I'd like that as well. My daughter is 14 and my son is 13.

I was thinking of starting with the Hebrew psalms . . . maybe this would involve some investigation of the origins of the Jewish cantor and their tones.

We also have "Why Catholics Can't Sing" which has a lot of good background of sacred music. I finally purchased "Words With Wings" so may end the year with this.

I think I might include a unit on "saints and music".

Hmmm . . . this is starting to sound like fun!

If you do publish something like this there are good homeschool schools out there and it may be of benefit to approach them. I would appreciate such a resource as well.

I think that's why he finished with the dots... Thanks for the chuckle though.

I taught a class on sacred music to 7th and 8th grade students for 3 years. It was highly intriguing. The class was once a week for an hour and fifteen minutes. I would always begin by teaching them to read neumes. Then the rest of our year was spent going through specific pieces of chant and polyphony, listening to recordings, looking at translations and the notation, etc. They had many brilliant insights. Also, many of these kids were C&E Catholics - so I would pick other interesting feasts to focus on (Gaudete, Laetare, etc) and I always noticed more of them were in church on those weeks than normal.

The good thing about doing the class for two years was the second year I was able to just do a review of reading neumes before moving on to discussion time (or if they were feeling quiet me reading my essay that I had prepared and then giving them a legitimate test at the end of it).

@teachermom24, you might like to consider the deftly written Student's Guide to Music History by forum member R.J. Stove. A sample chapter -- about sacred music, in fact! -- is available through the linked page. Well, it may be written for students older than 7th or 8th-graders.

MHI
I really did.
Unless Christopher Page can't be trusted (but I've heard similar things elsewhere, so...)

It seems that during the Franco-Roman period of development (c. 800-1000), the melodies were "fixed" (and new ones written) according to (a misunderstanding, of course) of Greek music theory (the 8 modes) and Latin Classical Grammar (which, itself, had nothing to do with Latin, but had been imported from Greek as well).

Since, by then, the Latin of the Liturgy was an academic language (alive, but not a vernacular), they thought they were reconstructing "the correct" (or "the authentic") Latin by adhering to (their own interpretation of) (imported from Greek) Latin grammar rules and concepts, such as the notion that Latin was a tonal language, that accents have to do with pitch more than emphasis, or that "syllable length" was an extremely important concept.

I'm not saying any of those ideas are wrong or right NOW- they've been a part of Latin literature and scholarship for 1000 years (the fact that Webster changed "theatre" to "theater" all by himself doesn't really make it wrong). I'm just saying that it would be wrong, in a history class, to suggest something like, "The Greek modes led to the development of Gregorian Chant" or "Gregorian chant is based on the 8 mode system of the Greeks." It would be much more appropriate to say something like "Gregorian Chant, like all musical forms, developed organically among musicians and singers. In the Middle Ages, scholars and theorists used the language of Greek Music Theory to explain chant melodies. Naturally, this way of explaining and thinking about chant melodies changed the way they were sung and composed."

Not incidentally- this is exactly the same thing that happened with classical music. Rules of counterpoint were written AFTER polyphony existed, and the rules (which were used to explain what unruly artists had done) then guided the people who wrote polyphony thereafter. Then with tonal (functional) harmony- the music came first, then the theory to explain it, and then the theory changed the way new music was composed.

(This happens with language, too- Grammarians don't invent language, they explain it.)

This is IMPORTANT because the "composers followed these rules" way of explaining music theory and history (like Palestrina read Fux to learn how to be Palestrina) is a serious problem in the way we teach this stuff, and leads to the terribly unfortunate notion that making art is primarily about knowing or following rules. It is not.

Perhaps he means that the rules of Latin grammar were applied to texts, which influenced the music?

As you (I would think) know, "Classical Latin Grammar" encompasses more than what we usually mean when we talk about grammar (conjugations, declensions, etc), it included concepts of where the accent should fall in poetry, how texts were to be read aloud, the rise and fall of pitch while speaking, etc.

The melodies of the chants, being tied to text, were altered/adapted/fixed/changed/composed to fit a particular notion (or cluster of notions) about Latin grammar (and rhetoric, public speaking, elocution, etc- all of which were called, together, "Grammar").

You see this still at work today when people talk about how they can't adapt English to Latin, because the melodies are so tied to a particular conception of Latin accent patterns. (Which, I believe, is ridiculous, but that's another whole thing.)

.

Yes, ish. But I think it is more integrated than stating it that way would suggest.

Hmm... Interesting.

Seriously though, don't overlook the importance of listening to music

This.

Children should listen and sing, and learn to read music.
I'm of the opinion that, outside of a general explanation, music history can wait.

(Unless, of course, your children are already excellent singers, listeners, and readers.)

The school-marms have ruined this for us, making us think we need to "learn about" art.

"Nay!" to the nihilist nabobs of knowledge,
you godless creations of mandated college.

Art's not for asking, "now, what might this mean?"
It's for wooing and warring, and all things between.

(from On Free Verse, by Adam Wood)

Somehow, not surprised.
Carry on.

adam said:

This is IMPORTANT because the "composers followed these rules" way of explaining music theory and history (like Palestrina read Fux to learn how to be Palestrina) is a serious problem in the way we teach this stuff, and leads to the terribly unfortunate notion that making art is primarily about knowing or following rules. It is not.

I highly disagree. In order to find ones own voice, one must first imitate the greats. Otherwise, you will find yourself composing novel music which will not stand the test of time.

Does anyone have an opinion on this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814623522/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

I wasn't thinking of using it for the course, just as background/prep reading for myself. Is it worthwhile? Does he present liturgical music in line with what you all here think is on the right track?

Found it! "O Clap Your Hands" by Gordan Giles. heres the link.

http://www.paracletepress.com/o-clap-your-hands-a-musical-tour-of-sacred-choral-works-p.html