Is music education outdated?

[Ove]

Over here there ARE keyboards-guitars-drumsets etc in all musical classes at scool but there are also the whole "Orff-outfit" of recorders, smal drums and xylophones and both parts are used extensively.

We had the good fortune to have a teacher come into kids TV in the 70's and introduce electric music to kids music and he wrote a series of educational books that are used in musical education to this day (one called "Beat Blues and nursery rhymes").

Today at my kids scool f.inst, they have an ensemble that accompagnies the annual musical and it consisted the last time off two keyboards, bass, guitar, drums trumpet and saxophone and we are talking kids aged 12-14.

But they still all play recorders to start with... You got to crawl first and then you can learn to walk.

AND the ability to read music is a wonderfull things. I play the drums and i get a lot of "loose jobs" simply because i can read music besides being a (humbly spoken) good rythmic drummer. There are a lot of very good drummers that cant read music AND there are a lot of "note readers" that knows all the fancy techniques but simply can't keep a good rythm.

 

[Gaga]

Re: Re: Re: Is music education outdated?

Says you! Guitar always seemed so "weird" I think, ie "here twist your hand in this arthritic position...stop wincing pls....there! That's C major." sheesh

I'll stick to keyboards thx.

uuh, ok is not that easy... it really depends on how and when you start. I started as a kid, since my dad plays it, and it was a royal pain, the fingers were to short, the position awkward etc... I let it gather dust for some year, than I started again and in comparison it was a walk in the park (I have to add that in the meantime my hands had grown to the shovel-size they are now )
As Hydrogen Cyanide points out the worst problem is to keep the thing in tune (or get it back in tune) when you aren't experienced.

 

[bigred]

Re: Re: Re: Is music education outdated?

I think this is a pretty biased view of modern music. Sure, I am the first to agree that most of what you see on MTV is crap and doesn't display a scrap of musical talent or ability. But I don't think it's fair to tar all modern music with this brush.

Well of course. I was talking in generalities.

people these days don't want intellectual music, they want music that means something to their lives. So they listen to Eminem and Marilyn Manson rather than Bach and Beethoven.

I disagree. They want music that is fun, "hip," and most of all easy to listen to. Something that has meaning to their lives can come into play also, of course, but IMO it's a much smaller factor.

Needs change. And the recording and publishing industry caters to whatever makes money - whatever sells. Whatever is popular. People don't want Bach. They want Linkin Park. So that's what MTV plays.

Sad but true...(well not really. MTV doesn't actually play music anymore do they? I thought it was all those trashy game shows etc)

If music classes in early school concentrated more on modern music, it would be more relevant to the lives of the kids they are teaching. That would make them more motivated.

In the short term, yeah. It would also do any music education a real injustice to spend more than the tiniest part of time on it. This reminds me of the thread about whether school should be "fun" or not. It's nice if it is, but that sure as heck shouldn't be the top priority.

Secondly, and this is my personal experience, it's a lot easier to get into a band and start playing gigs if you play the guitar than if you play the oboe. There's just no demand for good oboe players any more. Which is a damn shame, in my opinion.

I agree, but frankly, so what? The goal of music education isn't to help kids get into a band so they can screech on a guitar or wear a baseballl cap backwards and spit into a mike while someone scratches the heck out of an LP.

So yeah. Let's start up rock bands in the schools. Don't force the kids to endlessly play Do You Know The Way To San Jose? because it means nothing to them. They get bored with it. In case you hadn't noticed, kids' attention spans are quite short. [/B]

lol. Yeah, that's going too far to the other extreme (you think that's bad, I can still recall practicing stuff like "Little Brown Jug" and "Goober Peas." gawd).

But there can be a middle ground between Dionne Warwick and Jiggy Foshizzle (or whatever).

 

[arthwollipot]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is music education outdated?

I disagree. They want music that is fun, "hip," and most of all easy to listen to. Something that has meaning to their lives can come into play also, of course, but IMO it's a much smaller factor.

Yes, to a certain extent you're right. Last night I quizzed a young person of my acquaintance on this matter, and she kind of agreed with you. But there was another important aspect of her liking or disliking music, and that is the question of respect for the artist. Some, like Avril Lavigne, are total drenheads who have no respect for the fans, so she doesn't like Lavigne's music. Others like Marilyn Manson are very intelligent, interesting people, so she likes his music (personally I can't stand Manson, but I have respect for him as a person).

Sad but true...(well not really. MTV doesn't actually play music anymore do they? I thought it was all those trashy game shows etc)

Lol. Yeah, you're right. This time it was I who was speaking in generalities. I meant the "popular" music that is played on the video channels and on the radio. Apparently there was a survey recently which indicated that kids' taste in music was absolutely and totally linked to what the radio stations played. In which case it's the recording industry and the stations which determine what music the kids like.

In the short term, yeah. It would also do any music education a real injustice to spend more than the tiniest part of time on it. This reminds me of the thread about whether school should be "fun" or not. It's nice if it is, but that sure as heck shouldn't be the top priority.

I would not agree with the "tiniest part" bit. But a well-rounded course in music should cover all genres of music from early classical through to jazz, rock, and modern orchestral. Music is music, and regardless of whether some "popular" artists have any imagination in how to apply it, it should still be a part of what is taught.

I agree, but frankly, so what? The goal of music education isn't to help kids get into a band so they can screech on a guitar or wear a baseballl cap backwards and spit into a mike while someone scratches the heck out of an LP.

Then what the heck is the goal of music education? Why teach music to those who never intend to use it?

And you're overgeneralising again when you say that the purpose of getting into a band is to screech on a guitar and all those other things. Not all modern rock bands are like that. You're only looking at the tail end of the bell curve. There's a lot more to modern music than spitting into microphones.

Pardon me for saying so, but a statement like that demonstrates a certain amount of intellectual snobbery, and I don't mean to offend by saying so. It's the automatic generalisation that all modern rock music has backwards baseball caps and scratch decks and spitting. That's simply not the case. It may be what you see the most of, but you can't generalise from there to say that all modern rock music is like that.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is music education outdated?

Yes, to a certain extent you're right. Last night I quizzed a ...Then what the heck is the goal of music education? Why teach music to those who never intend to use it?....

Here, it is a voluntary activity.

Actually, other than the vocal program twice a week for half a year from kindergarten through 5th grade, and then some recorder in 3rd grade --- It is only for kids who WANT to participate in band, strings or choir (choir being a once a week after school activity).

Though, really... it seems that my kids who are taking music have better taste in music than my "Mr. Anti-practicitis" child.

And there is a feeling that kids who take music do better academically than those that don't. But that may be because they have learned certain disciplines in learning music (reading music, practice, exposure to different things) that others don't get.

I used scholar.google.com with the search words "music education academic" and got a hit on this (but I need to go to bed, so I have not read it):
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~colman/eisner.pdf

 

[arthwollipot]

Of course it should be voluntary. That's my point. Those who want to study music generally do not want to do so because they like Bach. There may be a few exceptions, but I think it's pretty much true.

 

[bigred]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is music education outdated?

Yes, to a certain extent you're right. Last night I quizzed a young person of my acquaintance on this matter, and she kind of agreed with you. But there was another important aspect of her liking or disliking music, and that is the question of respect for the artist. Some, like Avril Lavigne, are total drenheads who have no respect for the fans, so she doesn't like Lavigne's music. Others like Marilyn Manson are very intelligent, interesting people, so she likes his music (personally I can't stand Manson, but I have respect for him as a person).]

Interesting. I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand, it's nice to know that some kids take into account what kind of person a musician is. On the other hand, I think one should like/dislike music for the music itself. That would be like looking at the Sistine Chapel and going "well I heard Michelangelo was kind of a jerk, so I don't think much of this."

Apparently there was a survey recently which indicated that kids' taste in music was absolutely and totally linked to what the radio stations played. In which case it's the recording industry and the stations which determine what music the kids like.[/UOTE]Well, I think this is a kind of chicken/egg thing. Sadly, they do certainly influence what kids listen to. But kids influence what they play, because they're trying to keep track of what kids like and play it because they want their stations to be popular (ie so they can make money).

I would not agree with the "tiniest part" bit. But a well-rounded course in music should cover all genres of music from early classical through to jazz, rock, and modern orchestral. Music is music, and regardless of whether some "popular" artists have any imagination in how to apply it, it should still be a part of what is taught.

I was with you until that last sentence. Popularity does not equal quality (to put it very mildly). I guess we'll just agree to disagree on how much popular stuff should be addressed (or in what way).

Then what the heck is the goal of music education? Why teach music to those who never intend to use it?

PLEASE tell me you're kidding - ?

And you're overgeneralising again when you say that the purpose of getting into a band is to screech on a guitar and all those other things. Not all modern rock bands are like that. You're only looking at the tail end of the bell curve. There's a lot more to modern music than spitting into microphones.

Again, of course. (PS the spitting part was a rap reference, FYI) But I think a great deal of what is popular today (at least what I'm hearing, when I manage to be patient and optimistic enough to actually listen and hope) is crap. Modern music today (at least most of the popular stuff) is MUCH less about putting out quality music of any kind and a LOT more about marketing a glitzy cookie-cutter package. It's pathetic, disgusting, and outright tragic.

Pardon me for saying so, but a statement like that demonstrates a certain amount of intellectual snobbery, and I don't mean to offend by saying so.

Appreciate the gesture, but s'OK. I don't agree with your label, but I can understand how you came to it.

I feel it's more like adhering to some musical standards and expecting the same of others (ie musicians, producers, and listeners) vs letting them crumble away just because it's "cool" to do so (like the music industry today has done, IMO).

 

[arthwollipot]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is music education outdated?

Then what the heck is the goal of music education? Why teach music to those who never intend to use it?

PLEASE tell me you're kidding - ?

Why? What other possible reason is there for teaching music? What would make someone interested in learning about music if they never intend to play music? Appreciation? Sure - but then you would have to expose them to a wide range of styles like I've suggested.

If they don't play the music, then they won't be interested. That's my thought on the matter anyway.

 

[bigred]

Maybe by "teaching music" you meant "teaching someone to play an instrument" - ? If so, that makes a lot more sense. Otherwise, I'm so baffled I don't even know how to respond.

 

[arthwollipot]

Let me ask you - if you eliminate playing and composing music from music education, what else is there?

 

[Chris Haynes]

Singing, music appreciation (usually history), some basics of music theory (the latter is a class I took in college, no playing involved... but I learned how to read some music --- it had the proper number of credits to add to my Humanities/Social Studies requirement without going over -- the College of Engineering actually gave a minimum number of credits we had to take in those subjects!)

 

[arthwollipot]

I consider the voice to be an instrument, so learning to sing is the same for me as learning an instrument. Appreciation and history are all very well, and probably the only things which answer my question (not that "most kids these days" (generalisation) would be interested in appreciation and history). Music theory is meaningless without some playing or composition, and reading music without playing it is also an exercise in futility.

SO - you have music appreciation and music history, which are both worth studying even if you don't compose or play an instrument. Why should we restrict this to classical music appreciation and classical music history? Modern music has a history, from the music of the negro slaves in the USA to the development of jazz and blues, through the birth of rock & roll, to modern rap and techno. Why should students who are studying appreciation and history miss out on the latest chapters of the story?

 

[Chris Haynes]

...SO - you have music appreciation and music history, which are both worth studying even if you don't compose or play an instrument. Why should we restrict this to classical music appreciation and classical music history? Modern music has a history, from the music of the negro slaves in the USA to the development of jazz and blues, through the birth of rock & roll, to modern rap and techno. Why should students who are studying appreciation and history miss out on the latest chapters of the story?

I realy don't know. I am pretty much going on my experience in the 60's and early 70's as an elementary and junior high student. Back then the elementary schools I went to and one of junior highs (I went to half a dozen elementary, and two junior highs) had no instrumental programs -- just these "music" classes. These are the ones where you sit and sing the songs --- many of the them simple songs, American folks songs, and some ethnic type songs --- not much classical.

 

[arthwollipot]

I realy don't know. I am pretty much going on my experience in the 60's and early 70's as an elementary and junior high student. Back then the elementary schools I went to and one of junior highs (I went to half a dozen elementary, and two junior highs) had no instrumental programs -- just these "music" classes. These are the ones where you sit and sing the songs --- many of the them simple songs, American folks songs, and some ethnic type songs --- not much classical.

Then I suppose you are a victim of poor musical education. I had a fairly comprehensive education in music, and I even attended the Canberra School of Music (as it was then - it has now been incorporated into the ANU) for two years studying jazz.

So I suppose I have a biased perspective.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Then I suppose you are a victim of poor musical education.....

I would agree with you. (which is another reason I took the basic music theory class in college).

Though partly it was due to my military-brat childhood. The high school I graduated from was the 9th school I attended. I do remember my mother was all set to enroll me in a dance class (my father's family included professional dancers) only to find out after one class that my dad was going to Vietnam.

Where most schools in this country (and it seems even in yours) start intrumental music in the 4th grade... when I was in 4th grade my father was attending the Command and General Staff College in a sizable fort with accompanying town in Kansas... But since there was a housing shortage we had to live across the river in the small town of Westin, Missouri (now a suburb of Kansas City). The school there was "RS ???", or "Rural School with a number". There was no music instruction... just singing a song or two with a teacher. I hated it (along with the fact that I did not learn anything, it was less challenging than my 3rd grade class in Ft. Ord, California).

Then the next school was in Venezuela... again a limited music instruction. Just singing songs in Escuela Campo Alegre, http://www.eca.com.ve/ (back then it only went from kindergarten through 9th grade).

Still, there is a trade-off between music education (or dance!) and getting to live and travel in lots of different places.

But still, I am fascinated with music. It is not because in my former life I was a structural dynamics vibration engineer that I wonder what the difference is between a MINOR chord versus a MAJOR chord (I had to explain to stress engineers what random vibration was by compairing it banging on piano keys). Why does one sound sad, and the other not? What makes us tap our emotions with music? Why do I play Wagner when I am really mad? I bet there is a whole neurology behind it... V. S. Ramachandran mentioned that he will be writing about this in one of his last books:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0131486861/

edited for grammar... which may still be weird

 

[crimresearch]

Hey, you need to start with the basics. Never forget the value of classical training. Besides, even the second viennese (sp?) school is better than the canned stuff done today... Then again, American schools appear to have a Sousa bias in their music program, maybe they should teach the real stuff instead .

/flamebait

They do...

 

[Chicken Pot Pie]

I wanted to add a few comments on this topic. I spent 4 years in college working toward a music education degree as a non-traditional student. I will point out that I had no education courses, having had kids and a campus job as well as a multitude of ensembles required of a music major. In the end, with 101 hours, I rolled everything into an associate of general studies, so I'm not an authority in any sense. I can give some of my experiences as a student in my elementary days and a bit from my music classes at the university.

For the younger students, we learned simple songs to give us a sense of accomplishment, mixed with some rhythm lessons. We had "record" days (which dates me, lol), and were encouraged to bring in popular records of our day. Our high school did a musical every year, so we got to learn the songs from the shows in our elementary music classes. I played in three musicals, in the pit orchestra - that was really great.

Our school started instruments in the summer between 4th and 5th grade, and we actually were given 2 private lessons a week by the band directors through the 6th grade (we had an excellent band program - Spring Lake, MI). If we showed dedication and proficiency, we were offered the chance to switch to some of the less "usual" instruments. I worked hard in 7th grade and beat out two 8th graders to play the bassoon. We had no specific bassoon teacher, so I learned from an older student and from my own determination.

Our high school was one of the best in the state, so we played challenging music. We also got to do the fun and more modern tunes for marching and pep bands. There were trips and fundraisers, band camp (lol), and many great memories.

Bassoons are expensive, so I hadn't played since high school when I started college. After my first semester, I looked into what I'd need to do to be in the band. Luckily, since we'd had to memorize music for marching, I was able to play several songs from memory at my audition.

Now, with my son's school, they start them on the recorder in 5th grade and regular band in the 6th. I think they should move that all back one year. Just ask piano players when they started - usually around 4 or 5 years of age. Earlier is better. They don't give private lessons at my son's school.

We did talk about what would be our philosophy of music education in one class. I read in several posts about many of the points we made in that class. Music helps with teamwork, self-discipline, coordination, and math, to an extent. But it also puts us in touch with our cultures, our feelings, and even without any instrument, we always have our voices. We get great exposure to classics in cartoons (What's Opera, Doc?, Dvorak in an episode of Ren and Stimpy, to name a couple), and movies use older classics and new composers as well. Not everyone will want to be in band or choir, but if we expose them to it young enough they can make an informed decision.

One problem with non traditional band instruments, like electric guitar, is that funding is tough for most music programs. The lucky districts have either better funding allocations or better fundraising, and can have jazz bands and other types of ensembles. I still get blown away when I see my young neighbor whose band earned a spot in our State Fair last year. One of my sons taught himself guitar, another one harmonica, and of course, the least one started bassoon to my delight.

I hope schools can continue to have their arts and music, yet I know we need to emphasize maths and sciences. Girls in the 70's weren't encouraged in those fields.

I'm going to start subbing next week thanks to the music teachers who have been asking me to get on the list for the past two years. I'll tell you plainly, I'm a little woman (and a BIG KID) and I've got no teaching experience, so I'm shaking in my shoes, but I hope that my experience with clowning and music can give me a little bit of a way to make a connection with the kids while keeping them under control.

 

[Mephisto]

I didnt have any music program at my elementry school. But theres one thing Ive noticed about music ed. Its so dated! The songs and instruments taught/learned arent even close to the popular music kids listen to today.

Wouldnt music programs be more popular if they offered electric guitar, or if school band focused more on rock and pop music. Do 13 year olds really wants to learn how to play"grand Ol flag"?

I also agree with you, but only to a point. I feel that most instruments require a strong classical basis from which to spring. One could argue that playing Mozart or Beethoven is outdated, but works by these composers and others serve to fine-tune a musician's abilities. My son's band teacher combines a great deal of (outdated?) Copeland and Sousa as well as compositions by modern composers like Williams and Elfman. He is also a member of a school-sponsored jazz band where kids are not only taught compositional theory but improvization as well.

If your child's music director is insisting on playing only music like "Grand Old Flag" perhaps you might seek other parents who share your opinion. I think you are right in suggesting that it is essential that a music program teach students how music skills are applied in everything around them.

 

[ysabella]

I don't think it's outdated. I think that music teachers should draw from the vast history of music for pieces for students to learn. Better teachers will probably find better arrangements and more interesting songs for kids. Trying to play modern rock/pop songs on recorder or beginning violin is just going to sound lame.

I think that even learning some music appreciation does a lot of good for a child's development. Music instills skills such as pattern recognition, concentration, and patience. Learning an instrument, learning to read music, and learning music theory and history deepen and enhance these skills, plus you can learn things like posture, focus, and get to play music in a group, which I have always thought was something special.

I had piano lessons starting from age 5, and a musical family, but for a lot of kids, school is the only place where they get a chance to study music. Fortunately, there are some really dedicated music teachers out there and I think they make a difference.

 

[BrianT]

Just a few quick thoughts. First, for most band instruments, students are started in the 6th grade for physical reasons: most instruments are too big for younger children. Having been a band director at one time I can tell you that, for example, it is a real struggle for many beginners to do something as basic as covering the holes on a clarinet (fingers aren't big enough). And you'd be surprised, if you've never tried, how much air it takes to play a flute. Light headedness is a problem for beginners on ANY wind instrument.

As for the use of more modern, "popular" music in class, you have to remember the cost of royalties as opposed to using something in the public domain.