All right, I've heard much from audiophiles, but not much about people's experiences with _creating_ music, much less teaching it. Is there anyone out there who teaches music (and this includes lessons of any kind)? What about self-taught musicians? Steve (senna)-- I know you taught yourself power chord guitar, but how did you come about doing that? Any responses would be appreciated as I am starting studies this fall to become a elementary music teacher.97 responses total.
Well, I've never taught music, but I've run across a wide variety of music teachers, both good and bad. If you're looking for helpful advice, I'd have to say the most important thing is to let people follow their own interests and ideas as much as possible. When I was taking classical piano lessons, for instance, I really hated it when teachers took the attitude that 'You have to be playing something by Bach, you have to be playing something by Mozart", etcetera. OTOH, when I had more choice in what I was learning I usually ended up playing some of the 'classics' anyway, and enjoying it a lot more. Hmm...don't know how much that helps...
I guess I just sort of got interested in guitar from the music I listen to and the friends I have who play. It goes along with my desire to do it myself as opposed to have it spoonfed to me. Music, that is.
Your responses have been helpful. Myself, I think I made it through 11 years of private piano lessons by being able to play what I wanted to. I'd have my teacher play a number of pieces, and then I'd choose what moved me. I suppose that's what fueled my talent for expression. However, teachers have to each enough fundamentals so students can play with others, and have a basis to work from. I'm surprised that the role of a music teacher isn't thought of more often like that of a coach or personal trainer. My last teacher was really good about that. I decided to study a variety of musical eras, and she just helped me on my weak areas. More things were turned over to me-- I was told that I was at a point that I needed to choose my own fingerings. However, I found classical studies severly lacking in functional playing. I studied some improvisation and accompaniment patterns as a music major, but I was impatient to have those skills catch up to my classical ones. Some of it I studied in a jazz forum, which is difficult because so many more chords are involved. I started out improv with picking out notes from the scales that correspond to the chord changes. Then I was moved to comp playing rather quickly, and found I needed to know chord inversions so I could make the chord changes as close as possible. I struggled with that difficult task, along with the often quick tempos of jazz music. I quickly lost interest in studying jazz improv anymore. Learning folk guitar was so different. Because the approach is so chord-based, I could play more spontaneously, and without standard notation. Not surprisingly, my classical guitar skills are lacking since I've memorized more fingerings as chords than fingerings as individual notes. It's easier since guitar chords have more of a shape to them than piano ones do (fretboard as opposed to a keyboard). Because guitarists and pianists come from such diametrically different backgrounds, their attitudes are different, too. I've heard of guys like Steve-- most guitarists learn on their own or learn jamming. I haven't met many self-taught pianists. Most of us start at a very early age (I started at 8) and are exposed to an almost elitist, performance-driven world. But the structure is good. We learn to read standard notation by sight and by practice, and their is a better emphasis on technique. Somehow, I wish I could merge the two schools of thought. And then there are the differences between instrumental and vocal music. Each has their own advantages and disadvantages regarding ease to perform, compose, or to improvise upon. but I'll save it for another time.
In my long spiel about pedagogy (the study of teaching private music lessons), I neglected the specific challenges of the elementary music classroom. I understand more teachers these days are trying to teach melody and harmony, as kids are plentifully exposed to beat and rhythm in not only dance and urban music, but much of pop. Can anyone tell me what methods are being used? I understand a Portland, Ore. teacher uses Koosh balls to teach kids a concept of pitch. He also teaches them to "ooooOOOooohhh" and "AAAAaaaahhh" to teach the same. The idea is that there is no real concept of tone-deafness; while singing may be influenced by talent, it is a skill that can be acquired. I started the soundtrack item because my ownelementary music teacher taught us how music was used in the movies. I'll have to mention more about this amazing man later.
One more thing I've *GOT* to ask about. How do I teach kids to appreciate the instrumental side of music, and not just the lyrics? I know of a number of people who have _no_ skill in music whatsoever, and yet appreciate instrumental music. More often, I have found people with some skill, but I do find these exceptions. One of my biggest complaints about Generation X is that they don't really listen to music; they listen to lyrics. It seems very noticable among my age group, and seems to get progressively worse the younger the kids are. Please, someone tell me I'm wrong! I've seen so much crap in the music industry these days that is mostly that-- a lot of lyrics, and very little instrumental talent.
I think you're partially wrong. I know many people my age (I'm 20) with a passion for instrumental music. The band and orchestra at my high school always got a very large turnout from the students, although it helped that they were among the best in the nation. :) Some of the popluar music these days is quite musically good, asside from the lyrics. I'm thinking here of Billy Joel, Sarah McLachlan, Blues Traveler and more. I think the love of music and the potential for the love of music is there. Just look at the amazing popularity of John Williams among young people. Part of the problem, tho, is that there was a very dry period musically in popular music for several years, and so the only thing that kids could appreciate was lyrics. It'll swing back the other way.
I listen to a lot of stuff because it sounds cool, not because of the profoundness of the lyrics. I actually do tend to pick apart the pieces of music I listen to.
At 28 I'm probably not in your target age group for the comments but I find I listen to a lot of music that's primarily instrumental which includes some of the artists and categories I listen to most these days (for example, "primarily instrumental" would describe almost all of the dub and surf music I listen to and a great deal of the early Jamaican ska..) I'm also not so sure that your premise is correct -- sure the most popular music usually has vocals and lyrics but I don't think that's changed recently and there's still a lot of non-mainstream music (how about techno?) where vocals and lyrics are unimportant or absent..
I'm sure Daniel is right. A dearth of activity (I think consensus put it somewhere between the late 60's and early 70's) in pop music would create an affinity for lyrics. (See item #58.) I should have phrased it that the masses respond hugely to lyrics, but less to instrumentals. Remember the linked item on favorite lines from songs? There was a lot of participation there. I also do sense the tide turning as I find more and more popular songs I like, however, so I see a changing point. If I do understand it right, the Ann Arbor area is blessed musically. I'm fairly biased because the stereotypical Tri-Citian listens to stoner or hick music (various grunge/punk and country genres). And when I say hick, I'm talking about the Mexicans, too. No salsa, flamenco, or Mexican dance music here. it's mostly Tejano and banda music-- Mexican country. It's fine for a while, but it tends to grate on my nerves (they sing with a drawl, too, so I have a hard time understanding them). I have got to move..
I think I go for the music as a compilation of things, the rythem, tone, blah blah... sometimes the lyrics don't come into it at all, and some times they do. Depends on the artist.
(Besides, good lyrics are poetry, good in their own right, without the music, but most likely enhanced by it. )
Good lyrics can indeed be poetry, and those of Paul Simon are a fine example.
When he collaborated with Art Garfunkel in the mid 60's and early 70's, he
was part of a trend of artists that emphasized more poetic-like qualities to
their lyrics. A critic that wrote for the liner notes of _Parsley, Sage,
Rosemary and Thyme_ observed that audiences were demanding more meaning from
lyrics, and the fact Simon was doing so contributed to the group's success.
But people seem to have forgotten Simon's instrumentalist skills, perhaps
because he gave the harmonies to Garfunkel, who is in my opinion, a better
singer. Listen to "Scarborough Fair/Canticle." Simon took the medieval song
and weaved another to it by counterpoint harmony. When the first verse
starts, Garfunkel begins the first verse of the second song a bar later ("On
the side of a hill in the deep forest green," which line ends as the first
song's second line begins, "Parsley, sage, rosemary..") Garfunkel is not a
composer, if I understand it right, or else his abilities were far
overshadowed by those of Simon.
Daniel mentioned John Williams. My elem. music teacher introduced me to him
in his classes. What baited most of the class was that he showed clips of
_Star Wars_ and _Superman_, which leads me to ask if the younger generation
truly appreciates his work, or the movies he wrote the musical scores for
instead.
Count me as one who doesn't "truly appreciate" John Williams. Perhaps I'm just insufficiently familiar with his work but my impression is that he's written the Star Wars soundtrack about 60 or 70 times by now (i.e. everything he does winds up sounding alike to me (and it's not a style I particularly enjoyed to begin with, although it *is* well suited for certain movies..))
Have you heard his score for _Home Alone_, Mike? It wasn't really that much in the vein of Star Wars, Superman, or Indiana Jones. I would criticize Danny Elfman for sounding trite in his compositions more than I would Williams. I mean, for another example, what about "Jedi Rocks"? Heh, Williams wrote that for the Special Edition for _Return of the Jedi_ and it doesn't sound anything like what he's done before. Perhaps a better criticism of John Williams would be that all of his main themes (which would extend to his overtures) sound very alike. However, that doesn't necessarily mean his soundtracks sound all alike. On the other hand, even the great composer of musicals, Ira Gershwin, said that he had found he was beginning to repeat himself. (Perhaps that's why some pop stars seem to have so many identity crises-- it's one way to keep the music, as well as the image, fresh.)
Williams has incredible diversity, when he needs to have it, and his scores are popping up everywhere I look, even when I don't expect them. It's a shame that the classical music community doesn't recognize him for what he is more and use him as a branch to bring more of the general public into classical music.
Agreed, Steve-- as with the jazz community, classical enthusiasts are in a purist trend. Alas, it seems composers are more famous when they are dead, gone, and their music has been mainstreamed. Most classical listeners are still firmly ingrained in bach and Beethoven. I don't think the music historians have given Williams due credit, either. btw, Mike, what is 'dub' music? I thought Leslie might have said something here!! Ken?
It's a style of music that originated in Jamaica in the early 70s (or possibly late 60s) Reggae songs from popular local artists were often produced as singles with the B side being the instrumental track with no vocals. It soon became popular for local DJs to mess with the instrumental tracks (referred to as "versions") adding sound effects or toasting or messing with the speed of the recording. Eventually the most creative practitioners turned there experimentation into a whole new art form. Whenever a new reggae single came out the best dubbers would take the version side and alter it by remixing, adding and taking away, and generally doing strange things to the original recording until they'd turned it into something new. It was not at all uncommon for the dubbed version to become more popular than the original track. Eventually dub music gained international popularity and the same process that the early practitioners had applied to those Jamaican reggae singles was applied to all sorts of other music -- today dub is no longer tied to its Jamaican roots. Dub reggae probably still makes up the majority of the dub music produced, however, though ambient and electronic dub have decent-sized scenes in Europe and the influence of dub can be heard in some recent trends such as jungle and drum'n'bass. If you'd like to hear some dub the Mad Professor v. Massive Attack album I've mentioned is probably a good starting place for modern dub. For really good original Jamaican dub I very strongly recommend the Augustus Pablo album "King Tubby Meets Rockers Uptown" or the collection "Dub Chill Out" which prominently features the work of King Tubby, the undoubted master of dub music, as well as tracks by other influential dub artists (Prince Jammy, Augustus Pablo, Scientist, etc..)
John Williams at the very least is the best composer in the last fifty years, probably more.
!
Thanks, Mike-- that makes sense, as I remember alternate versions of singles I've heard labeled as dubs. Duh-- I should have known that. But more specifically, what are known as dubs are tweaked versions where samples of vocals (either from the song or elsewhere) are sprinkled throughout the song, at least as I understand it. Else, how would you distinguish a dub from a mix or even a remix? As for Williams, describing him as 'the best composer in the last fifty years' is rather subjective. Indeed, he has been one of the most influential and one of the most popular. Elmer Bernstein is another very, very influential movie soundtrack composer (some of his credits include _Ghostbusters_ and _To Kill a Mockingbird_) who had written music for the silver screen long before Williams, but he is not as well known.
Finally, I've found one well-known movie theme since 1975 that Williams *hasn't written (Ghostbusters. I posted something about this a few months ago.) Every time I hear a movie theme that I think is good and might have a chance, John turns out to be the composer. With Star Wars, Superman, the Jurassic Park movies, Jaws, and a multitude of others, it's almost impossible *not* to hear John Williams music at some point or another.
Well, Ray Parker Jr. wrote "Ghostbusters." It's likely that the producers thought using his song as the main theme would better promote the movie and ensure its success, as Elmer Berstein wrote a theme song as well, but it is near the end of the album, listed as "Main Title Theme (Ghostbusters)". It was one of the last movies where all of the music in the soundtrack album was actually incorporated into film footage (as opposed to those albums labeled "Music For and Inspired By.."
I appreciate John Williams for his music, not for the movies. I have several of the soundtracks, and listen to them. BTW, for what it's worth, WQRS, the classical station here, gives Williams equal air time with Bach and Mozart and the rest.
In response to the idea that John Williams has just one style which he recomposes for every soundrack, don't forget the soundtrack to Schindler's List.
Well, I'm finally settling into music ed here at Central. I'm taking a general music methods class, and I am learning through my texts, Music Educators National Conference (MENC) news, and other sources that music classes are in danger of being cut west of the East Coast (where music seems to be firmly established). I will have to post here later what Wynton Marsalis had to say to the public-- it was a grim statement. Essentially, he said that we were dying from the inside-- neglecting our cultural strength. Keeping up with Japan was secondary. Mr. Holland's Opus dealt with this subject, too. That particular movie sums up a lot of the challenges a music educator faces. More to come, as they used to say on the Tonight Show..
<drift on>
Why does Johnny Carson have small hands?
A: Wee paws for a message from our sponsors.
<drift off>
Aw, couldn't we have stayed on the subject? I'm having a fun time learning Zotan Kodaly's teaching method, btw..
Say Lumen, is Dr. Rivard still on the faculty? He used to teach Theory III. Also, if you can get Dr. Albrecht for Theory I it's a good thing. She's tough, but you'll learn. (CMU music school dropout)
Um, Chris, I go to Central Washington University in Ellensburg, Washington. Don't know them, and couldn't tell you.
Jon: I've been trying to noodge Leslie into responding here; but her own schoolwork has sucked up all over her time, especially with Gilbert & Sullivan rehearsals. She did believe that she aced her first exam, in 19th Century Music History; she's somewhat more concerned about Thursday's exam in Music Theory.
That doesn't surprise me-- theory is always much more demanding. What kind of theory does she have to take for her Master's? (Jon is glad he is only reviewing 1st-year music theory-- he couldn't stand more, nor does he believe he'll need it)
Leslie's course is a review of the first two years of undergraduate music theory.
Bleach!
Sorry Jon, I saw Central and assumed Central *Michigan*.
I've been studying the history of music education, and I read about the Ann Arbor Symposium of the 70's and 80's..where they made a link once again to child psychology. ken, Leslie..comments?
Leslie didn't live in Ann Arbor until '87, and I didn't live in Ann Arbor until '90, and I don't think either of us ever heard of this before... sorry..
What a tragedy! This was a monumental moment in music education history! I was hoping to generate some discussion, because we talk truckloads about personal enjoyment of music, but little of music education, especially in the public schools..if I remember right, the U of M has a wealth of music resources.. my theory teacher once lived by there (once had the Detroit attitude, too) Anyway, I mentioned this since I had to write a 10-pg essay on my philosophy of music education. Net resources like this are killer for educating ppl on the values of music :)
Speaking of the Internet, I learned that the Web has excellent resources for classical guitar, including musical scores for sale, webpages containing detailed instruction on playing the classical guitar (one was of incredibly masterful quality) and what to look for in buying one, etc., and descriptions of flamenco, Classical, and New Guitar styles. It's incredible!
Neatness. Now I just need to learn how to play the *#^%&$*! thing. :)
It's not that hard-- I've learned to play basic guitar styles in about a year or so. Consistent practice every day helps-- even if it's only 15 mins. If you're serious about playing classical guitar, you have to remember that the instrument, care of the fingernails, and position is *everything*. This formal genre is demanding, but the key is to play relaxed, and be in a position that's comfortable. Follow what good teachers tell you-- the formal position of holding a classical guitar was developed over centuries. Don't take my word for it, of course-- I'm just a rookie. But most of the experienced guitarists I've talked to will support what I read.
Now if you aren't as interested in being able to read music for guitar as you are being able to play completely improv., I offer the following suggestion. Assuming that you enjoy listening to music, hold the guitar, whenever you are in your home, and just sitting around listening to tunes or watching tv or a movie. Start trying to play along with the music. This is how I learned how to play guitar and recorder (except I play while I drive....well, the recorders).
I'm sure that's how the old musicians did it-- but it helps to have a methodology so it can be a skill. Believe it or not, it helps with improv, too.
I agree Jon. I'm having to learn how to read for recorder, so I can join my school's renaissance (sp?) ensemble. I've been wondering the same thing. How, after all these years of playing stricly improv, will learning to read recorder music affect my improv. I can't wait!
Well, I'll bet you can guess how it helps-- it just provides a stable base to build on. Practicing music like a craft may not always be spontaneous, but it certainly helps you imagine new ideas faster. Remember, many of the great Baroque and Classical composers were also accomplished improv players. The cadenza is one example of freeform we've discussed elsewhere. But you knew all that, right?
Heh heh heh....Jon, I learn new things every day. This would explain why improvising over Baroque, Renaissance, and earlier is so much more fun and easy, than trying it over top of post Baroque 'classical' music. I live, breathe, eat, and drink cadenzas, by the way.
Explain-- how do 'new things everyday' make the incredibly scientific art of the Baroque (composers carefully calculated what harmonies and sounds would bring about certain emotions-- calculations that could be debated) and the modal tendencies of Renaissance and pre-Renaissance music easier? I take it you're a performer, then, if you consume all things cadenza. (Some of us can't really do that, so we're educators.)
I'd like to write a song (I hope). My only problem is that I have no training, no music, and no lyrics all at the same time. I'll occasionally get music or lyrics but never both.
No writing volume from me, but I have written a few songs, and have written some parodies. The song may seem more like a poem, as I could not communicate how someone else may sing them. I would take someone very patient to hear me sing one of my songs, figure out what notes I should be hitting, them translate it to paper.
I've been a music student for quite a long time, but I've never quite possessed the patience to get good at composition. In a flash of inspiration, I had an opening to a rag come to mind, so I scribbled it down. I'm still waiting for John to give detailed feedback on the manuscript; I mailed a copy to him. My father composed a folk guitar accompaniment and melody to a well-known children's bedtime poem, turning it into a lullaby. If I could figure out a way to arrange it for studio production, then I would record it, if I could find a way to improve upon the simple folk arrangement as played on a classical guitar. (Voice effects? Multitracking? Bells? Windchimes? Hmmmm...)
Generally, attempts to "fancy up" a simple arrangement turn me off. If you've got a particular effect in mind, go for it, but I think mucking around with multitracking and windchimes and whatnot is inviting disaster.
It could profit from a piano line. Actually, Dan, I do have something in mind-- it just hasn't been fleshed out yet. I've listened to recordings of a few folk artists that use fairly minimal production. The closest analogy I could think of was Roger Whittaker's recording of "Winken, Blinken, and Nod," another children's poem set to a lullaby melody, but the instrumentation wouldn't fit this setting of "The Sugarplum Tree." Whittaker's recording is sort of jazzy-- string bass, flute, and vibes, I think. The latter arrangement is more like the classical piece I've been learning-- Romance.
I just got done listening to a recording of me singing.
<shudder>
How was it bad? Reminds me of how voice coaches, sound studio engineers and private teachers have jobs. But I'm sure it wasn't that bad.
I messed up the words on the second and messed up the timeing/phrasing. so, for something humorous, it messed up the humor.
That bites.
Wow, this item's been dead. One of the things that I continue to find frustrating is that so much of the general public still talks about the music they listen to rather than the music they *make*. Although the GREX community has some notable musicians, most the recent talk has still been regarding listening to recordings (hmm, music to work on the computer by?). Now of course, not everyone turns away from musicianship because of poor schooling, but general music education has been suffering for years. Master teachers have made note of it a number of times. I read an article by a noted music educator who said many, many schools suffer from an "elitist" virus. Music programs are much too competitive, and there is too much emphasis on the Western European tradition when so many other cultures have contributed to modern music. Elementary programs may be adequate, but interest in musical studies tend to sharply drop after then because of this narrow focus. I've heard students say they love listening to music on a particular radio station but say they hate music class. With such a wide gulf between what kids listen to and what we teach them, how can we compete? Most of the journals and magazines published by MENC and other interest organizations have suggested many ways to incorporate new styles of music into music education. But I still see the occasional teacher who believes that kids come to school with their minds empty or full of trash, which needs to be instead filled with the "good stuff." MTV, apparently, is junk. What is taught in the school is "good stuff."
I think that sort of attitude is well-meaning, especially since even if you don't watch MTV or listen to the radio it's hard to be in school and not pick that stuff up by osmosis. The idea seems to be "they'll listen to that stuff of their own accord, so let's play 'em some stuff they _won't_ necessarily listen to." Of course, it's a short step from that to "they listen to crap anyway, I might as well force some _real_ music on 'em."
well, I have an opportunity to write a paper on my music philosophy again, and I will likely defend commercial music with a vengenance. Mozart loved the music he heard in the taverns and elsewhere among the common folk. It is said many of his compositions were beautifully crafted from the folk tunes he heard while growing up. So why do some music educators have a different attitude? My general opinion is simply this-- music is the manipulation of sound to express emotion. Because everyone has a need to express that emotion, all music should be regarded as having value, no matter what the pompadours, scholars, or effete snobs say. I think music has been influenced for centuries (or even millenia) by money-- there is a marked difference between the music for the rich and the music for the poor. I would argue that difference still remains today, really. I also think human development is a factor; we all note that people may listen to different kinds of music during their life span-- at the very least, different age groups have been observed to have different musical tastes. Scientific research also supports the theory that sensitivity to sound changes with age. The tolerance for frequencies at high volumes is reduced, and some people lose the higher end of their hearing (the 20 kHz- 2000 Hz range, I believe-- I'm sure it differs). Medical conditions will also effect that sensitivity, especially in cases of spinal injury or disorders. I remember my father's musical tastes changing drastically-- but part of the reason has been that he has a spinal condition and some music just *literally* rattles his nerves. Interestingly enough, the public's musical tastes are still very conservative in the long run. The soundtrack to the new Disney film _Fantasia 2000_ is still entirely classical, and it seems to speak toward that regard. I think the challenge of music educators is to allow the kids to have those tastes that appeal to them during their younger years, and successfully introduce music that they will NOT necessarily accept at the time, but may immensely enjoy later in life.
There was a fairly extensive music-education program in my elementary school district (early-mid 60s), but it made absolutely no contribution to my later love for classical music. I was simply too young to appreciate the stuff, and that was that. When I did make the discovery at the age of 12, it was my parents' records, radio stations, and public library records, in that order of importance, that were my teachers.
there is a strong argument in education that learning is influenced by factors in the home. There has been research done that suggest much of musical talent is merely exposure-- c.f. the Suzuki method; correlations between singing ability and parental involvement/encouragement, cultural emphasis on music, etc. In short, if your family and your culture appreciates music and encourages you to make it, you'll do much better than if they didn't. What we are trying to do as music educators is reach students that might not be exposed to music. There has been *way* too much emphasis in modern civilization to consider music as a passive experience-- something to be listened to by a few, rather than an active experience-- a pasttime to be enjoyed by many. I think we don't sing and dance quite as much as we used to, I guess.
Yeah. It's kind of depressing to see a nonmusical coworker who obviously never plays any music for the child...
I'm not sure if there's any real correlation between music in the house as a child and musical interest. About half of my musical friends grew up surrounded by music; the other half are constantly needing to persuade their parents that listening to and making pretty noises are worthwhile pursuits.
No. I was not referring to musical interest, really. I was referring to musical talent. If more people were confident about it, however, there might be more musical interest, in the which case it would be distantly related. One thing that I think is a shame is that music just doesn't seem to be much of a pasttime anymore _because_ so many Americans are diffidant about producing music. I remember a little coffeehouse I went to in Walla Walla that was just off the Whitman campus called Pangea. They would have a drum night every so often where you could bring your own drum (or play something that was available) and just play as you pleased. I haven't seen that elsewhere. I don't whistle when alone; I often sing, but even I stop when someone walks by. Ironically, the person is kind enough to let me know that they found it pleasant. On the other side of the coin, writers to the Music Educators Journal are pointing out to music educators that they are behind the times, especially now that our culture has shifted from being a performing culture by necessity (before recording technology) to a listening culture in majority, thanks to these advances in technology. So now only a few choose to perform, and yet teachers still teach as if performing is almost all important, and the needs of the listening majority are not met.
Because the teachers are musicians, and to musicians, making music is what counts. Listening to it, unless the performers are of supreme quality, is much less interesting. Or so the musician I'm married to says. (Me, I'd rather listen.)
On the surface, that's a fairly accurate statement. When you study music so much, you do tend to disseminate it a bit more than those who view it more a passing fancy or as recreation on the side. Again, as I said, it used to be that more people *had* to play music in order to enjoy it as often as we do today. We just didn't have the technology available that would play it as a whim, so learning how to make music was rather necessary. It also used to be that music really wasn't played twice very much, and when it was, it was often re-arranged for the particular performers or the occasion (as in the case of Handel's Messiah). But it's much, much more complicated than that. Too many schools suffer from what master educator Charles Leonhard calls the "elitist virus" (Music Educators Journal, Nov. 1999). The Western European tradition is overemphasized to the point of diminishing attention to other music. Students have to get their education from MTV, VH1, CDs, the Internet, and contemporary music periodicals. What's interesting is that they are responding to and critiquing music on their own, and educators have failed to help. Why? The big problem is that many music educators have not really recognized how technology has shaped the creation, communication, and critique of today's music. I'm including this paper in the next response. Beware, it's very long at about 10 pages.
Jonathan Pratt
February 1, 2000
Instrumental Music Methods
MUSIC EDUCATION FOR THE MASSES:
My philosophy of music education
I'm really a philosopher at the core-I spend hours thinking of
possibilities on any given idea. A love of learning, and of education,
has grown out of that. My next passions are experiencing music and
teaching children, so my philosophy of music education is a very strong
one. I believe it should be for everyone, and the mission of developing
appreciation for the musical arts must be at its core. From my
observations, that is not what music educators have been doing, however.
Charles Leonhard (1999) articulated many of the frustrations I have been
feeling ever since I began formal music studies. His article appeared
under the "Grand Masters Series" section of the November 1999 MEJ. He
has been a distinguished teacher, lecturer, and author in music
education for more than six decades, and he relates what he has seen in
the past for music education to suggestions and ideas he has for its
future. He implies that music educators have failed to keep music an
integral part of the education of all children, and that many are behind
the times in teaching how much it has grown and changed.
"In my experience," he writes, "many music educators have been unable to
adjust to a changing social structure, the revolution in communication,
and contemporary developments in music itself." The result has been
what he calls the "elitist virus," or an attitude that leads conductors
to concentrate too heavily on difficult music or music contests, and
many students are trained primarily in folk and art music of the western
European tradition, or "pale imitations thereof." He also explains that
like many other subjects of art, music education has divided itself into
specialized branches that have grown to compete against each other and
virtually destroy any sense of unity of purpose or cooperation.
He gives many detailed suggestions to improve music education programs,
but the crux of his argument is to add or more strongly emphasize areas
that have been neglected or overlooked. He suggests study in an art
subject other than music is helpful, and urges emphasis of aesthetics,
art criticism, and history of music. He adds that students should be
provided with a broad learning experience that goes beyond the scope of
traditional music and includes styles of other ethnic groups,
contemporary art music, and contemporary popular music. Finally, he
emphasizes the importance of educational technology in instruction and
assessment of achievement. I was deeply impressed by this article
because the author articulated frustrations that I had with my music
education for years, and validated what I intend to do in my teaching.
Hopefully, my colleagues will follow suit.
What he calls the "elitist virus" is something that I have
observed myself and believe to be a terrible problem, even the root
cause of our failure to keep music education in the schools. I think a
lot of kids believe they can't relate to what the schools call music
because too many teachers insist on clinging to tradition. I have also
seen some music educators regard what their students listen to as
invalid. I have heard some dismiss music on MTV and the commercial
scene in general as music that is merely about sex (sorry, Mr. Gookin).
In my honest and humble opinion, much of music has had that persuasion
in mind, including that of the Western European tradition. I have also
sensed that some consider popular music to be rather worthless.
I watch MTV and VH1 quite a bit to stay informed of current
events in popular music, and I do believe that children and adolescents
are exposed to a variety of music through these cable stations, as well
as CDs and the Internet. I consider it to be my other source of music
education. I agree with Leonhard that "they are responding naturally to
its expressive effect, thinking about it, talking about it, serving as
critics of it, making choice about it, and using it to enrich their
lives." It is a shame that this is not adequately addressed in school.
Supposedly, the Information Age is bringing much of the world
closer together than ever before. Music composers are experimenting in
many new elements they have discovered thanks to these communication
breakthroughs. Many music educators do not seem to be adequately
presenting how technology has brought music of the world together,
however, nor how it has impacted the creative process of making music in
general.
I also believe music teachers can no longer neglect the idea of
interdisciplinary studies. Even if music programs cannot be structured
to work jointly with other subjects and the teachers that teach them,
educators should provide students with the tools they need to discover
how they do relate to each other, and they should seek assistance from
these other teachers. With the trends of this Information Age pushing
ideas forward, we must realize that these connections are more
imperative to our student's survival in life. One excellent project I
have seen that has brought a community together was the Kamiakin
High/Kennewick High school production of Fiddler on the Roof in
Kennewick, Washington. The instrumental, choral, and theater arts
programs came together for a magnificent show the community has long
since remembered. The Jewish people of the community were also
consulted for cultural practices, and historical research was done and
put up on signs that decorated the entrance, educating the people about
Sephardic Jews like the ones in the story.
Furthermore, we cannot underestimate the power of networking
that has come about with the exchange of information, especially through
the Internet. I believe burnout is a frequently discussed subject
because many teachers have not learned how to use resources that are
available to them. Multimedia, of course, is one. I already implied
that teachers should become knowledgeable about popular music through
MTV, VH1, and CDs (and, I should add, contemporary music periodicals);
it is only fair to use the same kinds of resources to teach traditional
music, PBS being one of them. The Internet is also a fabulous resource
for information, free and commercial sheet music, instruments, and so
on.
Teachers must also turn to their communities for classroom
resources, and for service. Loyalty and help can be built if teachers
show how music can enrich people's lives by giving to their communities.
As I pointed out with the Fiddler production, this can result in
excellent partnerships. Leonhard suggests that they might receive
instruction in the school's electronic piano laboratory, or that they
might be invited to participate in school performing groups if they
played an instrument or sang when they were younger. Independent music
teachers may also be in the community, and they can provide a lot of
help to struggling directors.
I also have sadly observed as Leonhard has that music educators
have grown specialized to the point of competition. I remember a bitter
rivalry between the band director and the choir director of my high
school. What didn't help was that the choir director had been
recruiting me ever since middle school. He had wanted me to be a part
of an extracurricular group then, but never at that time nor in high
school could I take choir and band simultaneously. When I began my
studies at Central, I was a Choral Education minor. When I met up with
him during a contest we were hosting, he said he was glad I was studying
"the true musical art" or something to that effect. I had to abuse him
of that notion; in fact, I later changed the minor to a Broad Area
(choral and instrumental) music education major.
It is also very sad that instruction in synthesizer and guitar
is rarely made available in the schools. If teachers should give
contemporary music equal ground with traditional music, then these
instruments, which are a staple of said contemporary music, should be
given more attention. I myself am a great enthusiast of these
instruments, but I find myself studying them outside the scope of my
main coursework. It is very frustrating, too, as I fancy myself
primarily a classicist in my guitar studies and wonder why even chamber
guitar studies are not promoted.
I have also noted that some authors of music education articles
have pointed out that performance is too overemphasized. While I agree
that our culture has shifted from a performing culture by necessity to
primarily a listening one thanks to communications technology, I will
agree with Leonhard that performance must be key. The secret is
properly addressing listening, improvisation, and composing in addition
to performing, in a balanced amount, to promote musical literacy.
I must point out that as I stressed earlier, the musical tastes
of the students must be considered. If it is possible to teach the same
musical concepts with contemporary music the students prefer, then so be
it. I understand that it is important to teach the traditional Western
European music because it is considered foundational, but it is at heart
only a very refined tradition of just one culture. I think the
aforementioned skills of performance, listening, improvisation, and
composition will run much more smoothly if a variety of styles are
considered.
It is possible that students may not fully appreciate the
masters until much later in life. I think it is for a simple reason so
many educators have forgotten: a composer writes music to express her
emotions about her inner self and the world about her. That very thing
will vary widely depending on world history, the age of the composer
when the piece was written (for psychological perspective will change
with growth and experience), economics, social purpose of the music,
socioeconomic status of the composer, mental health or regular mood of
the composer, and other social factors. I have discussed this point
with friends, including Sidney Nesselroad of the CWU voice section of
the Music Department. He seems to believe that music serves such a wide
variety of purposes that it is only logical that it should enjoy the
diversity of expression that it does.
I am therefore suggesting that some music be presented to
students written by composers who were experiencing similar lives that
they now live. I think that this will ease some of the performance
anxiety some students feel, for I know many people of all ages sing and
dance to music, often when they think no one is looking. I honestly
believe that students should feel free to perform without fear of
failure, and I think music they are most familiar with and comfortable
with may help ease the process. I think the "elitist virus" has caused
a lot of these students to abandon music education and an opportunity to
perform. When I was a student at Whitman College in Walla Walla,
Washington, I sometimes went to a little coffee house called Pangea that
held a drum jam session every so often. People were free to bring their
own drums, or use what was provided, and play to their heart's content.
It is a shame when we shower our babies with musical toys and singing
but do things that encourage them to give up performance later in life.
Leonhard also suggests in the article that beginning
instrumental instruction should be provided all through the middle and
high school grades to reclaim students "who have been passed over." I
would add that would be an excellent opportunity for students to take a
second look at instrumental music. I've heard a story or two from
people who said they loved band but hated their middle school/jr. high
school director. In fact, I was able to gain the respect of one such
person who had a bad middle school experience.
Improvisation keeps a jazz program strong, as Leonhard writes,
and it's necessary education for every jazz student. I believe,
however, that it would be an excellent tool for the classical student.
Baroque and Classical era composers such as Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart
were proficient in improvisation. While I do not propose overthrowing
current pedagogical practices, or condemning practices of 19th and 20th
century composers, I do suggest that improvisational study would be
useful for those involved in classical work. I believe it would help
strengthen compositional skills and even help prepare such students for
jazz improvisation, when their perspective has been more formally
shaped. I think it may in turn help chamber musicians to better
appreciate jazz music. I remember CWU Director of Orchestras Paul Cobbs
exclaim to one of my theory classes, "Mozart would have loved jazz
music."
Since Mozart was noted to not be above listening to music of the
common people (he loved to listen to guitarists in taverns), I should
point out that composers would be a great asset in meeting the
aforementioned challenges I have made. Many composers, like their other
art creator counterparts, are looking for new ideas and often do embrace
the variety of music I have described. They can be a great resource to
help educators teach musical principles, and they can remind students
that it is not necessary to be dead to have your music recognized. In
fact, I believe composers and performers alike should be allowed to
visit classrooms to provide role models to students alike. They should
have opportunity to visit even if the educator is a prolific performer
and composer.
I am a strong advocate of general music studies, perhaps because
of my experience in music education. My first elementary music teacher
was a bit wild and free-- and that was the good part. He was able to
show me the vivacity of music that precious few have ever done. The
rest of my formal education was difficult-- there was the elitist piano
instructor, the neurotic and morally superior band directors, and the
theory teacher who thought I wasn't going to make it. They
unfortunately comprised the majority of my teachers.
The rest of my inspiration came from my parents, especially at
the time I dropped out of music when my theory teacher said I wouldn't
cut it at Central. They had encouraged me to sing and encouraged my
piano practice that gently woke them up in the morning when I was young.
They loved my trumpet playing and would cheer me up when I was
discouraged and frustrated being the only tuba player in the high school
band. My father played folk guitar and my mother had been a church
organist. My father played during the evening and would sing us
children to sleep. My mother played at various times during church. So
at that time, I found myself alone, but I was either in the warm company
of a church organ, practicing for church and learning how to play, or my
father's guitar. Later, I was given an old guitar of my mother's. It
was especially comforting to me since my father had gotten so ill with a
spinal disease that it silenced his playing forever after that. He had
composed a melody and a guitar accompaniment to an old children's rhyme
that I quickly picked up, and I vowed someday I would record it for
others to hear. I kept playing and started studying with my first
teacher when I came to Central in group classes. When my mother's
guitar broke, I bought my first full-sized classical guitar and started
immersing myself all the more in private classical study, eventually
with lessons. I am in the chamber ensemble for the first time and
loving it.
So I credit my elementary teacher with my professional attitudes
and outlook on teaching, but I credit my parents for my love of music.
They took care-- and they still do-- to instill it, and it saved me from
a period of doubt. I therefore believe that parents must be a part of
music education. Most scholarly research actually suggests that a
musical environment in the home will merely foster musical literacy, but
I think it may indirectly affect appreciation. The rest is up to us,
the educators.
Back a few years ago, there was a short lived afternoon TV show (not sure if it was PBS, cable, or what) called "Rock School". A rather PC trio (mixed race and gender in only a trio) would break down, by instrument, some popular form of rock. So if today (this week's) lesson was metal, the guitarist would talk (in reasonably easy terms) about what chords, what picking styles, etc., and the bass player and drummer would do the same. At the end they'd put it all together and show how it worked.
Interesting.... I took a "music appreciation" class in middle school that got tugged in that direction by the class. The teacher would ask people to suggest/bring in favorite music, and when all that music ended up being rock.... She ended up doing a good job, actually. She had the sense to start discussing form and whatnot by way of the layout of songs, rather than trying to force us to discuss classical.
Another thing I thought of is a lot of music today is heavily produced. I wonder if some kids get frustrated when the music they try to make doesn't sound as good as the music on the radio. Some folks get close with private guitar lessons or study in a MIDI lab or studio, but a lot of schools don't provide these resources.
Regarding the complaint about competition between different music teachers in schools: (a fairly minor thing, but still...) It has always annoyed me that in BVSD, at least, instrumental music is broken into band and orchestra - if you're a string player you're in orchestra, everybody else goes in band. It limits the kind of music you get to play, whichever group you fall into. (Plus, at high school level you have to spend a lot of time playing at football games and pep rallies, and I at least would really dislike that.) (And if you want to be a horn player in jazz band you have to be in regular band as well, so you either have to give an elective like foreign language or your lunch period...)
The impression I get is that the band/orchestra split is mostly for the convenience of the teachers. I can barely imagine knowing enough to teach the full range of band instruments, much less all the band instruments _and_ strings.
Right. CWU music majors have to learn key instruments in both the band *and* string ensembles, which is quite a few, but most usually go towards the direction of their principal instrument. Playing at football games and pep rallies may be an annoyance for some instrumentalists, but it keeps support for the program strong. Without these functions, some programs would cease to exist; many administrators have been coaches and many high school districts support sports more than the arts due to their public appeal and public support. Let's face it-- more people are going to school sports games than they are music functions. Many a high school band director bristles at the idea the main politick is sports; but then I think many ex-coaches who become administrators get along much better with a wider range of students than band or even choral directors do. Despite this fact, there are creative solutions. When I was in high school, a few of the band students put together a rock band along with a non-member guitarist (typical, most guitarists are disinterested as few districts have guitar programs). When we had a concert band performance that conflicted with a pep band duty, our director let the rock group handle it. The reason why band directors require students to be a member of the concert band in addition to other groups is one of balance. The concert band MUST be the main focus, or the rest of the program goes out of whack and the director usually winds up burnt out and in another career. Think of it like this: the concert band serves as common ground for the other groups, and generally holds the content that strengthens all the rest. Concert band is the meat and potatoes. The other groups are other courses of the meal. Hey, I didn't like it, either. I didn't study jazz in grade school, and I didn't study much in college. It's unfortunate that jazz is so competitive-- I doubt I could pick up much of it now. However, I managed to do a mixture of things: I *did* study Spanish, and plenty of other electives. I did wind ensemble and symphony orchestra, and I switched my focus to vocal studies once I got to Central. Even a student who doesn't pursue studies past high school can still be in the choir in college. Spanish will also become indispensable in my classical guitar studies. As for other languages, I'm learning them a bit in my vocal studies. Hey, vocalists learn their foreign languages about as well as most of the high school students I've seen-- just enough to get the job done, really. By the way, not *all* school districts split music into band and orchestra. A few do have a general music course: think parts music appreciation, piano lab, etc. I understand most don't, however, and this is because of lack of money, lack of public interest (believe it or not, band and orchestra get the most support, maybe for traditional reasons), and/or lack of teachers. The biggest thing that will need to happen, of course, is for schools to realize that a diversity of music needs to be taught. Bands and orchestras will lose the 'elitist virus' and the tired out focus on the Western European style alone, and may either incorporate a few nontraditional instruments (remember Mr. Holland's Opus?), or establish other resources through a general music teacher. Go read my paper again =)
Well, it's a complicated matter. On the one hand, when (for instance) the Beatles were new and wildly popular, they were dismissed by many people in terms frighteningly similar to those used not just about today's popular music, but about old pop trash that really has disappeared. Yet musicologists have slowly come to acknowledge (Derek Cooke and Wilfred Mellers were the first) that Lennon & McCartney wrote songs of real musical complexity and sophistication, even if they didn't know notation or the terminology. So to that extent I applaud the idea of, _when trying to bring music appreciation to the masses_, starting off by explaining pop song AABA form and going on from there. But on the other hand, I really bristle at the term "elitist virus". For all that some rock is good, the masterpieces of classical music got to be called masterpieces for a reason. (Give rock a couple centuries, it'll get there too.) I am frequently called an elitist in my literary as well as my musical tastes, to which I reply "Yes! I dare to believe that some works are actually better than others!" If _my_ introductory music appreciation classes had been filled with rock, I would have walked out and never returned. That is not what I went there to learn about. There should be classes for all kinds. Also, there is a belief, and I think it can be justified, that kids don't need classes to learn to appreciate rock: they listen to it without any classroom help. Instruction should be for what they are less likely to learn by themselves. (This is not a popular view these days. It's the reason that for decades the Oxford University English curriculum ended at 1830, deeply annoying lazy students who wanted to major in reading modern novels.) Much classical music has got what most people like in popular music: good tunes and a strong beat. But it's so much more than that (even in the same pieces), and almost all pop isn't more than that. I know many people who like the classical they've heard, but aren't tempted to explore further because they're intimidated by the technical and academic air surrounding it (much easier to penetrate nowadays with all the good amateurs' listening guides published in recent years) and because nobody's taught them to listen for the other aspects of the music. The single best guide to the other aspects I've ever seen is a CD-ROM of Beethoven's Ninth, published by Voyager with the guide material written by Robert Winter, about ten years ago. It's probably no longer available: if not, what a shame. (Several other CD-ROMs in the same series were also pretty good.)
resp:73 "There should be classes for all kinds." That, I think, should be the key idea. Perhaps I have buried my main emphasis: as a teacher, I would like to get more people enthusiastic about music than they currently are. And perhaps I misuse Leonhard's term "elitist virus." His concern was that Eurocentric music has been emphasized to the exclusion of some very fine music of other ethnicities and cultures, and that many music programs do so because directors find it easiest. Perhaps I have a very liberal view of what music is about, but that's because I'm young, I suppose, and I still firmly believe that music is a celebration of life ALL along the lifespan. I have difficulty completely dismissing commercial music as rubbish on the notion it's mostly about sex precisely because the target audiences ARE filled with hormones and have sex on the brain. I don't disagree that some works are crafted much more skillfully, are more aesthetically pleasing, and/or make a stronger sociopolitical statement than others. I do believe, however, that as an art form, music will bear the psychological mark of the age group it is intended for, the social context of the times, and the things the composer wishes to express. Therefore, I think in cultural terms, music has not changed in application and purpose-- I do understand that most any time period had pop tunes of some sort (yes, even the Classical and Baroque eras, which I may be able to cite some information on). What's also interesting-- although I would never teach this to a high school class-- is that the idea of sex and drugs in music is hardly new. One story about J.S. Bach was that he would conduct organ recitals in a three-part fashion. The first part was to play the music straight with no ornamentation. The second part was to go down to the nearest tavern to hoist a few during intermission. The third part was to play the music again with ornaments while inebriated. Many other great composers fell to wine, women, and song frequently-- Mozart, I believe, was one of them. (Wine, women, and song-- hrm, okay, so it's sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll now?) Of course, I think many of us know about jazz musicians and marijuana. Don't get me wrong-- I will freely admit to what music I consider well made, what I consider frivolous fun, and what is drivel that I think will die soon. We agree on many things, but I think we express some things differently. I continue to advance the notion that most all music can be enjoyed to a degree. Again, I find it interesting that the great Mozart enjoyed the common music he heard in taverns.
Have you ever read "The Real Frank Zappa Book" by Frank Zappa? There's some really interesting insights about western music and how orchestras operate.
Hrm, not sure where I'd get a copy. I'm not sure what to think of Frank Zappa. I'd heard he was considered humorous and wacky, while he thought of his work as all so serious (could he consider himself musical satirist, maybe)? That reminds me that there are some very humorous musicians/composers that would definitely make Eurocentric study much easier. I'm sure you're familiar with Peter Schickele, who masquerades under the farcial alias PDQ Bach to teach and present Classical and Baroque era music with schtick and humor. He's got a show on NPR, right? Then there's Victor Borge, although I think kids would have to be semi- familiar with classical music to appreciate the humor. Didn't Leonard Bernstein present orchestral works to children? I keep forgetting who did.
Mind summarizing some of the insights for us, Scott?
re:76 Leonard Bernstein used to do concerts (some on TV) performing and 'explaining' classical music for children, though I know little about them. Wynton Marsalis, in more recent years, did a show on PBS where he explained various aspects of jazz and classical music for children; I remember him covering 12-bar blues, theme-and-variations, and sonata form.
I don't remember that much about the specific insights, just that they were good. Zappa can be considered a serious composer. He had funny lyrics, but it was definitely not "joke" music.
....and, for those still in doubt, he's also written some quite good chamber and orchestral music. He's got a boxed set of these out, called something like "The Yellow Shark."
I can lend my copy of the Real Frank Zappa book. I think he'd not be too insulted by the satirist label.
resp:74 Certainly other cultures' music should be taught, as it often is under the rubric "ethnomusicology", but while that box can be considered insulting, there's no reason to be ashamed of the importance and pre-eminence of Western art music. True, there's a relationship between "wine, women and song" and "sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll", which was probably in the minds of the people who popularized the latter phrase, but I do not consider it fruitful to try to sell classical music by emphasizing this aspect. For one thing, it's misleading, like putting racy paperback covers on D.H. Lawrence. For another, it's been done, albeit in a more genteel manner, in the "Lives of the Great Composers" approach to music appreciation that so blighted the field in the early 20th century. And it's still going on now: recently on San Francisco's wretched classical station an announcer went on and on about Berlioz's relation with Harriet Smithson before finally announcing the piece, which Berlioz had written before he even met her, so what did she have to do with it?
I don't mind classical music, but the bulk of it suggest the context of the audience it was written for: the aristocracy. I am not an aristocrat, so I'm not always in the mood for classical music. I have a theory that people's musical tastes change and evolve as they grow older and mature. Part of this I could account for in sensitivity to loudness increasing with age, partial hearing loss, especially in the upper frequency range, and a greater desire to listen to music to relax rather than get riled up. Of course, I'm overgeneralizing. But I do think quite a majority of classical pieces are not necessarily suited to the very young in listening or playing, and more often than not, the majority of classical music listeners tend to be older than younger. However, Ellen Taafe Swilich did recently compose "Peanuts Symphony," a work with movements devoted to various characters. Charles Schulz gave his full approval and support before he died, and preschoolers responded very favorably to it.
Excuse me, but what is "aristocratic" about classical music? It is just a bunch of notes strung together. How that that have social status?
I am referring to the context in which much of it was written in and to the audience it was written for. Granted, theme Classical era music were a departure from those of the Baroque in more portrayals of the common man, but much of this music *was* written for the aristocracy. The breakdown of previous musical structure and increasing dissonance that continued after the late Romantic period and through the 20th century reflected a growing middle class that favored more tension in musical expression. These middle class folks didn't favor the light, pleasing melodies that the nobility often did. At the same time, musical compositions were beginning to be played much more often than once. I believe it was discussed in another item, but I also think that improvisation began to dissapate from Eurocentric music.
What has the intended audience have to do with music written by a composer? Perhaps Mozart found that aristocrats would pay more for his music than would the 'common man', but what has MONEY to do with the interpretation of music itself? The public taste is fickle and changes with time. Perhaps on another go-around, the 'common man' would hunger for Mozart, and the aristocrats for polkas.
Try this: there's nothing inherently aristocratic about a bunch of notes on a page, but if as a culture we've decided to consider Mozart aristocratic, that impression isn't going to change overnight because a few people disagree. The impression of loftiness isn't _part_ of the music, but it clings to it pretty strongly.
Education should take care of that. Yes, I know people adopt weird fixed ideas about things and they even become cultural norms, even though incorrect. Take Ptolemeic astronomy, and mythical earth-origin ideas from the past. However we have (mostly) surmounted these, and it should be even easier to surmount ridiculous ideas about music.
There's a fact of the matter as far as the accuracy of Ptolemaic astronomy goes, which eventually won out over "weird fixed ideas." When it comes to the proper interpretation of Mozart, there's nothing _but_ weird fixed ideas.
Well, yes, there is no objective measure of music. But if that is known, then we know all subjective measures are just that - opinions.
I think I know what lumen is trying to say about Mozart and aristocrats, and it ties in with another remark from the same keyboard, about the age of listeners. A reasonbly full appreciation of most classical music requires that it be approached in a certain way, with patience and an ear for larger-scale structure. (I've seen the word "epic" applied to five-minute pop songs. What then is left to call Wagner's 15-hour Ring Cycle?) And this ear tends to be lacking among children. It was certainly lacking in me at my first exposure to classical music at the age of 8 or 9, but 3-4 years later I took to it immediately. This ear could also be more present among 18th-century aristocrats than 18th-century peasants, for reasons ranging from childhood training, to cultural assumptions, to what might as well be called eugenics.
It is easily learned. Bopping to a beat seems to be genetic. Perhaps patience is a component of appreciating (or defining) classical music, but not entirely. I have introduced classical music to people by pointing out the complex *immediate* structure (counterpoint, fugue, harmony progression, concertino, etc). It is true that there is a *lot more to be heard* in (or defining) classical music. But it can all be learned, and not with great difficulty (but with some willingness).
If 15 minute songs are the mark of "aristocratic" music, why aren't the Grateful Dead considered elitist high culture?
Or "99 bottles of beer on the wall"?
I don't know about elitist, Dan, but the Dead absolutely -were- considered 'high' culture. ;->
Guess I did walk into that one....
Recurl writes, "Bopping to a beat seems to be genetic." It probably is, because I have never learned how to do it: I must lack that gene. (I like my music highly rhythmic, understand: I just don't _move_ to it.) I think the willingness to learn that is being written about is close to what I call patience. The other component of the patience, of course, is the ability to sit still for music that's longer than 5, or even 15, minutes. There's definitely an age-related aspect to that, as smaller children find it more difficult to sit still for anything. Some classical listeners, though, never develop a patience for longer works, and prefer 15-minute light classics all their lives. That's OK too.
You have several choices: