After reading so many articles about how education needs to be reformed, they have always been about the classroom settings and how we need to change our approach in teaching children. It has been about upgrading the different types of music we teach in order to allow for more variety. For example including midi, pop songs or having more cultural instruments to explore. We have read about the importance of learning skills and helping children to appreciate music, but we haven’t read a lot about adults and music. I appreciate that David Myers writes about how music is beyond the classroom and that we should give opportunities to every person to explore music. Like many articles, it serves to remind us that music a communal activity.
It’s interesting how many things are pointed out in the article that, I haven’t ever thought about. When taking music in high school, I never realized what I was going to do my life with music because it seemed like the only path to choose available was performance. I knew I loved to sing and play the viola, but I never saw myself as a “performer”, someone who just performed for a living. Paul Woodford mentioned when he visited our class, that just because we chose to specialize in something particular in music, like being a clarinetist, we didn’t have to be only that. Which has given me a bit more insight on reasons as to why people discontinue music in their lives after high school, perhaps it is because we limit ourselves to a single point of view. I agree that we have just been drilled with skills to be become great performers and not much has been taught in regards of how these skills we have, could be integrated into a community experience. I do think that it’s hard to avoid because, the skills are essential in the learning progress. Yet if we did let go of the need for perfection in the art, maybe there would be less frustration and everyone could enjoy adding something musical to their life styles. I know for sure I was and continue to be intimidated by the level of “excellence” that’s needed in order to pass university, when I just want to sing songs. Everything is just a big loop that affects one another in this system. We need to change the music education system and goals, to create more people with an interest in music to go outside in the community and have an appreciation for it. Thus generating more people who are willing to be patient to not only teach but also learn. It is just so hard to integrate the community into the school education system, because sometimes people are just reluctant to participate. I know people who tell me that partaking in music is too much effort. That there’s too many things to learn and it isn’t enjoyable. People see musicians as a different level of skill and are discouraged to try to learn. The Western world is disconnected. I find that people in general, don’t value the community as much we think we do. We have music blasting from our ear buds and we are content. Community bond just isn’t strong anymore. Even if we do emphasize that schools need stronger connections with the community, we need to convince a community that it’s important that they participate. Or perhaps I am wrong and there just needs to be more opportunities. Maybe we musicians put ourselves on a little pedestal and we need to remind ourselves of why we make music and step down from that pedestal, before we can truly join the community. Then maybe more people can just be happy to be able to do something that makes them happy, even if not all the notes are correct. Myers, D. (2007). Freeing music education from schooling: Towards a lifespan perspective on music teaching and learning. International Journal of Community Music 1(1): 49-61
0 Comments
I like to think that everyone is subconsciously aware of the people who hold higher positions in modern society. I am also quite sure that in order to achieve personal gains, it is best to appease to those in power. We’re all very aware of this, but we never talk about it directly. I like how this article does talk about it. What I found interesting about Paul Woodford’s article, was that in his critique of Bennett Reimer’s take on education, he talks of the importance of being aware of historical contexts and social standings of people. Even as a music education student reading the assigned articles, I rarely think too much about the time period that the article was written in, unless someone points it out. It’s a habit that I need to work to change.
In his article Woodford writes about how Reimer’s take on music education, doesn’t allow music to thrive and grow into something substantial. According to this article Reimer’s take on music education is more focused on the aesthetics of the art and turning it into a pleasing decoration, rather than a tool to understand the world. Woodford says that education was encouraged to not be involved in the political world. Without any historical context, I wouldn’t have understood why this decision was made. I know that personally, it’s hard to imagine a world where I would not be allowed to express my own opinions and that if I did I had to live in fear of people of a higher power. I would not be able to imagine living in a society where speaking against what the government, even in the slightest criticism, would make me a target. So I understand, from this article why Reimer chooses to steer music education away from the political world, because it was dangerous. Music gives people a voice, it can spread fast and it is such a large part of all societies that it’s impossible to eradicate. I fear that, because of historic events that caused people to make certain decisions at a particular time, it’s why music school or music education has not changed much, in the sense that music is more for aesthetics. Outside of the school setting, the music world is filled with people writing songs to speak up about political rights and worldly topics, yet the education system is really stubborn in changing. I agree with Woodford, that the government still has so much power in what children learn today, it’s scary. It’s scary because the government has the power to standardize, music, something that is expressive and life changing. They have the power to reduce music into something that becomes unimportant in the lives of future generations, even with modern music continually spitting out music that touches on the darker topics of society. It won’t matter if children don’t learn to think critically and I think that we should rethink how we see music education, how Reimer saw music education. We want to cultivate thinkers, not puppets. But it’s continually harder to do, when even now in university, people find music education useless. There does need to be a lot of change and reforming, but first of all, how do we convince people to care about this change? How do we convince people who are going through this music education system to want to make a difference? On The Education of Bennett Reimer Paul Woodford Philosophy of Music Education Review Vol. 23, No. 2 (Fall 2015), pp. 142-154 The problem that is being addressed in Maud Hickey’s article is the idea of improvisation being a skill that can be taught. She argues that improvisation isn’t a skill that can be taught, but needs to be nurtured. There is a reoccurring argument that studying music in the academic world, only deadens a person’s ability to be creative and have freedom in their abilities to create music. As musicians growing up in this academic atmosphere, we have been drilled with rules and formulas in order to create the best sound possible. These rules allow for little freedom in self-expression and Hickey argues that in this kind of setting, improvisation cannot thrive because these restraints and criteria are the very opposite of what improvisation is. To this point I do have to agree. There is only one way for improvisation to thrive and it is to create the opportunities for musicians to try and explore the whole musical spectrum. Hickey also points out the importance of the balance between the technical skills and improvisations and how the two are closely linked. In order for a student to be comfortable in improvisation, there needs to be a development of greater skills to explore even further, otherwise creativity has the possibility of coming to a standstill. Although I wonder if that is really true, because if students are given the chance to explore new ideas, they will also develop curiosity and perhaps will only continue to learn even further.
I do think that incorporating this view on improvisation is difficult just because of the education system as a whole. Systematic testing and guidelines rule the academic world as Hickey mentioned, so it’s hard to move away from a system that is bent on continuing it’s existence this way, just because it makes the job easier. I agree that having a list of what a student needs to accomplish in order to be certain they have attained this skill, prevents the skill from coming to fruit. I can only imagine how daunting and chaotic the music classroom could become if the children were given free reign, but the flip side is the amount of beautiful sounds that could be made. I think it’s completely possible to incorporate improvisation into music classrooms without sacrificing the fundamental skills needed to progress in music making. It can even just be 10 minutes every music class of just exploring and switching instruments. It could possibly even create a better musical community and brings people back to the roots of music, reminding us all of why we make music in the first place. Hickey, M. (2009). Can improvisation be ‘taught’?: A call for free improvisation in our schools. International Journal of Music Education, 27(4), 285-299. Upon reading Nasim Niknaf’s article on improvisation, I can agree that the prospect of having to do such an activity is daunting. Niknaf addresses the fear that comes with improvisation and I think that it is very reasonable. It means there is no music to read from and absolutely no indication of what to do. It leaves a person floating in a black void of confusion and it’s almost funny how daunting the task seems. We as musicians, having been conditioned to follow rules for so long, aren’t able to be comfortable being released from them. I know that personally, I only feel like I am able to improvise when I am truly comfortable with an instrument. With my voice, something that I’ve had access to in order to play around with, I am completely comfortable with improvising. But with my viola, it becomes a lot more difficult because I’m not as fluent in playing it as others may be. It feels as if this fear is unavoidable because we haven’t been taught from a young age that being free to experiment is a good thing.
Which makes me think that Niknaf’s point of bringing improvising into the classroom, a great idea. There are suggestions on how to introduce improvisation into the classroom and how to make it comfortable for students, which are useful recommendations to have. But I think that at the end of the day, this concept will work best in younger generations. If schools and music programs introduced this concept earlier on and continually made use of its importance, perhaps there will be a better overall change in the system because it’s hard to introduce these ideas to people who have been raised with so many rules. With no doubt, it is clearly an achievable goal, but it is just hard. Yet even then, personal insecurities and worries can still get in the way. We all crave acceptance and originality doesn’t always mean being accepted. Although if school music programs did make this more of an important part of the curriculum, it will only be an advantage as it’s a skill that can go into any field. As Niknaf points out in the article, everyone is born with the ability to improvise, so perhaps just this earlier introduction of it is all that is needed. So, does that mean we don't even have to teach it? Niknafs, N. (2013). Free Improvisation: What It Is, and Why We Should Apply It in Our General Music Classrooms. General Music Today, 1048371313482921. Interestingly enough, when I read the title of the article I was unsure as to how to interpret what I was about to read. They say not to judge anything right off the bat, but I did anyways. In my own experience with anything “contemporary” has not been the most pleasant because of pieces of contemporary music thrown my way in orchestra. Although reading this article prompted me to do something I should have done quite earlier on, I looked up the definition of the word. Contemporary means, “living or occurring at the same time”. It changed the way I viewed the article differently, and with contemporary music in general because I realized I do like this kind of music, they are the tunes floating around on the radio now, right at this moment. Tobias helped me to realize that it’s the music that people cover, that people remix—it’s all contemporary, and it isn’t just the strange experimental orchestral repertoire that I had to play.
This idea of what is contemporary in classical music is something, I think, that prevents people in the classical world from accepting it easily. Even a little divergence is a big change from the strict criteria of classical training seems, wrong. Not to mention that to that it would be difficult to remix Mozart’s intricate pieces of music, but where is the fun in avoiding the challenge? I think that Tobias idea, of introducing contemporary practices into the classroom is a good idea. By allowing students to remix and explore with creating their own pieces out of classical pieces, or any kind of genre of music, connects them to the real-world more. I know I would have had a lot more fun in music classes. These ideas introduced in the article, can really help students to think outside the box and participate more. I don’t think that it will take away from the challenging classical repertoire and it only serves to help students develop more skills, encouraging them to explore and experiment outside of the classroom too, perhaps with their own music projects. Tobias, E. S. (2013). Toward convergence: Adapting music education to contemporary society and participatory culture. Music Educators Journal, 99(4), 29-36. An important chunk of Natassa E. Stavrou’s article that I noticed is that in order to understand the concept of ‘creativity’, one has to learn through doing. Just learning about creativity will not be enough in understanding idea. The activity took a group of student teachers, who the majority had no extensive music background, and placed them into a situation where they needed to think creatively in terms of music. The majority of the student teachers, having been given the chance to explore and work together to create their own story, incorporating sound, gained a more positive outlook on teaching music. The student teachers were left to discuss with their groups and come up with their ideas of a story, incorporating music/sound. This activity let them realize and me as well, the importance of when to intervene with students learning and when to not intervene because creative processes can work with just experimentation. It shows that as a teacher, sometimes all that needs to be done is to create an environment and space that allows for students to explore on their own. Providing hints only when a group is at a standstill.
It is remarkable to know that it was through just this one activity, many young teachers are inspired and have become more inclined to introduce creative activities that involve music. Not only that, but it helped them with their own self confidence in the future. I can only imagine what it would be if activities such as this, were incorporated into the education system earlier on and became more appreciated. It could help start the creative journey much earlier on and if this activity didn’t make it clear it enough, it really creates a positive environment. I like the idea of creativity in this article being, something more than just the individual. Creativity for the longest time, has only been something that is unique to a person, I did not think of it being something more public and created through community because I have always felt like clashing ideas could get to people. This article is also a reminder to me, to show that the learning and creative process is an ever continuing journey. Stavrou, N. E. (2013). Fostering musical creativity in pre-service teacher education: Challenges and possibilities. International Journal of Music Education, 31(1), 35-52. doi:10.1177/0255761411431391 Reading this article about creating opportunities within an educational experience, reminds me of my own schooling. I have always been told that it is not possible to teach anyone how to be creative, in a way that is true, at the end of the day it is up to the individual to do the thinking and the learning. A point I find is important about this article is that, it points out that there is still the option to encourage people to think creatively through consistent opportunities to explore. If I look back on my own studies in music in middle school and high school, there was never an abundance of opportunities to express myself through improvising or score writing. We were however, often encouraged to create our own stories to the lyrics of a song. Being given even that small opportunity makes me feel more appreciative of the art.
I can understand why it would seem like music teaches students to think the same or at least similar. The techniques and exercises that come with classical music is usually very uniform. There are set rules on what makes for a good strong sound or what an example of someone who is skilled should be. There is not much flexibility in that particular sense for creativity to flourish. A point that the article brings up is the importance of seeing students as different, so that teaching becomes a more creative process, in order to accommodate different learning styles and thoughts of individuals. An example I can come up with is when my strings teacher used to tell us to imagine phrases being pulled forwards like melting toffee. A phrase like that always had a positive effect on my experience of the music, I had a lot more fun thinking about music. The irony is that the arts are meant to be open to creative thoughts, but when studying classical music people may be even more restrained in creativity. I can only agree that room for more exploration and risk taking will only be beneficial, it makes me wish I was encouraged to apply myself in a more creative sense earlier on. It inspires me to think outside the box for when I want to become a teacher one day and made a bit more conscious of the example I will be setting for younger minds. Brinkman, D. J. (2010). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(2), 48-50. doi:10.1080/10632910903455785 Joseph Abramo’s article was an eye opener for me, in different ways. I have never thought about analyzing in music as more than just as the technical elements of music, because I have been studying classical music all my life. Even though classical music can be analyzed from a very emotional aspect, I have never discussed it in terms of world issues. It did not occur to me that popular music had the benefit of being analyzed in a way that introduces world issues that students are able to pick out, critic and understand! I think that this could be such an advantage in many ways, if teachers incorporated this kind of analyzing earlier on in the school system.
In my high school we had a guitar program, I did take note of all the new students that were running around the music area, but it seemed to me that rehearsals and classrooms were much like a traditional music ensemble. They would sit in rows and play together with the teacher leading the ensemble. For concerts they played popular music and would feature students singing, but I do wonder what would happen if the teacher, like Abramo, tested the waters and let students have more freedom in what they choose to play. Or if he discussed each songs underlining messages. I do think that having such freedom in what the students choose to do, will continue to inspire. But at the back of my head there is a nagging that is telling me that it’s difficult to create such a space, and I wonder how the marking scheme is. Yet that brings up a question if there should be a marking scheme for music, but because it is part of a school system, there is a curriculum where teachers cannot have full freedom of what they do. So how would teachers find a balance? It is also interesting how in the reading, Abramo mentioned the possible differences in how people learn classical music versus popular music. Classical music is conducted and based on reading the notes on the page, whereas popular music is more based on learning songs by ear, improvising and it allows for more individual freedom. I think that with classical music, it’s hard to avoid working as a unit because that is important to creating music together. I do find that in classical music, there is a lot of learning done through listening and discussing with others. No matter which kind of music I think they both create community and discussion, it just may seem like one is more evident than the other. In Rose and Countryman’s article, “Repositioning ‘The Elements’: How Students Talk about Music”, it is evident that their goal is to create an educational curriculum that is made to fit the needs of the children. It is true that the classical music and terms that are being taught in the education system going down a strict path that does not follow the evolution of modern music. There can be more freedom in the terms of what genres of music are explored when it, expanding from the strict classical repertoire to more modern pieces, which can help students connect more easily to music because it is related to what they listen to in everyday life. Not only should there be integration of different genres of music, but also explore the cultural music from other countries, not limiting to branches of music within the American setting. It is important to create a space where all ideas are accepted and that allows students to discuss how they experience music in their own words. There should be freedom for students to discover what music means to them. That means allowing them to explore repertoire that inspires them. It is important to keep in mind though, that as a teacher there is also a need to foster the skills required as a musician and sometimes that means picking challenging classical pieces, over simple chords of a pop song.
Their goal is to isolate one specific part of the music education system and that is the “elements of music”. There is a strong argument against the use of the elements in music, creating them to be walls that block the abilities of students to express themselves. I would argue that the point of the musical elements is to serve as a guideline and a starting point to analyze music. Instead of seeing elements as a hindrance, as portrayed in the article, I rather see them as stepping stones to a higher understanding of music. In the process of teaching, it’s good to incorporate group thinking and self-evaluation of the music without the musical elements. But the elements is a good way to introduce the complexity of music initially, because it is simple. It gives a small bit of understanding of how music works. I think that the elements are comparable to the alphabet system, in that you need to know them in order to understand the bigger pictures. There is truth in the fact that, classrooms should not become textbook strict with the elements and define them, but put them to practice and question the bigger ideas on music. I think that the problem is not to erase the knowledge of the elements but incorporate different in the way teachers teach. Rose, L. S., & Countryman, J. (2013). Repositioning ‘the elements’: How students talk about music. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 12(3): 45–64. http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Rose Countryman12_3.pdf Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 12(3): 45–64. Ryan M. Hourigan’s article on “Invisible” students provides context for teachers to understand how to identify these students, by showing excerpts of a qualitative study of a child who has suffered from traumatic brain injury syndrome. Hourigan describes an “invisible student”, to be someone who may be shy, is a new student or perhaps have trouble communicating with others. He suggests signs that could signify such as avoiding contact, how they hold themselves or walk. An example would be how James, the boy in the study, participates in band and leaves by himself without talking to anyone.
I found that the activities that were suggested in the article to be useful when applied to real life. There are always going to be children who are not as willingly to speak up or who keep to themselves. It does take a toll on someone’s self-confidence seeing everyone getting along as you sit by yourself. I have had personal experience with this and I have noticed people around me, perhaps in the same situation as I was. A lack of connection with other peers, when it appears as if everyone else is getting along well does affect a person. I am glad that Hourigan brings up the importance of a teacher setting examples for the students. It is something that I will take with me for my future. From greeting all the students at the door to creating a buddy system for students to follow by. I’ll keep in mind that knowing more information about another person is key and that ice breakers should be easy. I also like the idea of letting the instructor create mixed groups at the beginning. Although it may be more difficult to apply these ideas of intermingling as year goes by just because there will be people who will become friends and want to stick together. This is especially hard if schools go on over-night trips. As a teacher, I think it’d be quite easy to overlook the students who try to hide. This article does remind me that it’s important to create an environment where students can learn to be accepting of one another and to help each other grow. This means working with other teachers as a team to be supporting all the students, together. Hourigan, R. M. (2009). The invisible student: Understanding social identity construction within performing ensembles. Music Educators Journal, 34-38. |
AuthorUniversity music student wishing to become a teacher. Archives
March 2016
Categories |