|
Grex > Music2 > #54: Passing on the legacy: Music education/pedagogy | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 97 responses total. |
lumen
|
|
response 49 of 97:
|
Mar 31 04:54 UTC 1999 |
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...)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 50 of 97:
|
Apr 1 03:05 UTC 1999 |
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.
|
lumen
|
|
response 51 of 97:
|
Apr 1 06:02 UTC 1999 |
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.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 52 of 97:
|
Apr 3 04:37 UTC 1999 |
I just got done listening to a recording of me singing.
<shudder>
|
lumen
|
|
response 53 of 97:
|
Apr 7 04:43 UTC 1999 |
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.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 54 of 97:
|
Apr 13 22:05 UTC 1999 |
I messed up the words on the second and messed up the timeing/phrasing.
so, for something humorous, it messed up the humor.
|
bookworm
|
|
response 55 of 97:
|
Apr 23 23:36 UTC 1999 |
That bites.
|
lumen
|
|
response 56 of 97:
|
Jan 12 01:58 UTC 2000 |
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."
|
orinoco
|
|
response 57 of 97:
|
Jan 12 02:23 UTC 2000 |
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."
|
lumen
|
|
response 58 of 97:
|
Jan 12 17:44 UTC 2000 |
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.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 59 of 97:
|
Jan 19 23:14 UTC 2000 |
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.
|
lumen
|
|
response 60 of 97:
|
Jan 20 03:03 UTC 2000 |
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.
|
scott
|
|
response 61 of 97:
|
Jan 20 15:01 UTC 2000 |
Yeah. It's kind of depressing to see a nonmusical coworker who obviously
never plays any music for the child...
|
orinoco
|
|
response 62 of 97:
|
Jan 20 19:46 UTC 2000 |
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.
|
lumen
|
|
response 63 of 97:
|
Jan 28 05:12 UTC 2000 |
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.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 64 of 97:
|
Jan 29 00:11 UTC 2000 |
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.)
|
lumen
|
|
response 65 of 97:
|
Feb 4 04:49 UTC 2000 |
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.
|
lumen
|
|
response 66 of 97:
|
Feb 4 04:50 UTC 2000 |
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.
|
scott
|
|
response 67 of 97:
|
Feb 4 20:30 UTC 2000 |
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.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 68 of 97:
|
Feb 4 21:42 UTC 2000 |
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.
|
lumen
|
|
response 69 of 97:
|
Feb 7 02:41 UTC 2000 |
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.
|
oddie
|
|
response 70 of 97:
|
Feb 7 04:45 UTC 2000 |
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...)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 71 of 97:
|
Feb 7 07:35 UTC 2000 |
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.
|
lumen
|
|
response 72 of 97:
|
Feb 8 05:09 UTC 2000 |
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 =)
|
dbratman
|
|
response 73 of 97:
|
Feb 18 21:56 UTC 2000 |
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.)
|