The “culture of normalcy” is something that I feel like every individual fights with, disability or not. I think it is very important to have this conversation, because first year university students are especially prone to this perpetuation. I have many friends who used first year as an opportunity to start over in a new place, and be “better” than they were before. However, this can easily be confused for being “better” than others. People will turn away from things that they deem “not good enough,” and this is usually tied to prevailing mindsets of our society, or what we consider “normal.” This leads people to question what an actions effect on other people’s opinions of them will be rather than simply questioning the outcome of the action. Why should you stop yourself from doing something that you want simply because it’s not normal? This does indeed impact the way we view those with disabilities. People not living up to the skewed aspiration of “normal” that is portrayed by the media must somehow feel lesser or are suffering in some way. This perpetuates the social obligation to feel sympathetic or paternal to those with disabilities in order to be seen as considerate by others (an example of questioning opinions rather than actions), however it is the least productive thing to do for someone with a disability. They are capable of living life as they see fit, and having pity for them or lifting them up as inspiration is stigmatizing and othering. It is society’s intention of doing right by those with disabilities that isolates these individuals and makes them feel like they need to be “taken care of.” While the medical industry does have its flaws, I believe there is a reason why doctors try to “fix” patients with disabilities. Many, if left untreated, can cause long term problems that could be easily avoided. In the case of mental illness, it is hard to say what is considered a disability and what isn’t, or how exactly it is identified. I do agree that mental illness is over-diagnosed, because in many cases where an individual is diagnosed with something, they submit to it and let it take over, whereas if they didn’t know, they could potentially suppress it unconsciously.
Hourigan, R. M. (2009). The invisible student: Understanding social identity construction within performing ensembles. Music Educators Journal, 34-38.
Social Responsibility and Identity In Ensembles As someone who wants to teach at the high school level, this article offered me many things to think about. A lot of people don't really think about the fact that the emotional quality of music that an ensemble creates is correlated to the atmosphere and synergy within the ensemble. This is something that is dictated by the band director. They need to be involved in the students’ relationships with music, but also with each other. This ties back to being a peer learner along with the students, where it is easier to become involved with the ensemble on a personal level, rather than being the teacher who is disengaged with their students. If the teacher is merely a teacher and doesn’t learn about their students, it allows students to form social hierarchies within the ensemble. High school students are probably most at risk for this. While I agree that the music classroom should be inclusive and focused on acceptance, I do not wholeheartedly agree with some of the author’s suggestions for achieving this atmosphere. I believe that things such as peer teaching can be helpful; however, in the music classroom and among high school students, I believe this can further the social hierarchy due to the large range in skill of music students. Students that are less experienced may feel a lack of worth to the ensemble if they are being corrected by their peers (which is exactly what the article is trying to address), and the more advanced students may start to feel a sense of superiority. Peer teaching is something that is better suited for university students or other subject areas where students are on a more level playing field. I think that students need to be engaged in discussion with each other about something, rather than having them teach each other something definite. Get them to discuss how they interact with music or how they perceive something about the world, that way students can share things about themselves that are unique and cannot be “corrected.” One thing that we’ve been doing in class that should be modeled in every classroom is that it is every students’ responsibility to include everyone in conversation. The atmosphere and the dynamic of the classroom is completely dependent on the band director, and every effort must be taken to ensure that every student feels a sense of belonging and purpose in the band.
Redefining How Students Talk About Music Rose and Countryman’s article Repositioning ‘The Elements’: How Students Talk about Music shares some very interesting ideas about change in music pedagogy. The main argument in this essay is that the elements of music are taught in an oppressive manner, and its framework extinguishes creativity and individuality in the way we perceive music. I had always considered how different music was conceptually to most other academic subjects, but I had never really thought about how similarly it was taught. The elements were introduced as a way of teaching in the 1950s, around the time that music education was centered around European Art music. I believe it was a way of blurring the pedagogical lines between music and other subject areas, and putting it in rigid terms. However, the article makes an interesting point in that the framework of the elements is most effective in a western art music context, and not necessarily any other styles. This is because these elements are the things that Western European culture values most in music, so it is less accurate to analyze anything other western art music under the lens of the elements of music. While it does stifle creativity and individuality, the article also says that this is the reason why so many students like they aren’t musical in the conventional sense of the word, and that there should be more emphasis on students relationships with music and how it affects their lives. I do not completely agree with this statement. I believe that music that is taught in school must be handled as an academic subject. While there is much merit and benefit in having students talk about the more “feely” parts of music, the Eurocentric nature and lack of diversity in western art canon makes it difficult for students to connect to the music in the first place. Even if the canon was expanded to encompass many more styles, we must still strive to talk about it in an objective manner. If the study of music becomes too much about individuality and subjectivity it will be more of an outlet for emotion than a subject of higher thought, which I believe will in some cases further alienate certain students that have extreme experiences but also alienate students that have a genuine interest in the academic aspects of music. This is also reflected in their final thoughts, where they state that listening sessions conducted in this manner were powerful for students, although it begs the question of whether they learned anything about music as a subject as opposed to learning about themselves (which is just as important). I personally believe that the elements of music should still dominate as a framework for listening to music because it is a simplified way of analyzing music that can be applied to other styles of music with re-understanding, but that there should be separate classes in expression to allow students to draw upon their own creativity to manipulate and connect the elements however they interpret a piece.
References Rose, L., & Countryman, J. (2013). Repositioning ‘The Elements’: How Students Talk about Music. Action, Criticism & Theory for Music Education,12(3), 45-64. Retrieved January 14, 2017.
Fumbling Towards Vulnerability: Moving Out of the Familiar for Music Education's Sake This is an interesting follow up to last week’s article. Viewing music pedagogy through vulnerability in the classroom and on stage provides good insight on how music pedagogy is experienced by the student, and also raises some questions. Everyone experiences vulnerability when they are performing for even one person, be that a friend, a stranger off the street, or a teacher in the classroom.
The teacher isn’t supposed to feel the same vulnerability as the student because they should be good enough to teach subject and therefore confident in their abilities. However, this creates disconnect between performer and audience which, in my opinion, might transfer to other audiences. I think the solution to this (and what this article touches) is that we need redefine what the word teacher means to many people. If you talk at someone, they either won’t be invested in what you have to say or they will feel oppressed by you, whether it is conscious or not. If you talk to them, which means engaging them in the conversation, they will feel like they have something to offer to you. The best way to do this is to use more creative processes and activities. When both student and teacher are creating things, there is opportunity for input from the student with less fear of being “wrong.”
This is similar to the kinds of exercises done in drama classes, where one must engage in order to make the activity meaningful, but this also leads me to believe that there are students who don’t enjoy that style of learning, and in that kind of classroom atmosphere, the students that are left out feel much more disconnected than in a typical classroom. However, if the teacher is able to make the effort to make these students more welcome in this style of classroom, it could be beneficial for these students to be exposed to another learning style. If the teacher is willing to be wrong in the pursuit of knowledge themselves, they become more of a guide than a dictator, and these students would probably feel more inclined to join the conversation, even if it’s only with the teacher.
References Dawe, L. (2016). Fumbling Towards Vulnerability: Moving Out of the Familiar for Music Education’s Sake, Canadian Music Educator, (57)2, pp.22-24
Tobias, E. S. (2013). Toward Convergence Adapting Music Education to Contemporary Society and Participatory Culture. Music Educators Journal, 99(4), 29-36. Music and how it is engaged with has changed very rapidly over the past couple days with advances in technology, namely the internet and the availability of music production software. I think it is important to incorporate these modern practices into our K-12 programs; however, I believe that there are concerns regarding the feasibility of implementing the resources but also imparting relevant knowledge of these subjects to students. Having taken an electronic music production course in high school, it became clear to me that it would be difficult to find teachers that have the knowledge necessary to teach students about these very practical skills. Producers and audio technicians are in demand even in the music industry, and finding teachers with skills in contemporary music making and classical music training are very rare. I am partially of the mind that even though they are connected in the fact that they both deal with music, they are almost two completely different arts and skillsets. Being able to manipulate production software is similar to an instrument in the fact that you have to become familiar with it by practicing and experimenting; however, there is a divide in that modern music making methods require you to be technologically educated and are responsible for things like processing chains, routing. These concepts are something that can be difficult to communicate to students due to their complexity. This leads me to believe that if the curriculum is to be spread amongst these other subjects, I would also question the possible depth of knowledge that is attainable, let alone the already (in my opinion) shallow teachings of K-12 music programs in certain areas. Another complication is that of the technology used, as some of the programs can be very expensive along with ipads, microphones, audio interfaces, etc. That being said, this is the kind of teacher I aspire to be, with the skills to be able to reconcile old and new musical thoughts and practices. Perhaps there are others like me, who are willing to take on the challenge of learning enough about both sides of music to be able to teach them coherently and simultaneously.
Thibeault, M. D. (2012). The power of limits and the pleasure of games: An easy and fun piano duo improvisation. General Music Today, 1048371311435523. I believe there is much merit in framing things as games, especially in such a practical thing like music. The joy of playing a game is something that people don’t really grow out of, and this is a game that could be applied to anywhere from K-12. Games like these (with variations) also encourage progressive learning, which is similar to the way typical classes are structured - with each concept building upon the last. This game in particular emphasis and provides a framework for teaching the difficult skill of improvisation. Many times, when students are first asked to improvise, they are simply told to use notes that are in key and to emphasize chord tones. To students, this sounds easy enough, however it encourages fairly random improvisation where the student remains comfortable in the fact that as long as they don’t play outside the scale then they have created something improvisational. While they are not “wrong” in their improvisations, they aren’t being encouraged to make conscious musical decisions based on the notes that came before. The exercise that we did with Dr. Watson, gradually introducing notes of the pentatonic scale and getting comfortable with them one by one, is a better way of encouraging students to listen to themselves (which was hard with the setting we were in), but the advantage of a game like this is that students are cooperating with each other and learning to listen to others while they are improvising, which removes the authority barrier between teacher and student. It also incorporates the entire major scale (and modes in the variations), which allows students to be familiar with the sound of all tonal centers. The other difference between these exercises is also the fact that students are not reluctant to follow the rules of the game, where they might be in a classroom exercise. This also encourages students who are usually shy and afraid of making mistakes less anxious about making music in front of their peers.
Good vs Bad Teaching
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIXeigW0t1E
https://youtu.be/iCNdFVOt4M4
The first video is an explanation of the teaching ideal currently embodied by many teachers in the public school system. It may have benefits in other subject areas, but it puts the focus on the teacher, which in music is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. The second video is footage from my vocal methods class last semester (holy beard) taught by Jennifer Moir. This was an exercise in analyzing my own performance, where I was guided by a teachers observations but was free to share my thoughts before I got feedback from someone else. This allowed me to be more comfortable both when performing and communicating with my teacher due to the fact that the thinking and inquiry was done mostly by me, the person who experienced it, in opposition to a traditional perennial style of teaching where the teacher would simply dictate what the student did and did not do without asking the student to analyze their own performance or give them the chance to point out their flaws.
Guest Lectures
Guest Lecture: Dr. Hopkins on Music Education
I was very intrigued by Dr. Hopkins approach to music pedagogy. His theories and ideas about method books and curricula helped strengthen the notion that our music classes need to be more engaged and inquisitive, going beyond the curriculum and into the lives of students and how they experience music. Everyone is inherently musical, whether they know it or not. A lot of teachers spend too much time on things that are natural to people. Yes, it is helpful to understand that there is a time signature and that note values are important, but playing a whole note for one bar and resting for one bar over and over again (as in many method books) doesn’t really develop any musical skills. The good thing about method books is that they give linear progressive exercises. However the problem with these exercises is that there is no room for creative thinking and student inquiry. Students don’t learn how to become autonomous and self-aware if their decisions about music are being made for them. It also doesn’t allow the teacher to control the way the students learn. Every beginning musician has different needs and learning styles, and something that can’t be taught by a method book is phrasing. This results in many students becoming very robotic players that only play notes and rhythms. If they are studying things they enjoy, they will have much more motivation to make it sound good. There are ways to teach beginning musicians that will result in greater enthusiasm, work ethic, and progress. Students enjoy music more when they are creating it or they are studying a piece they recognize, and too much emphasis is placed on the conservatory practices and the elements of music. This doesn’t teach students how to create or improvise on their instruments, which are some of the most important skills that a musician could develop.
Dr. Ruth Wright: Developing musical skills using popular music as a guide. This class was well outside the norm of music pedagogy in schools. We began by talking about how some students, who contest that music is a big part of their lives, are disengaged with music classes. We attributed this to the fact that there was too big an emphasis on rigorous methods of learning rather than on enjoyment and expression. Students are rarely asked to compose music or to improvise in the classroom; instead, they are simply asked to play the notes on the page they are given. The fact that many students consider music the least useful subject they learn in school is a testament to how music classes are not touching on the critical facets of music that make it so fulfilling (autonomy, composition, group performance, etc.). The work we did next with our groups was very interesting, and most importantly it was enjoyable and educational. Using nothing but our ears to work out ways to arrange pop songs ended up teaching us a lot about texture, instrumentation, meter, rhythm, and listening to each other (something rarely emphasized in music classes since everyone usually follows the conductor) in a way that a page could never do. Being able to experiment with the music without being fed the knowledge by a method book allowed us to discover things and then work out the theory afterwards, rather than trying to wrap our heads around all the details of the academia that could’ve potentially limited us.
Dr. Kevin Watson: Learning jazz improvisation through call and response and listening Dr. Watson’s visit was very engaging as a student. Improvisation and composition is something that is not touched on in a lot of schools, especially the former. Developing the ability to make conscious musical decisions while improvising is something that not many students can do, simply because they know the key signature and figure any notes in that key will work. This creates a seemingly random performance is, although tonal, incoherent with itself and the song. However, by introducing notes one by one and “trading solos” as we did with Dr. Watson, we begin to discover how the pitches relate to each other and patterns that tend to sound consistent. There was also no mention of what pitches we were using until the end of the exercise, which made us more focused on the sound of the note rather than the note names and staying in key. This is representative of what makes a conscious musician, whose first criteria for composition and improvisation should be their ear. The one thing about Dr. Watson’s exercise that I did not agree with was the individual solos. Since this concept was new to many of us, I think it would’ve been beneficial if we had some time to experiment on our own and a few more classes like this before being asked to solo for an audience (if this were an elementary or high school classroom). For many students, performing is one of the hardest things to do in music, and having to perform something after having just learned it, be it a piece or a concept is one of the most nerve-racking things to do. This can also establish a sense of elitism among the students who are more familiar or proficient at certain skills.