We Should Teach Music History Backwards • Hacker News Board

Re: We Should Teach Music History Backwards

#101

Post by breakall » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 11:06 PM UTC

tpurves wrote: post #49

dghughes wrote: post #6

As a terrible programmer my trick is to read statements backwards. Maybe programming should be taught that way too not just reading of it but the history of it all the way back to Charles Babbage, Ada Lovelace and even weaving looms.

As a product manager, I have often found it beneficial to write requirements backwards. Start first with the desired result of a feature or flow and work backwards to the necessary steps, options, preconditions, actors, setup/enrollment steps etc. that would have been required required to get there.

Personally I have to be careful of this....it’s easy for me to focus so much on the solution that the problem is never even clearly articulated to the developers (who may have a better solution that I came up with once they grasp the problem).

I ran across an interesting essay on Medium recently on this topic, advocating a new approach to roadmaps focused on the problems: the problem roadmap. Instead of saying what new features the team will be working on in the future, map out what problems they’ll be working on.

Re: We Should Teach Music History Backwards

#102

Post by ramshorns » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 11:08 PM UTC

c3534l wrote: post #91

vanderZwan wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a wonderful rhetorical device. It is very appealing, for sure, but it runs the risk of falling into the same trap of "trying to show that what came after was inevitable, when in fact it was one future among an infinite number of different possible futures" .

I don't think we know if history was inevitable. How much do we attribute to specific events because they're the ones that happened, rather than simply the result of deeper, sociological, economic, and cultural causes? The best we can do is explain what we can explain, and I don't know if trying to teach people that history is essentially random is even a goal that you should strive for to begin with.

Maybe the best explanation of history to teach, if not the most correct, is "history happened the way that it did because of trillions of choices that people made."

Re: We Should Teach Music History Backwards

#103

Post by ljw1001 » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 11:08 PM UTC

resu_nimda wrote: post #22

YouAreGreat wrote: post #9

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 learnin…

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…

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.

Re: We Should Teach Music History Backwards

#104

Post by woodandsteel » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 11:15 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #19

Not just music history, but history in general. History told forwards is superstition: trying to show that what came after was inevitable, when in fact it was one future among an infinite number of different possible futures. History told backwards makes sense: look for the seeds of post events, in the past. However the human mind loves nothing more than causation; we see cause and effect everywhere even where it's n…

One reason to teach history backwards is that people are already interested in what is happening today, and so it is easy to get them interested in what lead up to it. And one reason this is so is that learning what caused present problems helps you in figuring out what to do about them.

Re: We Should Teach Music History Backwards

#105

Post by woodandsteel » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 11:21 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #19

Not just music history, but history in general. History told forwards is superstition: trying to show that what came after was inevitable, when in fact it was one future among an infinite number of different possible futures. History told backwards makes sense: look for the seeds of post events, in the past. However the human mind loves nothing more than causation; we see cause and effect everywhere even where it's n…

>History told forwards is superstition: trying to show that what came after was inevitable, when in fact it was one future among an infinite number of different possible futures.

No, that's completely wrong.

For one thing, any good history book will include numerous accidents that could well have happened differently, and sent history off on an entirely different direction. I am surprised you were unaware that is how good history books are written.

As to an infinite number of possible futures, there are a far larger number one might imagine that are in fact impossible, like humans decided a thousand years ago to walk to Mars, and doing it. They are impossible because of basic realities, and history is a key way you discover and teach them. And that is important because many of these basic realities are of the greatest importance for intelligent decision making today.

Re: We Should Teach Music History Backwards

#106

Post by w-ll » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 11:22 PM UTC

c3534l wrote: post #80

bambax wrote: post #19

Not just music history, but history in general. History told forwards is superstition: trying to show that what came after was inevitable, when in fact it was one future among an infinite number of different possible futures. History told backwards makes sense: look for the seeds of post events, in the past. However the human mind loves nothing more than causation; we see cause and effect everywhere even where it's n…

There was a great essay a while back that I can no longer find that summarized Guns, Germs, and Steel by continually asking the question "why?" It start with "Why is Western Europe and America so dominant culturally and economically?" Then regressed back to questions like "why did Europeans colonize the Americas instead of the other way around" to "why did the Europeans have steel, disease, and gunpowder but the Nati…

There's a book by that title. I havn't gotten a chance to read it yet, but was told its very good.

https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0...

Re: We Should Teach Music History Backwards

#107

Post by hindsightbias » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 11:24 PM UTC

nautilus12 wrote: post #84

I disagree whole heartedly. This will end up putting an overemphasis on contemporary work, and not enough on classic works. Think about how often cirriculum never gets to the end of, when such seminal and formative composers such as Bach are fit into the last weeks you will inevietably gloss over them. We already make Gods out of our contemporary world view at the expense of downplaying the brilliance of past thinker…

I think the reality will be that the contemporary will be the focus and the old will be glossed over.

I get that someone who loves Tarantino can't sit thru a Peckinpah movie. But imagine if Tarantino had been one of those people.

Re: We Should Teach Music History Backwards

#108

Post by the_cat_kittles » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 11:24 PM UTC

nautilus12 wrote: post #84

I disagree whole heartedly. This will end up putting an overemphasis on contemporary work, and not enough on classic works. Think about how often cirriculum never gets to the end of, when such seminal and formative composers such as Bach are fit into the last weeks you will inevietably gloss over them. We already make Gods out of our contemporary world view at the expense of downplaying the brilliance of past thinker…

yea but how come you arent complaining that basically nothing of indian classical music, gypsy music, hungarian folk music, balkan, etc is taught. its just the white guys in europe who were good? of course not. in general, music education is insanely myopically focused on the (of course wonderful) tradition of western diatonic harmony- i guess i think your comment makes no sense if you contextualize it within a bigger musical world.

Re: We Should Teach Music History Backwards

#109

Post by woodandsteel » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 11:26 PM UTC

nautilus12 wrote: post #83

jaredklewis wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would not only be a great way to teach history, but also literature and probably other things like philosophy as well. In literature, it is not uncommon to start with the past reading things like the Odyssey, moving forwards to Beowulf, then Canterbury Tales, then Shakespeare, then John Milton, then Dickens, and on and on. The result is you start with the least accessible work and move forward to the most access…

I disagree in the sense that this will end up putting an overemphasis on contemporary work, and not enough on classic works. Think about how often cirriculum never gets to the end of, when such seminal and formative works such as Plato and Aristotle are fit into the last weeks you will inevietably gloss over them. We already make Gods out of our contemporary world view at the expense of downplaying the brilliance of…

No, you are misunderstanding what he is suggesting. He didn't say cover all of contemporary literature. He is saying spend a few years getting students hooked on contemporary literature, and then get them into say 19th century literature like with Dickens, and so on working backwards.

And let me ask you this, do think the way literature at present is taught in elementary and secondary schools is effective in getting students involved, such that they voluntarily read high-quality works for the rest of their lives?

Re: We Should Teach Music History Backwards

#110

Post by adamnemecek » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 11:37 PM UTC

ljw1001 wrote: post #97

adamnemecek wrote: post #62

This is only tangentially related but I’ve been working on an ide for music. Sign up if you are interested https://www.ngrid.io

definitely tangential, but i was interested anyway until i got to the no-detail, gimme-your-email web page. I think these prelaunch page things are over, and if they're not, they should be.

What would you like to know? Just FYI I set it up because people I talked asked if there was a way to be notified.