三套鋼琴系列教材之音樂創作內容分析研究

Abstract

本研究旨在探討《芬貝爾基礎鋼琴教程》、《美啟思成功鋼琴教程》與《好連得成功鋼琴教程》之音樂創作內容，以內容分析為研究法，分析與比較各套教材《鋼琴教本》及《鋼琴樂理》以音樂要素進行「作曲」與「即興」之編排進程與比例。本研究獲致結論如下： 一、 《芬貝爾》《鋼琴教本》的音樂創作內容皆為即興，「旋律」占最多，「和聲」次之，編排上由淺入深，「其他音樂要素」之運用則較少且不連貫；《鋼琴樂理》即興比例較高，作曲和即興皆以「旋律」占最多，編排能循序漸進，而作曲於各音樂要素之運用上內容相對較少。 二、 《美啟思》《鋼琴教本》的音樂創作內容以即興的比例較高，「旋律」占最多，僅針對調性之內容循序漸進的編排，無「其他音樂要素」之運用，作曲運用的音樂要素則較缺乏系統性；《鋼琴樂理》以作曲的比例為高，「旋律」占最多，編排進程能由淺入深，即興所運用的音樂要素則較少。 三、 《好連得》《鋼琴教本》的音樂創作內容皆為即興，運用之音樂要素以「旋律」占最多，針對音高與調性之概念編排上循序漸進，「其他音樂要素」之運用則較少；《鋼琴樂理》以作曲的比例較高，運用之音樂要素以「節奏」占最多，然「節奏」與其他各音樂要素之編排皆較缺乏系統性。 四、 三套《鋼琴教本》之作曲比例較低、編排進程較不連貫，即興之比例皆相對較高，以「旋律」占最多，編排較具系統性，又以《芬貝爾》內容最豐富；三套《鋼琴樂理》即興比例較低且編排上較無連貫，《芬貝爾》和《美啟思》之作曲內容編排能夠由淺入深，音樂要素之運用以「旋律」比例最高，又以《美啟思》之內容最豐富。 最後，本研究依據研究結論，針對教材設計者、教材使用者及未來研究提出建議。This research aims to investigate the “music creation” part of three piano method series, namely Faber’s Piano Adventures Basic Method, Helen Marlais’ Succeeding at the Piano and Hal Leonard’s Piano Lesson. Applying the method of content analysis, the study analyzed the Lesson Book and Theory Book from each method series to compare the progressing sequences and proportions of “composition” and “improvisation” in the “music creation” part of three series. The following conclusions have been reached: Firstly, the music creation part of Faber’s Lesson Book consists solely of exercises of “improvisation,” arranged progressively with a particular emphasis on “melody” followed by “harmony.” Exercises of other creation aspects are considerably less and scattered. In the Theory book, exercises of “improvisation” is also made up a large proportion of the “music creation” part, and the exercises in both “composition” and “improvisation” emphasize most on “melody.” While the arrangement is also made progressively, the application of each music element in the “composition” part is highly limited. Secondly, the music creation part of Helen Marlais’ Lesson Book is also comprised mainly of exercises of “improvisation” particularly focusing on “melody.” The arrangement is based solely on the circle of fifths without consideration of other musical elements. In the exercises of “composition,” the application of all musical elements is fragmented and unsystematic. In the Theory Book, a higher proportion on exercises of “composition” is seen. While the main focus is also on “melody,” the arrangement is well ordered progressively. On the other hand, the “improvisation” part adopts a considerably less amount of musical elements in a sporadic manner. Thirdly, the music creation part of Hal Leonard’s Lesson Book is also fully made up of exercises on “improvisation,” emphasizing also mainly on “melody.” While the arrangement is made progressively in accordance with pitch and tonality, the application of other musical elements is much restricted and fragmented. The Theory Book has a higher proportion on exercises of “composition” with a special focus on “tempo,” but the arrangement of all the exercises is lopsided with a lack of systematic progression. Fourthly, the Lesson Book of each method series contains a very small（or zero）amount of “compositional” exercises with discontinuous arrangements, and takes comparatively a bigger proportion on “improvisation” exercises mainly focusing on “melody” and are arranged progressively. Of the three series, the “improvisation” exercises in Faber’s Lesson Book is particularly abundant and well-designed. The Theory Book of each method series has a smaller amount of “improvisation” exercises with unsystematic arrangements while provides a comparatively larger amount of “compositional” exercises. Of the three series, the “compositional exercises” in Faber’s and Marlais’ are especially well arranged and progressively sequenced focusing on “melody.” Based on the conclusions, the researcher proposed suggestions for designers and users of piano teaching materials as well as for future research.