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.

response 52 of 97:

Apr 3 04:37 UTC 1999

        I just got done listening to a recording of me singing.
        <shudder>

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.

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."

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.

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. 

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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...)

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 =)

response 74 of 97:

Feb 21 18:25 UTC 2000

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.