In my
previous post, I wrote briefly about a historically important pedagogical work
in music theory entitled Gradus ad
Parnassum, or in English, The Steps of Parnassus, (Parnassus being
the mythical home of the Muses). This work first appeared in 1725 and has never
fallen out of use, being used by composers and teachers ranging from Mozart to
Brahms to Richard Strauss. The author was Joseph Fux, a major composer of the
late Baroque period. Although his fame as a composer has not survived as well
as some of his contemporaries, J.S Bach and Handel being obvious examples, he
was highly admired in his own time and occupied during his career the most
prestigious musical post in the world: Music Director of the Viennese Court. I
would like to speak in more detail about the Gradus because I feel there is much that we can learn from Fux’s
approach that can be applied to the teaching of mathematics and physics. It may
be surprising to some that a parallel could be drawn between mathematics and music
pedagogy, but the actual art of composition is more systematic that some would
think. It is part art and part science, much like mathematics itself.
In any math problem of a particular level of sophistication, it is
the general aim of the student to arrive at the correct answer. In other words, there is some unknown value
or function (in the case of a differential equation) and the object of the game
is to derive an expression for the unknown. This is most systematic level of
mathematics. For example, given a Hookean spring with particular
characteristics attached to a mass with certain initial conditions, a
differential equation can be written from which the motion of the spring can be
obtained. Beyond obtaining that function, there is little that can be drawn
from that problem. One step above in sophistication would be to study the
problem more generally, studying the system while directly specifying as little
as possible. This would enter the region of mathematical proof (as in, to prove
that the period of a Hookean spring does not depend on the amplitude of the
oscillation). It has been my experience that this kind of mathematics has
something in it akin to art: we take certain facts and try to arrange them, or
follow their implications in such a way that a whole new fundamental truth is
revealed, not merely the specific truth or a particular system with particular
values. In music it is somewhat similar, to arrange sounds and pitches in a new
and meaningful way. The difference is that in mathematics, the aim is
consistency, which is objective; in music, the aim is aesthetic appeal, which
is partially subjective. Music theory is the system of rules and conventions
that attempt to formalize ‘correctness’ in composition. Unlike in mathematics,
these rules are not unbreakable but rather “for the guidance of the wise and
the obedience of fools”. By this I mean that good composers break these rules
when they desire a particular effect, while bad composers break them because they
lack the skill to follow them. Turning
now to the Gradus ad Parnassum, Fux
outlines his pedagogical philosophy in his introduction:
There have certainly been many authors famous for their teaching and
competence, who have left and abundance of works on the theory of music; but on
the practice of writing music they have said very little, and this little is
not easily understood. Generally, they have been content to give a few
examples, and never have they felt the need of inventing a simple method by
which the novice can progress gradually, ascending step by step to attain
mastery in this art. I shall not be deterred by the most ardent haters of
school, nor by the corruptness of the times … Seeking a solution to this
problem, I began, therefore, many years ago, to work out a method similar to
that by which children learn first letters, then syllables, then combinations
of syllables, and finally how to read and write. And it has not been in vain.
When I used this method in teaching I observed that the pupils made amazing
progress within a short time. So I thought I might render a service to the art
if I published it for the benefit of young students, and shared with the
musical world the experience of nearly thirty years, during which I served three
emperors (in which I may in all modesty take pride).
The work itself is written as an ongoing dialogue between a pupil Josephus and the teacher Aloysius (representing the Renaissance
master Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina). Aloysius begins with a review of
consonances and dissonances (which he assumes the student to already know) and
then proceeds to introduce the three kinds of motion: direct, contrary, and
oblique. He concludes the introduction with the four fundamental rules of
counterpoint:
1. From one perfect consonance
to another perfect consonance, one must proceed in contrary or oblique motion.
2. From a perfect consonance
to an imperfect consonance, one may proceed in any of the three motions.
3. From an imperfect
consonance to a perfect consonance, one must proceed in contrary or oblique motion.
4. From one imperfect
consonance to another imperfect consonance one may proceed in any of the three
motions.
These rules form basically all the information that the reader
(living vicariously through Josephus) needs for the first lesson. Aloysius
presents the student with a melody (or cantus
firmus) and has him harmonize it in simple note-on-note counterpoint. This
is the musical equivalent to a simple word problem. The fictional student
presents his answer and explains to the teacher how he arrived at it. However,
the student’s answer is not perfect and Josephus corrects it. Some of the
mistakes are from breaking one of the Four Rules. Some mistakes are subtler,
such as not setting the counterpoint in the same mode as the cantus firmus.
When I read this example, I thought at the time that it seemed
somewhat sloppy, throwing information at the student after the fact. However, speaking
for myself, the phrase “set the counterpoint in the same mode as the cantus firmus” was easier for to
understand from the mistaken example than from the rule itself. The student’s
work then becomes an instructional example, with the teacher demonstrating what
he could do to avoid the error. This is the general pattern of the book. Very
small amounts of information are introduced at a time, which allows for a
steady but never overwhelming increase in complexity. The work progresses while
remaining in two-part harmony, through the first, second, and third species of
counterpoint, ligatures, and florid counterpoint. Having exhausted this type of
composition, Fux then goes back to the beginning and does it all over again in
three-part and four-part harmony.
When I read this book, barely more than 100 pages, I wonder what
specifically it is that made it so effective. What struck me first was how old
fashioned the compositional style being taught was. The Baroque period was
coming to a close at the time of writing. Renaissance polyphony, which had been
essentially replaced with Baroque counterpoint, was quickly giving way to the
Rococo style. What Fux was intending with this book was to solidify the old way
of doing things, not because he felt that people ought to write that way, but
because he saw that the young composers were ignorant of the historical
foundations of their art and were becoming reckless and unbounded by any
standards of taste. He says this explicitly in his introduction where he states
that that his purposes “do not tend – nor do I credit myself with the strength
– to stem the course of a torrent rushing precipitously beyond its bounds. I do
not believe that I can call back composers from the unrestrained insanity of
their writing to normal standards.” Music pedagogy then, was either too
theoretical or heavy with information, or it was too undisciplined, prompting a
great deal of activity yet resulting in an overall decline of quality and
technical mastery.
I wonder sometimes if these two errors are still present to some
extent in mathematics (and physics) pedagogy. I’m always struck when I tutor
high school students what tomes their textbooks are, and how difficult it is to
find what I’m looking for in them. This would be an example of too much
information, particularly when the underlying concept is very simple. It
frustrates me enormously whenever I work with a first-year university student,
and find that after two years of high school physics they still can’t do any
kind of projectile motion problem without flipping back and forth through the
textbook, or define for me Newton’s 2nd Law or the Work-Energy
Theorem (and this happens a lot). The textbook almost functions for them as a
book of spells instead of an instructional tool. The other extreme is when
creativity and discovery is emphasized at the expense of formal instruction, in
the expectation that students through exploration will spontaneously discover
the principles they need. (Re, “We Don’t Want No Education” by Theodore
Dalrymple). I expect that in some circumstances this may work very well, but I
wonder at the same time if it can allow serious misconceptions slip past the
teacher. Also, I wonder if making a subject appear more subjective that it
really is can inadvertently encourage in students a relativist epistemology.
Whatever the virtues of the present age, I don’t believe due respect to
Principle of Non-Contradiction is one of them.
I believe that part of the brilliance of Fux’s text is the skill
with which he takes the middle road. In modern parlance, it is very
‘student-centered’ in that the student in the dialogue does the bulk of the
work, and information is introduced very gradually. There is no deluge of
information but rather, knowledge of music theory is grown naturally in the student through the use of exercises. At the
same time, Fux does not beat about the bush with respect to the student’s ignorance
of the subject. He presents his rules and methods as law and not as a matter of
debate. He sometimes explains his rationale to the student and sometimes
refuses to, if he feels the explanation is premature or would confuse the
student more. At one humorous point in the dialogue, Aloysius advises Josephus
not to get over-confident and to remember his place:
I want to remind you again
and again to make every effort to overcome the great difficulties of the study
you have undertaken; and neither to become discouraged by hard work; not to
allow yourself to be deterred from unflagging industry by flattery of such
skill as you have already achieved. If you will work thus you will be delighted
to see the way in which light gradually illuminates had been obscure and how in
some manner the curtain of darkness seems to be drawn away.
To conclude, part of me wonders what a math or physics instruction
book would look like written in this manner, and if it would even be possible.
Being a dialogue, it is not particularly useful as a reference, but I think
this format makes it especially effective as an instruction tool. It is
possible to read a textbook and come away thinking that you’ve learned
something: perhaps you have, and perhaps you haven’t. However, it would be just
about impossible to read Gradus ad
Parnassum and convince yourself that you’ve learned something if you
haven’t also done the exercises. Yet history shows us that someone who
diligently works his way through the entire book could gain an enormous amount
of skill and understanding. As such, Fux’s work is not so much a textbook in
the modern sense but an actual pedagogical program.
I won’t speculate on how effectively this method could be transplanted from
music theory to mathematics, but as someone who has had to learn both, the
natural similarities between these two subjects make me believe that anyone who
wants to learn how to present mathematics in an intuitive guise and a sensible
order may glean many useful ideas from this work.