 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2004-03-03 16:05
Here's an interesting interview with Libby Larsen, who believes that music education is in a "crisis of relevancy." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20784-2004Mar1.html
She makes several important, and to me controversial points, which I'm far from sure are correct:
Music reading should be taught in the 1st grade, along with alphabetical reading. [YES!!]
Rhythm is taught in subdivisions of the quarter note. This ignores forms of music that don't use duple structure. [I'm not sure what she means here. Is it music that doesn't use a regular pattern? that uses triple patterns? that uses changing patterns (e.g., Bulgarian)? that depends on repetition rather than patterns (native American and African drumming)?]
Music is taught primarily in ensembles, which ignores forms that are done by only one or a few people. [But how can this be taught in schools? How can we involve everyone other than in ensembles?]
School ensembles don't play music. They practice only a few pieces by rote, to do well in contests. [Is this true now? It certainly wasn't when I came up, at least in bands.]
She speaks from an important position with the Library of Congress, and as a well known composer. How necessary is it to answer her? What should we say?
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-03-03 17:27
She's explaining the difference between the Chicken Dance and Samba.
Kids can practice individual efforts - at home.
Schools are about bringing individuals into the main - socialization.
Perhaps the rote memorization of tunes doesn't do much for expression, but we're talking about kids with only so many hours in a day... it works.
Besides, parents want to hear their kids play something other than scales.
I would just as soon hear kids learn to sing in elementary school, rather than attempt to handle complicated instruments.
Not every moppet that picks up a fiddle will become Midori...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-03-03 18:08
I think she has good ideas, but they are incredibly unrealistic. From the way she talks, I bet she's never worked with a grade school band in her life! Try explaining the difference between duple and triple meters to a 6 year old. It would be great if her ideas could be applied, but I don't see it happening.
DH - theclarinetist@yahoo.com
PS - just so she knows, there are some people who are very knowedgeable and well-versed in a variety of musical styles who still think Beethoven is "the greatest composer ever..." = )
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-03-03 18:30
Metric divisions based on LEFT, right, Left, RIGHT make sense.
Anything beyond that requires immersion in a culture that dances.
(What I have seen at wedding parties.... oh my, the horror.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-03-04 16:27
I don't see anything at all wrong with what she's saying. What I'm not certain of is whether she expects school music to actually solve these problems.
The thing that I disagree the most with is the concept of learning to read music in first grade. Primary level students are already dealing with rhythm. If you compare band and orchestra musicians to other types of musicians (and their learning process) I think you'll find that other musicians get much more extensive experience in playing before confronting issues of notation--if they use notation at all. You can teach anyone at any age to read music by learning simple songs by ear and reverse-engineering in progressive steps. This will automatically take them through the development of written music the same way a fetus goes through a miniaturized evolution in the womb.
Most of the other things that she points out, are simply inadequacies that we are already aware of. School music programs are PERFORMANCE OPPORTUNITIES, and we will never get top quality if we expect them to provide for all of their performers' educational needs. In every genre outside of band/orchestra music, musicians learn through individual apprenticeship combined with rote learning of basics, and trial-and-error with specifics. This is why two guitar players meet at a party and end up playing together--and two clarinet players meet at a party and talk about what chair they sit in band.
Synonymous Botch gives us the key word -- immersion. Cultures that dance have rhythm. Cultures that sing can carry a tune. We have moved away from doing either in a way that imbeds music in our kids. We hand them an instrument, put them in a situation where they aren't expected to contribute anything from the outside, and where they will be graded on their conduct rather than their accomplishment. Most school musicians will play classical music daily for 7 years or more, yet will never develop an interest in the genre. If she's saying that we need to push more music APPRECIATION, I agree. She may just be taking her point a little too far.
I see no reason to argue with Ms. Larsen. In fact, I think it would be an interesting exercise to see if we can answer her concerns. I have some suggestions of my own for early education, although its implementation cannot be limited to individual students and their schools. If we want music and musical sense to be cultural, we have to MAKE it cultural--at least in our own families. More later on...
Allen Cole
Post Edited (2004-03-04 16:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2004-03-04 17:15
Allen -
Kids come into first grade already knowing how to sing. An introduction of staff notation, with the explanation "higher in the staff means sing higher," was completely intuitive, and the whole class was ready for it. By the second grade, we were ready for Flutophones.
Maybe it's different now, but IMHO, the earlier the better.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-03-04 21:26
I must admit to straddling the fence on the issue of early musical instruction.
****
I play a few reed instruments, and relish the time I have behind my horns.
I'm suggesting that more gear does not make for a better learning environment... I prefer direct engagement of the student and instructor.
It is my strong conviction that vocal training at an early age allows for a kid to experience ensemble performance without any encumberance.
The sad truth is that most young kids will demolish any instrument, even something so durable as a flutophone.
****
On the flip side, I just made a substantial non-cash contribution to my local school district. This enables the music director (whom I know, trust and respect) to support the kids in his charge, that lack means.
I've heard his concert band play.
They were awful and I loved every minute!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-03-08 17:09
In principle, she's expressing the same frustration that I have with music teachers who don't understand harmony, rhythm instruments & rhythm section issues, or a wide enough variety of styles.
What she's done here is to take things all the way out to the logical extreme--or maybe the just plain extreme.
The two biggest flaws in her thinking are that students should be nurtured in their own ethnicity at the college level, and that students should be composing music on their own as a means to learn.
In fact, music schools are there to put musicians in a sufficiently common framework that they can work together. The folks at New Mexico have clearly OD'ed on federal grants.
The other fact, is that successful players everywhere in every style learn by imitation--very detailed, disciplined imitation. It forms the basis both of skill and analysis, while creating a framework of common knowledge that is necessary to glue together an ensemble. Individual creativity is always there, but practicing musicians value ensemble discipline and give it priority.
Our band and orchestra students do poorly because they are not held to high enough standards. And let's face it, not everyone could. The beauty of bands and orchestras is the fact that there is some room for warm bodies who don't live and breathe music every minute. Not all our kids will be professionals, and those who want it will make it known.
What Larsen should really be pushing is wider education for teachers SPECIFICALLY to help point kids towards the help that they need to pursue their interests outside of school. She has the right idea about individual needs, but is wrong to demand it of the public schools.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
