Annotated Bibliographies
Bowman, W. D. (2004). "Pop" goes . . . ? Taking popular music seriously “ In Rodrigues, C. (Ed.). Bridging the gap: Popular music and music education. US: MENC.
I found article “Pop” goes…? Taking popular music seriously” very interesting and mildly infuriating. I found it spent a lot of ink on trying to define what is popular and what popular is to whom and why it’s important instead of how we can better integrate youth-orientated music into our education system. I really agreed with Bowman’s sentiment of ”education as an endeavor intended to introduce people to the less pervasive, the uncommon, the rare, the precious.” (Bowman, 32), but I think that educators and facilitators often get fixated on maintaining that lofty status as more important than the reality of everyday life- and they entirely miss how they’re intrinsically related. Music is music, from deadmau5 to Beethoven, music is meant to express in sound what cannot be said in words, and I believe that deadmau5 does as well of a job as Beethoven in expressing the human condition. My highschool class played Holst Second Suite in , a piece we commissioned from a local composer, as well as Taylor Swift’s “Safe and Sound”. The genius of our conductor was to use the pop music we played to introduce concepts like balance and dotted-rhythms that applied to our more difficult, classical pieces. Learning new things was more fun when it was to a familiar tune, and seeing it applied to classical music made it more accessible to the students who were unfamiliar with the complex beauty of Holst or Ticheli or whatever more classically styled music. The presence of pop music does not necessarily mean the absence of classical- a quarter note is a quarter note whether played on a clarinet in Souza or on a synthesizer by Mumford and Sons.
I think that the article did a good job of distinguishing and discussing how popular music is relevant to students and how it is important to culturally educate them. “Popular music is… created by and especially for, the enjoyment and enrichment of everyday people in their everyday lives.” (32) I think rings very true, but I also feel it unfairly separates classical lovers from popular fans. I think that it’s very possible and most likely that most people are a mixture of the two. Classical music appreciators are not a lofty, separate bunch from the dirty youth of popular music- classical music fans were and are most likely fans of music of their day as well. I think that popular, contemporary music is a temporary musical obsession that dwindles with time- with few outliers like the Beatles. Classical music has an ability to withstand the test of time, which the article touched on. I think that the biggest difference is that listening to contemporary music is for a catharsis, while creating classical music is a catharsis. Making contemporary music is a fleeting practice, offering instant gratification and the pieces pass. I think that this style of fleeting tastes is really good for teaching small steps- a new song every week teaching a small bite. On the other hand, classical music is so rich and it’s more difficult to teach the music and the concept at the same time- there is simply too much complexity for it to be practical. I do believe that both are necessary to a well-rounded musical education. (October 4, 2015)
I found article “Pop” goes…? Taking popular music seriously” very interesting and mildly infuriating. I found it spent a lot of ink on trying to define what is popular and what popular is to whom and why it’s important instead of how we can better integrate youth-orientated music into our education system. I really agreed with Bowman’s sentiment of ”education as an endeavor intended to introduce people to the less pervasive, the uncommon, the rare, the precious.” (Bowman, 32), but I think that educators and facilitators often get fixated on maintaining that lofty status as more important than the reality of everyday life- and they entirely miss how they’re intrinsically related. Music is music, from deadmau5 to Beethoven, music is meant to express in sound what cannot be said in words, and I believe that deadmau5 does as well of a job as Beethoven in expressing the human condition. My highschool class played Holst Second Suite in , a piece we commissioned from a local composer, as well as Taylor Swift’s “Safe and Sound”. The genius of our conductor was to use the pop music we played to introduce concepts like balance and dotted-rhythms that applied to our more difficult, classical pieces. Learning new things was more fun when it was to a familiar tune, and seeing it applied to classical music made it more accessible to the students who were unfamiliar with the complex beauty of Holst or Ticheli or whatever more classically styled music. The presence of pop music does not necessarily mean the absence of classical- a quarter note is a quarter note whether played on a clarinet in Souza or on a synthesizer by Mumford and Sons.
I think that the article did a good job of distinguishing and discussing how popular music is relevant to students and how it is important to culturally educate them. “Popular music is… created by and especially for, the enjoyment and enrichment of everyday people in their everyday lives.” (32) I think rings very true, but I also feel it unfairly separates classical lovers from popular fans. I think that it’s very possible and most likely that most people are a mixture of the two. Classical music appreciators are not a lofty, separate bunch from the dirty youth of popular music- classical music fans were and are most likely fans of music of their day as well. I think that popular, contemporary music is a temporary musical obsession that dwindles with time- with few outliers like the Beatles. Classical music has an ability to withstand the test of time, which the article touched on. I think that the biggest difference is that listening to contemporary music is for a catharsis, while creating classical music is a catharsis. Making contemporary music is a fleeting practice, offering instant gratification and the pieces pass. I think that this style of fleeting tastes is really good for teaching small steps- a new song every week teaching a small bite. On the other hand, classical music is so rich and it’s more difficult to teach the music and the concept at the same time- there is simply too much complexity for it to be practical. I do believe that both are necessary to a well-rounded musical education. (October 4, 2015)
Dolloff, L. (2015) A Quallunaaq on Baffin Island: A Canadian experience of decolonizing the teacher. Forthcoming In Bartleet, B.L., Bennett, D., Power, A. & Sunderland, N. (Eds.). Arts-based service learning with First Peoples – Towards respectful and mutually beneficial educational practices. NY: Springer Publishing.
I found the Dolloff article offered a very unique perspective on the cultural barriers facing the farthest Northern boundaries of our country. Dolloff offered a lot of insight to our inaccurate imaginings of the north, and I think that she did a wonderful job of making us as readers consider the harsh realities of these more isolated yet intimately connected regions. The section Imagined Arctic really challenged a lot of what I assumed about regions like Iqaluit, particularly the "White Female Teacher Arrives" part. I really like how she contrasted the romanticized notion of the heroine "is a wealthy woman who's job is to lift up the poor, uneducated masses, leading the, to the higher, more desirable 'civilized' state' (Dolloff, 5). Dolloff reproaches what I took as a commonly accepted notion that a) these people need our help, and b) these people want our help. I think that whenever European colonization happened way up North, it should have been asked if these people would be better off with us or without us. I think that the homogenizing of culture since the early 1400's is such a loss, but that was hundreds of years ago, and wisely Dolloff is focusing on what can be done to preserve "other" cultures today. Dolloff talks about how she sees kids in Iqaluit playing on iPads- obviously globalized
technology- yet working hard to retain their own culture. The quote" I was in fact in danger of recolonizing, of telling them how to be 'inuk'" (8) really challenges me: we as Westerners believe that multiculturalism is important, and I would agree that it is, but we also can't instill a people to return to their pre-colonized ways. It is up to individual to decide if they want to embrace their traditional culture or join the West or head down to Africa and pretend to be a Gorilla it is their choice. I think though, this begs if there is a "better" culture that we all should share: colonizers thought it was Christian capitalism, and we've seen the (mostly negative) repercussions of this belief. (November 8, 2015)
I found the Dolloff article offered a very unique perspective on the cultural barriers facing the farthest Northern boundaries of our country. Dolloff offered a lot of insight to our inaccurate imaginings of the north, and I think that she did a wonderful job of making us as readers consider the harsh realities of these more isolated yet intimately connected regions. The section Imagined Arctic really challenged a lot of what I assumed about regions like Iqaluit, particularly the "White Female Teacher Arrives" part. I really like how she contrasted the romanticized notion of the heroine "is a wealthy woman who's job is to lift up the poor, uneducated masses, leading the, to the higher, more desirable 'civilized' state' (Dolloff, 5). Dolloff reproaches what I took as a commonly accepted notion that a) these people need our help, and b) these people want our help. I think that whenever European colonization happened way up North, it should have been asked if these people would be better off with us or without us. I think that the homogenizing of culture since the early 1400's is such a loss, but that was hundreds of years ago, and wisely Dolloff is focusing on what can be done to preserve "other" cultures today. Dolloff talks about how she sees kids in Iqaluit playing on iPads- obviously globalized
technology- yet working hard to retain their own culture. The quote" I was in fact in danger of recolonizing, of telling them how to be 'inuk'" (8) really challenges me: we as Westerners believe that multiculturalism is important, and I would agree that it is, but we also can't instill a people to return to their pre-colonized ways. It is up to individual to decide if they want to embrace their traditional culture or join the West or head down to Africa and pretend to be a Gorilla it is their choice. I think though, this begs if there is a "better" culture that we all should share: colonizers thought it was Christian capitalism, and we've seen the (mostly negative) repercussions of this belief. (November 8, 2015)
Eisner, E. (1998). The kind of schools we need: Personal essays. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann
Eisner's article The kind of schools we need made some very insightful and relevant statements on the state of education in the current Western schooling. Eisner comments on the exclusivity of knowledge, and how only some types of knowledge and genius are valued in education, were really accurate to what my experience as a student has been. As a very humanities and arts focused student, my perceived worth in my school communities was less important than that of a maths or science focused student. The hierarchy of subjects creates not only discourse in the learning community, but neglects students of a well rounded education.
In the section of the article titled A Biological Basis for Thinking and Learning Eisner discusses how "Our culture regards language skills as important and defines intelligence as the ability to handle abstract, language-based tasks." (1998, p. 23). I think this all begs the question of does language define intelligence? Can one claim to understand without putting it into words? And is it truly possible to ever express our thoughts and understandings through words? I would claim that words never cease to fail their intention, that language disservices meaning by taking away some level of abstract comprehension and manipulates it into something else. Eisner goes on to say,
Our world is first a qualitative world. We are able to experience color, texture, smell, and sounds—qualities that permeate our world. Becoming conscious of that world or some aspect of it depends on a skilled and intact sensory system. We often do not think of the senses as being skilled; they just are there. However, the qualities of the world are not simply given to human experience, they must be won. Experience is not simply an act or vent, it is an achievement. We learn to see and hear.
I think educations job is not to make university professors or doctors or lawyers or astronauts or presidents. Education should be focused on teaching students how to think, give them a taste of science, math, music, language, drama and history. Teach the students how to think and they can teach themselves anything they want to know. Eisner's statement says we learn to see and hear, and it's imperative we teach students how to perceive in the world in innovative and constructive ways. (October 18, 2015)
Eisner's article The kind of schools we need made some very insightful and relevant statements on the state of education in the current Western schooling. Eisner comments on the exclusivity of knowledge, and how only some types of knowledge and genius are valued in education, were really accurate to what my experience as a student has been. As a very humanities and arts focused student, my perceived worth in my school communities was less important than that of a maths or science focused student. The hierarchy of subjects creates not only discourse in the learning community, but neglects students of a well rounded education.
In the section of the article titled A Biological Basis for Thinking and Learning Eisner discusses how "Our culture regards language skills as important and defines intelligence as the ability to handle abstract, language-based tasks." (1998, p. 23). I think this all begs the question of does language define intelligence? Can one claim to understand without putting it into words? And is it truly possible to ever express our thoughts and understandings through words? I would claim that words never cease to fail their intention, that language disservices meaning by taking away some level of abstract comprehension and manipulates it into something else. Eisner goes on to say,
Our world is first a qualitative world. We are able to experience color, texture, smell, and sounds—qualities that permeate our world. Becoming conscious of that world or some aspect of it depends on a skilled and intact sensory system. We often do not think of the senses as being skilled; they just are there. However, the qualities of the world are not simply given to human experience, they must be won. Experience is not simply an act or vent, it is an achievement. We learn to see and hear.
I think educations job is not to make university professors or doctors or lawyers or astronauts or presidents. Education should be focused on teaching students how to think, give them a taste of science, math, music, language, drama and history. Teach the students how to think and they can teach themselves anything they want to know. Eisner's statement says we learn to see and hear, and it's imperative we teach students how to perceive in the world in innovative and constructive ways. (October 18, 2015)
Hourigan, R. M. (2009). The invisible student: Understanding social identity construction within performing ensembles. Music Educators Journal,
I found "The invisible student: Understanding social identity construction within performing ensembles" distant and offered a lot of common sense. I come from a small highschool with a small band (45 people) and we were all very close. However there was some exclusion, but I don't think it was on purpose. Being from a small farming community, racial minorities were rare, as everyone was an European mutt or Dutch, but the one and only person of Asian heritage in the school was also in the band. I don't think we excluded him on purpose, and I think a part of it was him excluding himself because he felt like an outsider. We all partied together, and when us grade twelves graduated, we all went to prom together, and we did (rather half-heartedly) invite him, but he declined every time. There wasn't exclusion of individuals. My music teacher (Josh Geddis) was very proactive in encouraging and shaping a community centered by a love of music, and he encouraged us to include everyone.
I think calling he or she an "invisible" student isn't okay. I think it implies to a degree that they don't matter and they aren't a part of something. I think that being excluded in a band-setting is partially the "invisible" student's fault: in my experience, those excluded from smaller groups like clubs, teams, and particularly bands, feel they are 'too good' for everyone else, as opposed to not good enough, too different, or too shy to include themselves. By no means do I think this is the case every time, but in my experience it has been). I think that these "invisible" students, regardless of the circumstances of why they are apart from the majority, deserve more respect than a dehumanizing term like "invisible".
For the most part I think this article did a good job addressing and informing us of the needs of the unpopular individual, and I found the section of "Travel Suggestion" really informative and offered a lot of helpful tips on how to ensure inclusion when your band is isolated. Overall, I found this article one of the most 'real-world' oriented that we've read. (November 15, 2015)
After rereading this article and some further thought, I've come to recognize some fundamental flaws in my statements. "The invisible student" was an article that, I felt, ignored a lot of the fundamental and often intrinsic values and attitudes of band programs, a sentiment I poorly expressed in my above statements. I do not believe, in any of my experiences, that any ensemble I've been in has ever had an attitude of exclusion, by intent or by happenstance. The music culture is fundamentally inclusive- it's not a band without every part, it's not a song with just a melody. I can understand that in some circumstances, exclusion occurs. However, Hourigan gave off an impression that this exclusion is inevitable, a fundamental fault of being in a high school band program, and by absolutely no means do I agree with any of that. It is in the power of the teacher and entirely within their ability to make their students recognize that every single member, every part from first chair flute to the fourth alto-sax line is important, and the part is only as included as the person. (December 5, 2015)
I found "The invisible student: Understanding social identity construction within performing ensembles" distant and offered a lot of common sense. I come from a small highschool with a small band (45 people) and we were all very close. However there was some exclusion, but I don't think it was on purpose. Being from a small farming community, racial minorities were rare, as everyone was an European mutt or Dutch, but the one and only person of Asian heritage in the school was also in the band. I don't think we excluded him on purpose, and I think a part of it was him excluding himself because he felt like an outsider. We all partied together, and when us grade twelves graduated, we all went to prom together, and we did (rather half-heartedly) invite him, but he declined every time. There wasn't exclusion of individuals. My music teacher (Josh Geddis) was very proactive in encouraging and shaping a community centered by a love of music, and he encouraged us to include everyone.
I think calling he or she an "invisible" student isn't okay. I think it implies to a degree that they don't matter and they aren't a part of something. I think that being excluded in a band-setting is partially the "invisible" student's fault: in my experience, those excluded from smaller groups like clubs, teams, and particularly bands, feel they are 'too good' for everyone else, as opposed to not good enough, too different, or too shy to include themselves. By no means do I think this is the case every time, but in my experience it has been). I think that these "invisible" students, regardless of the circumstances of why they are apart from the majority, deserve more respect than a dehumanizing term like "invisible".
For the most part I think this article did a good job addressing and informing us of the needs of the unpopular individual, and I found the section of "Travel Suggestion" really informative and offered a lot of helpful tips on how to ensure inclusion when your band is isolated. Overall, I found this article one of the most 'real-world' oriented that we've read. (November 15, 2015)
After rereading this article and some further thought, I've come to recognize some fundamental flaws in my statements. "The invisible student" was an article that, I felt, ignored a lot of the fundamental and often intrinsic values and attitudes of band programs, a sentiment I poorly expressed in my above statements. I do not believe, in any of my experiences, that any ensemble I've been in has ever had an attitude of exclusion, by intent or by happenstance. The music culture is fundamentally inclusive- it's not a band without every part, it's not a song with just a melody. I can understand that in some circumstances, exclusion occurs. However, Hourigan gave off an impression that this exclusion is inevitable, a fundamental fault of being in a high school band program, and by absolutely no means do I agree with any of that. It is in the power of the teacher and entirely within their ability to make their students recognize that every single member, every part from first chair flute to the fourth alto-sax line is important, and the part is only as included as the person. (December 5, 2015)
Hickey, M. (2009) Can improvisation be 'taught'?: A call for free improvisation in our schools. International Journal of Music Education, 27: 285-298.
doi: 10.1177/0255761409345442
I found the Hickey article "Can improvisation be 'taught'?: A call for free improvisation in our schools" rather frustrating. I agreed with a lot of what Hickey said regarding education, particularly regarding the education systems preference for the transmission model as opposed to enculturation- in all, I agreed with the information and theories he presented, but disagreed with what they meant. I thought there was a lot of merit in his proposing that there is a linguistic impossibility for spontaneity in the transmission model, making something like improvisation impossible, but I did not agree. While it seems impossible, by definition, for something as personal and seemingly random as improvisation to be transferred from the mind of the teacher to the student, I have seen it happen and it's amazing how when two separate minds and imaginations can come together, and how the student can take what the teacher has set as quasi-guidelines "meant to be broken" and create something unique and meaningful out of it. Hickey argues that this is not "true-improvisation" as he would consider it "imitation of the teacher's mind" (289) rather than true improv. I disagree with this, as Hickey suggests "[l]earning by listening to and copying recordings" (288), which is as much of a teaching method- how is copying Miles Davis any different than copying your music teacher? In either circumstance the student gleans what they like and builds from there creating their own individual voice.
I found the section "Improvisation in School Music" particularly vague and frustrating. Hickey quoted Satis Coleman's work in the mid 20th-century. Coleman found that children at preschool age can improvize and make music. I'm not going to disagree with this, but how does one define improvisation? Can it be just any sound emitted from a musical instrument? Does it need to make musical sense? We all have heard awful jazz solos, but, can they be argued as bad or just not what we're used to hearing? Is there a right or a wrong way to improv? I would argue there is objectively a wrong way to improvize: improvisation should have an idea of what key, meter and feel there is, and there should be some order or organization to improvisation. Given, key, meter and feel can and should develop and change, but there should be some coherency to it. I would argue that there is a vague line between random noise and improvisation- and that random noise isn't improv and, more importantly, improv is not random noise.
I think Hickey agrees somewhat with the sentiment of improv vs. noise, as he asks rhetorically at the end of the article
"to respond to the environment through free improvisation. How does one learn skills without hampering freedom? Is it possible to be free without skills? These are the necessary questions for educators to ask when hoping to nurture a creative improvisation disposition." (292)
I think what Hickey is trying to say is that there is no right or wrong answer, that there is no definite line between random, senseless noise and improvisation. Hickey, however, also presents that this might just be our Western-tradition ears dictating that out of our tradition-sound is wrong, and so is music ever bad or is it just something our ears aren't used to?
I really like how Hickey closes the article, asking "How might music educators enable, rather than inhibit, a disposition of freedom and creativity and intuition of music improvisation?" (298). I think that's really important, because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if it's taught or learned, or Spock mind-melded. What matters is that students are able to express themselves through music. (October 25, 2015)
doi: 10.1177/0255761409345442
I found the Hickey article "Can improvisation be 'taught'?: A call for free improvisation in our schools" rather frustrating. I agreed with a lot of what Hickey said regarding education, particularly regarding the education systems preference for the transmission model as opposed to enculturation- in all, I agreed with the information and theories he presented, but disagreed with what they meant. I thought there was a lot of merit in his proposing that there is a linguistic impossibility for spontaneity in the transmission model, making something like improvisation impossible, but I did not agree. While it seems impossible, by definition, for something as personal and seemingly random as improvisation to be transferred from the mind of the teacher to the student, I have seen it happen and it's amazing how when two separate minds and imaginations can come together, and how the student can take what the teacher has set as quasi-guidelines "meant to be broken" and create something unique and meaningful out of it. Hickey argues that this is not "true-improvisation" as he would consider it "imitation of the teacher's mind" (289) rather than true improv. I disagree with this, as Hickey suggests "[l]earning by listening to and copying recordings" (288), which is as much of a teaching method- how is copying Miles Davis any different than copying your music teacher? In either circumstance the student gleans what they like and builds from there creating their own individual voice.
I found the section "Improvisation in School Music" particularly vague and frustrating. Hickey quoted Satis Coleman's work in the mid 20th-century. Coleman found that children at preschool age can improvize and make music. I'm not going to disagree with this, but how does one define improvisation? Can it be just any sound emitted from a musical instrument? Does it need to make musical sense? We all have heard awful jazz solos, but, can they be argued as bad or just not what we're used to hearing? Is there a right or a wrong way to improv? I would argue there is objectively a wrong way to improvize: improvisation should have an idea of what key, meter and feel there is, and there should be some order or organization to improvisation. Given, key, meter and feel can and should develop and change, but there should be some coherency to it. I would argue that there is a vague line between random noise and improvisation- and that random noise isn't improv and, more importantly, improv is not random noise.
I think Hickey agrees somewhat with the sentiment of improv vs. noise, as he asks rhetorically at the end of the article
"to respond to the environment through free improvisation. How does one learn skills without hampering freedom? Is it possible to be free without skills? These are the necessary questions for educators to ask when hoping to nurture a creative improvisation disposition." (292)
I think what Hickey is trying to say is that there is no right or wrong answer, that there is no definite line between random, senseless noise and improvisation. Hickey, however, also presents that this might just be our Western-tradition ears dictating that out of our tradition-sound is wrong, and so is music ever bad or is it just something our ears aren't used to?
I really like how Hickey closes the article, asking "How might music educators enable, rather than inhibit, a disposition of freedom and creativity and intuition of music improvisation?" (298). I think that's really important, because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if it's taught or learned, or Spock mind-melded. What matters is that students are able to express themselves through music. (October 25, 2015)
Kratus, J. (2007). Music education at the tipping point. Music Educators Journal, 94(2), 42-48.
doi: 10.1177/002743210709400209
In this reflection, I will outline some of my ponderings, comments, and thoughts on the article “Music education at the tipping point” by J. Kratus. The article opens by making reference to the book The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, by Malcolm Gladwell. I have actually read that book two or three times, and I really liked how Kratus applied Gladwell’s thesis to his own, as it gave context to the connectors, Mavens and the overall phenomenon of the social epidemic. Music education, according to the article, is floundering because it is not staying relevant in today's culture, loosing its importance to the youth who are supposed to be educated by this seemingly antiquated system. This estrangement of youth to classical music education was caused by a widespread rejection and trivialization of classical studies, particularly that of music. I don’t believe that students are willing to put in the hours and the incredible effort required to master an instrument especially to what they consider an outdated and antiquated genre they couldn’t care less about. Kratus agrees, saying “considering the small audience for classical... music and the enormous amount of effort it takes to get a single good tone… is there any wonder that twelve-year olds are not jumping at the chance to play it?” (Kratus, 2007).
Music education breached a tipping point, where the youth who found the traditional approach to studying what they considered irrelevant became those who informed the funding and curriculum of music education. One generation’s negligence of music education set in motion the gradual downfall that has left music education where it is today. “Fully one-half of the schools surveyed employed at least one music teacher who did not possess a provincial teaching certificate in music, sapping the professionalism of the teaching profession” remarks Kratus, and I feel that under-education of music educators comes from this now generations long disregard for classical music education.
I think that this cultural rejection of classical music studies can be resolved. I think that music educators need to take initiative and teach students not just the curriculum, but how it is relevant and interesting in their lives. Kratus remarks “Research suggests that adolescents in the United States listen to music an average two to four hours per day”, and I think this love of music can be transferred to classical music study by explaining the theory behind the music so students can see the relationship between their favourite songs and the music of years past. (September 20, 2015)
doi: 10.1177/002743210709400209
In this reflection, I will outline some of my ponderings, comments, and thoughts on the article “Music education at the tipping point” by J. Kratus. The article opens by making reference to the book The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, by Malcolm Gladwell. I have actually read that book two or three times, and I really liked how Kratus applied Gladwell’s thesis to his own, as it gave context to the connectors, Mavens and the overall phenomenon of the social epidemic. Music education, according to the article, is floundering because it is not staying relevant in today's culture, loosing its importance to the youth who are supposed to be educated by this seemingly antiquated system. This estrangement of youth to classical music education was caused by a widespread rejection and trivialization of classical studies, particularly that of music. I don’t believe that students are willing to put in the hours and the incredible effort required to master an instrument especially to what they consider an outdated and antiquated genre they couldn’t care less about. Kratus agrees, saying “considering the small audience for classical... music and the enormous amount of effort it takes to get a single good tone… is there any wonder that twelve-year olds are not jumping at the chance to play it?” (Kratus, 2007).
Music education breached a tipping point, where the youth who found the traditional approach to studying what they considered irrelevant became those who informed the funding and curriculum of music education. One generation’s negligence of music education set in motion the gradual downfall that has left music education where it is today. “Fully one-half of the schools surveyed employed at least one music teacher who did not possess a provincial teaching certificate in music, sapping the professionalism of the teaching profession” remarks Kratus, and I feel that under-education of music educators comes from this now generations long disregard for classical music education.
I think that this cultural rejection of classical music studies can be resolved. I think that music educators need to take initiative and teach students not just the curriculum, but how it is relevant and interesting in their lives. Kratus remarks “Research suggests that adolescents in the United States listen to music an average two to four hours per day”, and I think this love of music can be transferred to classical music study by explaining the theory behind the music so students can see the relationship between their favourite songs and the music of years past. (September 20, 2015)
Serres, D. Think Everything’s “Normal?” Then It’s Time To Reconsider And Promote A New Narrative Of Disability. Retrieved from http://organizingchange.org/think-everythings-normal-then-its-time-to-reconsider-and-promote-a-new-narrative-of-disability/
I think this article opened up a lot of misconceptions about what normalcy is, and what being disabled means and what disability means to those who have it. The quote "James Charlton writes that the worst forms of disability representations “are the telethons ‘for. crippled people, especially, poor, pathetic, crippled children…In the U.S. surveys have shown that more people form attitudes about disabilities from telethons than from any other source.” (Serres, Think Everything’s “Normal?”) is really depressing- I think of telethons and I think of celebrities advocating for orphaned pets, and it really upsets me that society has given peoples with disabilities as animals. In the section titled "language" in which Serres talks about the different actions that can be taken to help the unfairness of the situation, Serres talks about how Disability is an Identity. I disagree with this: I have a lot of people in my family who can be (and are) labeled as "disabled" (my Aunt Diane is deaf, cousin Jeff is nonverbal and in a wheelchair, and 3 or 4 cousins who have been placed throughout the autism spectrum), and none of them view it as an identity- it's a part of who they are, not something they can distance from themselves. The article is really vague in the first paragraph, but I think that Serres has it wrong. Disability is the same as having brown hair or being tall. Just because it's a part of who they are, it doesn't mean it's who they are. My Aunt Diane could choose to hide her deafness in public by using headphone or ignoring people, but she chooses not to. “Disability is not a brave struggle or ‘courage in the face of adversity.’ Disability is an art. It’s an ingenious way to live.” (Serres) I also disagree with this, as I agree that disabilities should not be glorified, as a "brave struggle" or anything like that, but I also think that it shouldn't be made out that these people are "normal". Everyone is unique and special and we shouldn't call them "equals"- nobody is equal. Everyone is a different number, but the numbers are meaningless which makes us all the same in our obscurity of numbers. (November 15, 2015)
I think this article opened up a lot of misconceptions about what normalcy is, and what being disabled means and what disability means to those who have it. The quote "James Charlton writes that the worst forms of disability representations “are the telethons ‘for. crippled people, especially, poor, pathetic, crippled children…In the U.S. surveys have shown that more people form attitudes about disabilities from telethons than from any other source.” (Serres, Think Everything’s “Normal?”) is really depressing- I think of telethons and I think of celebrities advocating for orphaned pets, and it really upsets me that society has given peoples with disabilities as animals. In the section titled "language" in which Serres talks about the different actions that can be taken to help the unfairness of the situation, Serres talks about how Disability is an Identity. I disagree with this: I have a lot of people in my family who can be (and are) labeled as "disabled" (my Aunt Diane is deaf, cousin Jeff is nonverbal and in a wheelchair, and 3 or 4 cousins who have been placed throughout the autism spectrum), and none of them view it as an identity- it's a part of who they are, not something they can distance from themselves. The article is really vague in the first paragraph, but I think that Serres has it wrong. Disability is the same as having brown hair or being tall. Just because it's a part of who they are, it doesn't mean it's who they are. My Aunt Diane could choose to hide her deafness in public by using headphone or ignoring people, but she chooses not to. “Disability is not a brave struggle or ‘courage in the face of adversity.’ Disability is an art. It’s an ingenious way to live.” (Serres) I also disagree with this, as I agree that disabilities should not be glorified, as a "brave struggle" or anything like that, but I also think that it shouldn't be made out that these people are "normal". Everyone is unique and special and we shouldn't call them "equals"- nobody is equal. Everyone is a different number, but the numbers are meaningless which makes us all the same in our obscurity of numbers. (November 15, 2015)
Tobias, E. S. (2013). Toward convergence: Adapting music education to contemporary society and participatory culture. Music Educators Journal,99(4), 29-36. doi: 10.1177/0027432113483318
I really enjoyed Evan Tobias' article about how music is infused in culture and young people beyond basic learning and performance. I think Tobias honed in on some very important relationships occurring between young peoples, technology and music. The table of page 30 of the article did a very effective job of communicating all of the ways we of the internet generation participate and contribute in music and technology as opposed to consume and simply experience it. My generation is at the forefront of this movement, with technology in the home and the internet being widely available being introduced just as I was in my childhood. I remember having dial-up internet, and having to rewind VHS movies before returning them to the library, but technology progressions like VHS to DVD, to Blu-ray to Netflix have all happened in the formative years of my youth. My relationship to technology is entirely different than my parents and that of my little brothers, who have never known the world without smart-phones and 1480p Youtube streaming. I think that this relationship with technology and our acceptance of rapid change influences every aspect of my generations lives, with our creativity and need to have something new always influencing how we listen to and create music. Tobias does a very effective job of addressing this issue, offering suggestions to potential educators on how to interweave curriculum expectations with what students are interested in.
Tobias offers a lot of insight into how to take this culture of young peoples and turning into educative learning. "Having students reinterpret composers’ music through new aesthetic sensibilities and share the results with others can occur along with, rather than in place of, learning and performing original music created by composers or themselves" (Tobias, Toward convergence), is one of the many examples he offers to his readers as a suggestion for enacting this cultural shift. I really liked this suggestion, because it's a perfect marriage of what many curriculum insist (classical music,) and what's truly relevant to the student. It's so important today for us as (hopeful) and current educators to addressee this changing attitude towards music as a changing, adaptable and technological thing and not just a classical practice repeated today for antiquities sake. "Becoming aware of how people interact with music can inform how we design projects and opportunities for students in music classes and ensembles," (Kratus). (November 1, 2015)
I really enjoyed Evan Tobias' article about how music is infused in culture and young people beyond basic learning and performance. I think Tobias honed in on some very important relationships occurring between young peoples, technology and music. The table of page 30 of the article did a very effective job of communicating all of the ways we of the internet generation participate and contribute in music and technology as opposed to consume and simply experience it. My generation is at the forefront of this movement, with technology in the home and the internet being widely available being introduced just as I was in my childhood. I remember having dial-up internet, and having to rewind VHS movies before returning them to the library, but technology progressions like VHS to DVD, to Blu-ray to Netflix have all happened in the formative years of my youth. My relationship to technology is entirely different than my parents and that of my little brothers, who have never known the world without smart-phones and 1480p Youtube streaming. I think that this relationship with technology and our acceptance of rapid change influences every aspect of my generations lives, with our creativity and need to have something new always influencing how we listen to and create music. Tobias does a very effective job of addressing this issue, offering suggestions to potential educators on how to interweave curriculum expectations with what students are interested in.
Tobias offers a lot of insight into how to take this culture of young peoples and turning into educative learning. "Having students reinterpret composers’ music through new aesthetic sensibilities and share the results with others can occur along with, rather than in place of, learning and performing original music created by composers or themselves" (Tobias, Toward convergence), is one of the many examples he offers to his readers as a suggestion for enacting this cultural shift. I really liked this suggestion, because it's a perfect marriage of what many curriculum insist (classical music,) and what's truly relevant to the student. It's so important today for us as (hopeful) and current educators to addressee this changing attitude towards music as a changing, adaptable and technological thing and not just a classical practice repeated today for antiquities sake. "Becoming aware of how people interact with music can inform how we design projects and opportunities for students in music classes and ensembles," (Kratus). (November 1, 2015)
Veblen, K.K. (2012). Community music making: Challenging the stereotypes of traditional music education. In C.A. Beynon & K.K. Veblen (Eds.). Critical perspectives in Canadian music education. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
I really enjoyed this article about Community Music and the importance of groups and being in communities of like-minded individuals. I really liked how it talked about all the Context and Structures in Canadian Community Music, and I think it really honed in on how music is for everyone, from religious groups to prison inmates to babies and their mothers. I think it's very important for us to realize as potential music educators to realize we can teach outside of the classroom, and that everyone benefits from being able to make their own music. I think it's easy for us to get fixated on the classroom, and forget about programs like MYC and The Prisons Arts Coalition, which are incredibly viable and rewarding forms of employment.
On page 129, Veblen talks about the funding of programs. I think the article did a good job of informing how the vast majority of these programs kept the lights on. I think that the fact that volunteers are keeping these integral programs running is incredibly noble and doesn't limit the creative vibes by giving all the decision making and creative power to the most monetarily viable option but what is going to keep volunteers showing up and what is best for the program. The fact that programs like this take minimal government funding shows the willpower of these programs to keep doing what they're doing, and to be able to run them as they fit without government intervention. I also really like how CM is separate from what we consider traditional education, which gives music education a different, less traditional approach to sharing the joy of music with everyone (October 12, 2015)
I really enjoyed this article about Community Music and the importance of groups and being in communities of like-minded individuals. I really liked how it talked about all the Context and Structures in Canadian Community Music, and I think it really honed in on how music is for everyone, from religious groups to prison inmates to babies and their mothers. I think it's very important for us to realize as potential music educators to realize we can teach outside of the classroom, and that everyone benefits from being able to make their own music. I think it's easy for us to get fixated on the classroom, and forget about programs like MYC and The Prisons Arts Coalition, which are incredibly viable and rewarding forms of employment.
On page 129, Veblen talks about the funding of programs. I think the article did a good job of informing how the vast majority of these programs kept the lights on. I think that the fact that volunteers are keeping these integral programs running is incredibly noble and doesn't limit the creative vibes by giving all the decision making and creative power to the most monetarily viable option but what is going to keep volunteers showing up and what is best for the program. The fact that programs like this take minimal government funding shows the willpower of these programs to keep doing what they're doing, and to be able to run them as they fit without government intervention. I also really like how CM is separate from what we consider traditional education, which gives music education a different, less traditional approach to sharing the joy of music with everyone (October 12, 2015)