Author: Matt74
Date: 2017-02-21 06:00
I wouldn't assume that because someone did not memorize a piece, that they cannot, nor assume that difficulty memorizing amounts to a disability.
That said, having a disability, especially a hidden one, is a liability. The world is designed for what most people see (rightly or wrongly) as "normal". For example, people tend to assume that everyone can drive, which makes it very difficult if you can't. In requiring memorization, Solo and Ensemble may quite innocently be making what it sees as a reasonable demand for most students. Unfortunately, there may be a small minority of talented young musicians for whom this is an unreasonable burden. Someone will reply that you cannot be a musician unless you can memorize whole works. Even if that were true, I'm sure that most would agree that there should be opportunities for young students who can play beautiful music, even if they can't memorize everything. It's Solo and Ensemble, not Carnegie Hall. I'm sure it's better to memorize, but requirements ought to be balanced with consideration of what is really important at that level. I'm sure there are plenty of kids who can memorize easily without being particularly interested in music.
It seems to me that society has become increasingly obsessed with a lot of arbitrary requirements for virtually everything. We are obsessed with vetting and eliminating. We often forget that it is better, and in the long run more productive, to positively identify ability and potential. In my view we are too rigid, and increasingly intollerant. Even all the focus on disability and accommodations can turn into an obstacle, because not everyone who deserves reasonable consideration meets the criteria we invent for "disabled", and as a result are prevented from getting what little assistance or considerstion they may need.
- Matthew Simington
Post Edited (2017-02-21 06:06)
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
