Thought from July 2

Hey everyone, sorry it has taken me so long to get connected here, but better late than never. here are some thoughts from the reading earlier in the week

Mark, Michael

Although this reading seemed mostly like a historical non biased account of the history of music education there were lines which stood out to me as problematic.
One is at the very beginning when Mark says that music and music making declines when the living environment worsens. I cant help but think of great music that has come from troubled times- Shostakovich in Russia, slave songs, songs coming out of the Vietnam era. These were all troubled times that brought great music.

Another problematic line is on page 10 saying more of less- Little of the music American’s listen to is music which music educators would hope they would listen to. - This is not true- is it? As a music educator it matters very little to me whether my students are listening to Bach or Mozart in their spare time. I am more concerned with how they are engaging with the music they are listening. How does it effect them and how does it relate to their world. Why does Mark assume otherwise?

Also as a side bar: In the section where Mark speaks about changes that need to occur with the educators he says that teachers should take less pedagogy classes and more content classes (1983 Educational Quality Project) and that teachers should be paid more in order to attract “better” teachers. This is problematic! I think it is wrong to assume that more money will attract better teachers. I wanted to be a teacher. It is what I felt I was called to do- money had little impact on my decision. Of course I would not mind getting paid more- who would- but I don’t think I would feel comfortable as a student knowing that my teacher was only teaching because teachers were getting paid more. It makes me think of what Joel Klein is purposing in NYC with principles. He is starting a program which would recognize “exceptional” principles- give them an award and a monetary sum- one for the school and one for their own use. Why? What constitutes one principal being better than another? I think I am getting off on a further tangent than I hoped but this is problematic. Teaching is not a job or a career, it is bigger than that.

In Chapter 2 of the Mark it stood out to me that he mentions, I think it is a Louis Wersen quote, that mentions something like sometimes it is important to stay out of the way of students and allow them to do their own thing. It sort of reminds me of the medical field where one of the principals is “do no harm.” I had never really considered it in the education field. I know that we are supposed to allow students to be independent thinkers a la Dewey’s ideas but the idea of staying out of the students way seemed interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fowler

As for the Fowler reading I found it interesting that he seems to speak so strongly on music disappearing. He is saying that the opera attendance is down and the ballet etc. He says even jazz is losing its audience. This may all be true and it is sad to see those forms leaving but I don’t think that this means that the youth is not interested in music. This is just untrue. The music industry I would have to say without any research to back it up, is probably bigger than ever. Kids have IPODs filled with music and are sharing, downloading music, seeing it on the TV. It has become so commercialized. Granted this is pop music, but it is still music- and very valuable because it represents the Lebenswelt of the consumers and the members of society.

Fowler cites another as saying that “music will replace sports as societies leisurely activity.” I thought that was fascinating. As a sports fan I can almost see this happening. I remember a time when sport players were always endorsing products- now I see more musicians and actors doing this. I also remember collecting baseball and basketball cards. No one does that anymore. Ratings for NBA and NHL are at all time lows. Steroids has put a damper on MLB and the image of the NFL has been severely hurt by the legal problems of the Cincinatti Bengal players and of Tank Johnson and Michael Vick. Meanwhile when musicians do things that are similiarly taboo it is not taken as seriously. Probably because the music is still music.

I love how Fowler says that music attends to the human spirit in the way that other subjects cannot. It reminds me of James Jordan’s ‘The Musician’s Soul’ in that music is a sharing of so much of yourself and can enable you to have a deep connection with others.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woodford

I am still trying to decide exactly what Woodford is getting at with this idea of democracy in schools. He spends almost the entire Preface and first chapter quoting Dewey and speaking as Dewey (granted he says that his views were influenced heavily by Dewey). It seems like he is speaking very broadly and romanticizing a bit about creating an environments where everyone is equal and cooperating with each other, tolerantly and free of bias. He speaks about challenging everyone- teachers, parents and students alike to be advocates for music education and to engage in thoughtful reflection on how music and music education effects them personally and how that in turn can relate to the individual’s place in society. I feel a bit frustrated however that it seems like he is spinning his wheels a bit. Didn’t he mention the same points many times and yet everytime he says democracy, I am still a bit unclear as to what it is. I am hoping that in Chapter 2 he will start to speak with his own voice instead of hiding behind Dewey quotes