ACADEMIC?? Is history or music more academic?

Scroll to see replies

Composing to a high level requires extensive knowledge of music theory and (and even some slight number theory). Which requires one to read and to apply knowledge.

Reply 21

gjd800

Original post by mundosinfin

Academic: not of practical relevance.

That's a slight misuse of this secondary definition. To us it in this way is to say something like a discussion is purely academic (i.e. hypothetical), which is not the context being driven at in the OP. Maths is 'of no practical relevance'? Really?

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 22

lily0293

Very true.

Original post by Sanjith Hegde123

Composing to a high level requires extensive knowledge of music theory and (and even some slight number theory). Which requires one to read and to apply knowledge.

Reply 23

Doones

Original post by lily0293

I've been having many conversations and debates with my friends, but why do we have this notion of some subjects being more academic than others? In my opinion, music is definitely more academic because one has to practise everyday for hours and develop high listening skills. I dont really know but I guess everybody has an experience and suggestion.

In the context of what? If you are asking vis-a-vis applying to university or for jobs, having GCSE (or A-level) Music is generally academically comparable to History.

Reply 24

fallen_acorns

studied both at Alevel, and one after.

Music is to broad.

Classical music is highly academic, and goes far beyond the academic requirements of history as it merges historical knowledge with mathematical theory, in a way that goes beyond history.

Modern/popular music is far less academic then history.

So in terms of academic-ness:

1, classical music
2, history
3, popular music

---

In terms of difficulty, back when I studied it, music was the most demanding ALevel I did, the sheer volume of work required was insane to me compared to the other courses. Not only did it have a lot of coursework coupled with exams, but each peice of coursework required far far more time. I could knock out a history essay in a weekend. But preparing for a live performance to 300? Takes weeks. Composing a multi-instrument peice? can take weeks/months.

Its not as intellectually difficult as Maths/Physics, but in my opinion no other Alevel tested such a broad range of skills and had the workload of my music Alevel. You had history, theory, calculation, liver performance, artistic composition, technical computer skills, instrumental skills, group cooperation, etc. all in one Alevel.

Reply 25

lily0293

Thank you for your contribution, I have done my diploma piano and about to do my GCSE for Music. Yet, you have done a whole a level! You certainly exhibit how long the coursework is for this particular subject and the fact that a history essay takes a couple of days to complete, whilst, for me compositions take months and months, as well as the performance component. The aural aspect, is however, another story... :u:

Original post by fallen_acorns

Reply 26

lily0293

Hence, numerous skills and an open mind. :smile:

Original post by Sanjith Hegde123

Composing to a high level requires extensive knowledge of music theory and (and even some slight number theory). Which requires one to read and to apply knowledge.

Reply 27

username3553182

Original post by gjd800

It means not of practical relevance for the most part. The main part of music is its practical aspect - you compose music and learn music theory only to be able to play it.

Reply 28

gjd800

Original post by mundosinfin

It means not of practical relevance for the most part. The main part of music is its practical aspect - you compose music and learn music theory only to be able to play it.

No It doesn't: that is not the primary definition of 'academic' and if it is not the primary definition, it cannot mean that 'for the most part'.

Reply 29

username3553182

How not... there can be different definitions of a word, and one could be the correct definition in a certain context. Everything in the subject of music is intended for practical use e.g. compositions. The term 'academic' is usually used to refer to subjects like history in contrast to more applied subjects such as music and art. One could argue that all subjects taught in schools are academic as you are always learning something but the distinction for me is whether this is a practical/applied skill or not.
Music is not considered an academic subject largely, including by me. OP asked if history or music was more academic, thus my opinion is history.

Reply 30

Sanjith Hegde123

Original post by fallen_acorns

people study pop music?

that's just 1 lesson on the 4 chord structure lmao, its all the same, there's no point of studying it

but i agree with everything else you said

Reply 31

lily0293

There is no point of studying music, if you haven't started from a young age, because therefore you have not developed sonorous skills. If a question about pop music comes up, it is a one marker. Notating music from ear is around 4 marks, also identifying cadences and intervals all come from the ear. In history, you simply utilise one skill and anybody can do it. Music classes tend to be much smaller, hence more challenging. By picking out 1 mark from 96 is not compelling.

Original post by Sanjith Hegde123

people study pop music?

that's just 1 lesson on the 4 chord structure lmao, its all the same, there's no point of studying it

but i agree with everything else you said

Reply 32

Sanjith Hegde123

Original post by lily0293

yeyeye im music>history all day everyday

im just saying why would anyone study pop music

The rest of music and music theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nearly everything else imo

and I do further maths, physics, chem, maths a levels, and I can say without a doubt music tops all of them

(i've been playing the piano for about 6 years and am grade 6, and have grade 5 music theory).