Klarinet Archive - Posting 001330.txt from 2000/10
From: Bilwright@-----.net (William Wright)
Subj: Re: [kl] A curricular issue
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 15:35:06 -0400
<><> Roger Garrett wrote:
If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that even though the
walk-on is better and more correctly suited for the ensemble by virtue
of his work, he should always come in second to the declared music major
who marginally passes the audition for the ensemble?
<><> Bill Wright wrote:
You've omitted a key detail. Perhaps it's so obvious that it doesn't
need to be stated explicitly. =A0 I believe that the walk-on (if we're
using this term the same way) comes second ONLY WHEN THERE'S NO ROOM FOR
BOTH STUDENTS.
<><> Roger Garrett wrote:
What if the student doesn't come in second but comes in 10th? [snip]
In fact, what if the student is NOT qualified by virtue of his or her
audition?
I agree that there must be a minimum standard for receiving higher
education. If a 10th-place student turns out to be below the minimum,
then the student is below the minimum, and there's not much to say
except "You can re-apply next year, if you think you have improved".
But Roger, I simply don't agree that education should be handed out
only to the highest ranked students. That is elitism, which is a nasty
word to some people, but it's how I feel.
My position remains: if I was refused entrance to the school, so be
it. If I was accepted into the school, but if the school told me
clearly, "You will have to compete once you are inside this school in
order to be offered a full education", then (personally) I would not
enter the school.
But MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, and this is where I come back to my
original statement, if the school accepts me without advising me clearly
about the competition clause in their policy, and if I satisfy the
school's minimum requirements (that were explained to me before I
enrolled) as I progress through the school, THEN THE SCHOOL HAS ASSUMED
AN OBLIGATION. If the school doesn't fulfill it, then they have been
dishonest.
One last point: I assume that we are discussing what promises (if
any) should be made to the potential student, not whether the promises
need to be kept after they are made. This is why I spoke first against
elitism in education, and only second about honesty.
But the hard fact is that once a student is inside an organization,
and given the fact that musical standards ultimately are
nonquantifiable, it can be difficult for a student to enforce a promise.
And vice versa for the school, if the student doesn't cut the mustard.
This is why it is absolutely necessary for the school to ask itself
frequently, "Are we keeping our promises? Or are we using 'end
justifies the means' and 'it's for the greater good' in order to obtain
the results that _we_ desire because our advertising language was sloppy
enough to justify whatever decision we wish to make?"
<><> Roger Garrett wrote:
My last question wasn't meant to be leading. It was differentiating
between a performance major and a music education major.
I have no problem with this distinction. Many composers and music
historians and conductors don't perform, etc.
Actually, this is an excellent example, now that I understand it.
I find the concept repulsive that a hopeful composer doesn't receive a
full education because he can't perform as well as some hot-shot
performance major can, but what is a 'full education' for a composer?
Does it include performance experience?
I'm on shaky ground here, because of my own lack of musical
experience, but I would lean towards classifying a non-performance major
as a walk-on. This means encouraging the composer (or the chemistry
major) to play in an ensemble if space is available and if he or she
doesn't wreck the experience for the performance majors (which is the
issue of minimum requirements again).
From a practical point of view, I would imagine that frequently a
school administrator needs one more player to fill out an ensemble of
performance majors, and so it makes sense to have a pool of non-majors
to fill the void.
(At the music school where I listened to master classes, I believe
that the school uses its own accompaniment staff for this purpose as
well. In passing, I should tell you that the staff accompanists were
terrific during the master classes -- sitting down in front of a piano
on five minutes notice, with paperwork still stuffed in their pockets
because they were doing bookwork a moment ago, and they adjusted
instantly to the students' efforts and played difficult pieces better
than the students played their own parts. I wonder, however, how many
schools can afford that level of skill as a 'backup'?)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org
