would sound the same whether notated in 4/4 or 2/2: a trivial observation, for they would also sound the same notated in 7/8 or 9/2. The problem is that it does not properly distinguish meter and time signature (which it incorrectly calls "meter signature", compounding the problem). Meter is a grouping of beats or pulses intrinsic to the music: it is audible. Time signature is a measuring off on paper segments of music with the same relative duration: it is inaudible. A time signature of 3/4, for example, tells us there will be three quarter notes worth of time per measure and only SUGGESTS that we will HEAR groupings of three. There IS however a difference in sound between a grouping of four (suggested by the time signature 4/4) and a grouping of two (suggested by the time signature 2/4), and it should not be at matter of indifference how you notate your music.

This book berates a certain drummer for allegedly not appreciating that beats may not necessarily be notated as quarter notes--unfairly, in my opinion, for notation should take into account the likely reaction of the musicians for whom it is intended. One rarely hears the phrase "swing quarter notes"; it would be perverse to give a drummer a "straight-ahead" jazz part notated in 4/2 or 4/8. If you want a good performance, not a quarrel, put it in 4/4.

I'd rather I didn't have to give this (or any book) a star-rating at all. I'd rather you ignore my star-rating and read my review. This is not because I wish to persuade you to buy this book or not to buy or, for that matter, to convince you of anything at all. It's just that having read it I wish to give my report. Make of it what you will.

It occurred to me that this book might have been entitled "Plugging a certain obscure singing group, of which the author just happens to be a member, in an unseemly manner". A bit cumbersome perhaps. In any case, sandwiched between the ads, we find various unprovocative half-truths or quarter-truths, most of which are best ignored. I'm going to pick on one especially, however.

This book asserverates that because the minor mode did not historically derive (in particular) from the Aeolian mode, it is evil (okay, wrong) to teach that there are three forms of minor scales (natural, harmonic, and melodic). Historical derivation, of course, is beside the point. Of relevance, rather, is that the minor mode without leading tone is EQUIVALENT to the Aeolian mode and that the tonic of a minor key is the submediant of its relative major.

Why the confusion? Because Medieval and Renaissance music was predominantly vocal, this music is given an exaggerated emphasis in many vocal curricula, and unwary voice majors are apt to attempt to apply (mistakenly) Renaissance theory to common-practice music (music of the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods). When these voice majors are allowed to become teachers themselves, the problem is compounded.

I've docked this a star for its smarmy, unctious, obnoxious manner of presentation. It violates two of E.B. White's cardinal rules (as set forth in "The Elements of Style"): 1. Do not affect a breezy manner. 2. Do not talk down to your readers. ("Lies..." calls itself an exposition for grownups--or adults, as we grownups usually prefer to refer to ourselves--but it treats its readers like particularly backward children.) It also consistently violates another of E.B White's rules: it forgets that "hopefully" is an adverb and uses it instead as a synonym for "I hope" or "let's hope."

Prospective purchasers should be cautioned that "Lies..." is written from the standpoint of a singer and implicitly assumes its readers are primarily interested in singing. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, but readers who have experience with singers and vocal teachers (and who are not themselves singers) should know why I point this out.

The lies referred to in the title are essentially simplifications, and this book essentially replaces them with other simplifications. Certain remarks it makes concerning rhythm are apposite, but it says nothing about rhythm that isn't better said in Paul Creston's much earlier "Principles of Rhythm". Although "Principles of Rhythm" is not cited, this section seems to me something of a watering-down, mangling, and misunderstanding of it.

Tuning is much more problematic than "Lies..." suggests. "Lies..." confounds Pythagorean and just tuning. It doesn't notice that a diatonic just tuning, within a SINGLE "key", contains analomous intervals: a wolf fifth and a Pythagorean minor third, or that there exist paradigmatic ratios for only perfect intervals and major and minor thirds and sixths, not for augmented and diminished intervals, not for seconds and sevenths. These other ratios are always derived as RESULTANTS from the very tempered, Pythagorean, and just SCALES "Lies..." eschews. For a charming, lucid, and accurate introduction to tuning and musical acoustics, read instead "Science and Music" by Sir James Jeans.

To sum up: I recommend for interested laymen "The ABC of Music" by Imogen Holst and "Science and Music" by Sir James Jeans. I recommend for musicians and music students "Principles of Rhythm" by Paul Creston. I recommend for writers, editors, and publishers "The Elements of Style" by E.B. White and William Strunk.

Dr. Eskelin's book is a fairly comprehensive explanation of the theory of music. It's different from the other books on this topic I have read in that it starts by throwing out most of what most schools teach of music theory. Instead, it begins "at the beginning," with very basic facts about human perception and the physics of producing sound, and follows an unusual but cogent route to a deeper understanding of music. As a lifelong student of music (and recently-turned-professional performer), I was delighted to find this new perspective filling in a number of little holes in my understanding... and challenging me to reconsider some of the ideas I had about music and which I never thought about very deeply. I recommend it highly for those who find value in multiple perspectives on the subject of music theory!

I found this book to be helpful in uncovering misconceptions that we music educators may be teaching. The author had some problems understanding music as it was taught by his educators, and I can understand how he misunderstood AND how the teacher(s) may have misconstrued the concept. I think it's been helpful in how I approach teaching older beginning students, since their way of thinking is mostly formed and more difficult to change.

I did not like the author's blatent bad attitude. The book is full of negative tone. The author probably should have gone through therapy to resolve his issues before writing his book. This book mangles musical concepts with sideways thinking. His explainations are more confusing than it would be to learn the concepts correctly, and are sometimes just plain incorrect.

Sorry, I don't see this as heterodox or controversial or even as an alternative to a traditional pedagogical approach. There is nothing objectionable or provoking about its theses in general, it's just that it gets its facts, big and little, wrong a significant amount of the time. Still, I'd cut it some slack and give it two stars, except that it constantly calls itself superior to other forms of instruction. (I can't imagine, by the way, what an accompaning CD could have on it that would be useful. I think we should let books be books, and if you aren't content with books, then don't read books.)

On more thing: A scale is NOT centered on a root; a scale is centered on a TONIC. Chords have roots; scales do not have roots.

It's an interesting book to read, and if you know only the basics about music theory, it might seem to shed fresh light on the topics covered. However, most of the "lies" the author brings up aren't really lies. To use an analogy (something the author likes to use), if I told you I watched the sun rise this morning, the author might tell you I'm lying. He would then reveal the truth of what really happened; that the earth rotated so that my position, in relation to the sun, made it APPEAR that the sun rose in the sky, when in fact it did not. Most of the "truths" would be presented to students in a good college-level music theory class. But, even if you already know the "truth" he is revealing, he presents it in an engaging manner, making the book fun to read. (and much fun can be had by arguing with the author in your head!)