Hacker News Reader

Comment by YouAreGreat | Hacker News Reader

The author observes that self-driven students of very selective parts of Music History are "driven by emotion rather than obligation" and usually start from a passion for some current music. This seems true enough. The next step, however, is a giant leap:

> shouldn’t music history writing and teaching be done in the same backwards direction?

No, that doesn't follow, because we are now talking about obligatory learning of the rest of Music History, which will be what I just experienced for most of the author's text: An endless litany of names, names, names, names, names, some arrows drawn between them, some dates and places attached.

It doesn't matter which order you teach me all the rest of Music History. It doesn't get better that way, although it probably doesn't get worse, either.

View on HN

Exactly. It seems like this author got really into Sam Smith, did a deep Wikipedia dive, then somehow extrapolated that into a wide-sweeping theory of pedagogy, with bold assertions like "That’s how we learn about music: backwards, always backwards."

There are so many counter-examples. I am instantly reminded of a childhood friend who was really into classical music. I don't think he arrived there working all the way back from present. I started listening to The Who because my dad had a CD of theirs in his car, which led to other classic rock. It had nothing to do with a backward time travel from whatever contemporary music I was hearing at the time. I think a lot of music learning happens more serendipitously like that, through friends, random encounters, etc. The historical research is definitely a part of it but this article way overstates it.

As someone who learned young to love Charlie Parker, & co., I suspect your friend loved what he grew up listening to at home. Classical music _was_ the contemporary context for your friend, just like your context included the Who.

If you didn't ever go back further than the Who, btw, I'm not sure you 'learned history' in the usual sense of the phrase, and I'm not sure you can teach a history class based on random encounters.

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of learning about the diversity of musical styles and cultures than specifically "music history" in a more academic sense. Random encounters can expose you to music you were not familiar with, in a way that a history lesson might not, and then you go and start digging into it.

It doesn't have to be going backwards from the present, right? In your example, the person could work backwards from classical music. You could work backwards from The Who, or classic rock.

Going backwards from a natural point of interest sounds like it would be the best method to learn history.

True, but if you start with an artist I like today, and work backwards through some of her influencers, I'm likely to find I like some of those. Then repeat. I may find myself liking, or at least appreciaing, one after another.

I enjoy blues. I started with curiosity about current sound tracks on popular movies and TV shows. Then I followed it back to it's roots in rudemantry instruments played by African Americans in the Deep South. That, in turn, can be traced back to the music of Africa mixed with American Folk.

I feel like I have a stronger appreciation when I learn it in reverse.

Of course, I am not learning it in order to get a full knowledge of it, rather, I am enjoying it in reverse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com