Brinkman, D. J. (2010). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(2), 48-50. doi:10.1080/10632910903455785
David J. Brinkman’s article Teaching Creatively and teaching for Creativity presents an interesting question into education: can you teach creativity. The article looks first at what creativity is then how it might be incorporated into a classroom perspective.
The article begins by stating the creativity is a concept that holds many factors. However it can be simplified further, ultimately, creativity is innovated problem solving. Something is creative on the basis that the solution or process to the solution is a novel way of going about the problem. From this definition there is no such thing and big and little ‘c’ creativity. Ideas gain there value as creative ‘masterpieces’ based on what society considers valuable. For example the difference in creativity between orchestral pieces Stravinsky wrote verses a high school student is none. They both use the same building blocks which to base their creations. It is the audience that listens to these compositions and places value on the works.
Another reason why big c vs little c creativity is not a good definition is because to the big c creators are little c creators. From their perspective what they think and make is an everyday occurrence. By splitting the difference between the two kinds of creativity you imply that it is impossible to be a big c creator. No one realizes from birth they are going to be a Big C creator, and most people we idolize today never realized what they were making was worth all that much. A famous example of this is Vincent Van Gogh, who sold one painting in his life and frequently burned others to keep warm. It wasn’t till after he died that he was considered to be one of the greatest painters of the impressionist period of art. Bach had a very similar life as did Emily Dickinson. But to all of these people what they did was for them an everyday occurrence. And for all of these people it was a change in society that changed majority perspective of there works from ‘meh’ to masterpieces.
I don’t believe you can teach creativity. Education feeds into creativity in a different way that Brinkman suggests. In order to be able to think creativity with an idea you want to explore you have to understand that idea. Being able to take apart a topic then put it back together allows you to be able to make use of the full range of creative thought. In my experience creative thought in schools seems fosters conformity. It does this because to teach creativity is to teach ways of thinking which can limit how someone thinks about a topic.
David J. Brinkman’s article Teaching Creatively and teaching for Creativity presents an interesting question into education: can you teach creativity. The article looks first at what creativity is then how it might be incorporated into a classroom perspective.
The article begins by stating the creativity is a concept that holds many factors. However it can be simplified further, ultimately, creativity is innovated problem solving. Something is creative on the basis that the solution or process to the solution is a novel way of going about the problem. From this definition there is no such thing and big and little ‘c’ creativity. Ideas gain there value as creative ‘masterpieces’ based on what society considers valuable. For example the difference in creativity between orchestral pieces Stravinsky wrote verses a high school student is none. They both use the same building blocks which to base their creations. It is the audience that listens to these compositions and places value on the works.
Another reason why big c vs little c creativity is not a good definition is because to the big c creators are little c creators. From their perspective what they think and make is an everyday occurrence. By splitting the difference between the two kinds of creativity you imply that it is impossible to be a big c creator. No one realizes from birth they are going to be a Big C creator, and most people we idolize today never realized what they were making was worth all that much. A famous example of this is Vincent Van Gogh, who sold one painting in his life and frequently burned others to keep warm. It wasn’t till after he died that he was considered to be one of the greatest painters of the impressionist period of art. Bach had a very similar life as did Emily Dickinson. But to all of these people what they did was for them an everyday occurrence. And for all of these people it was a change in society that changed majority perspective of there works from ‘meh’ to masterpieces.
I don’t believe you can teach creativity. Education feeds into creativity in a different way that Brinkman suggests. In order to be able to think creativity with an idea you want to explore you have to understand that idea. Being able to take apart a topic then put it back together allows you to be able to make use of the full range of creative thought. In my experience creative thought in schools seems fosters conformity. It does this because to teach creativity is to teach ways of thinking which can limit how someone thinks about a topic.
Williams, D. A. (2014). Another Perspective The iPad Is a REAL Musical Instrument. Music Educators Journal, 101(1), 93-98.
After reading David A. Williams “Another Perspective: the iPad is a real Musical instrument” I was conflicted. As a classically oriented musician, I initially wanted to reject the iPad as an instrument. However after reading, I can’t deny that the iPad is an instrument. The article has several fallacies that undermine some of the arguments. The main fallacies were: appeal to novelty and strawman arguments.
Appeal to novelties, are arguments that assume the value of something based solely on the novelty of the conclusion. Mr. Williams often assessed the value on the iPad as an instrument based solely on the concept of: the iPad is a new instrument/genre, like jazz was a new genre. Jazz is a great form of music; therefore the iPad must be a great form of genre. However, the iPad is not a new genre of music; electronica music has existed for some time already. The iPad is only a new instrument in that style of music. Electronic music has great value and is music, but it is not the focus of the article. The article is proving that the iPad is a musical instrument of “equal calibre” as the most traditional instruments. Therefore this argument has no merit; because jazz music was a new style based (frequently) on traditional instruments of music.
Secondly the article often employed strawman argument to support the position of the iPad as a musical instrument. This was employed almost directly towards western European classical music and specifically the style of teaching. Sentences like “believe there is only a short list of real instruments and high-quality musical styles” and “we offer basically one type of musical experience and we continue marginalize the various musical involvements” (95). These sentences undermine the classical position. There is 100% room for the classical community to grow; however especially in an education system there is a wide variety of styles presented. However many of these styles are not the most current and popular styles. Students usually have little experience with styles such as baroque, gospel, and early jazz, but these are different styles of music. In my own education experience I learnt several styles of folk, gospel, spiritual, musical theatre, and the whole variety of classical music, among others. Classes do not frequently present the most current music; however there is so much music and different styles that it is impossible to introduce children to all the different kind a of music. Therefore, the article undermines itself in several of its strongest arguments through this kind of treatment of counterarguments.
Lastly one argument I would like address, “Our mistake in traditional music education is that we evaluate the importance and worthiness of certain instruments. This is a mistake because it tends to marginalize other instruments” (94). In classical music the quality of sound is extremely important. It is common to talk about the kind of sound something produces. I believe it is not a mistake to judge music by the quality of the tones. It is through instruments we understand tone and mood of the music and to ignore this would be ignoring a huge tool of communication.
I still believe the iPad qualifies as an instrument. Upon further consideration, there is truth to the article’s position. Ultimately, anything is an instrument depending on how the person plays. I support this because I can’t deny that people can make cups, spoons, pencils, practically anything; behave like an instrument. Therefore, the person behind the instrument makes music not the instrument itself. Lastly there is no fine line that can be draw between making music on a computer and an iPad. Some of my favorite artists rely heavily on technology to make their music; so I believe the iPad can be a musical instrument.
After reading David A. Williams “Another Perspective: the iPad is a real Musical instrument” I was conflicted. As a classically oriented musician, I initially wanted to reject the iPad as an instrument. However after reading, I can’t deny that the iPad is an instrument. The article has several fallacies that undermine some of the arguments. The main fallacies were: appeal to novelty and strawman arguments.
Appeal to novelties, are arguments that assume the value of something based solely on the novelty of the conclusion. Mr. Williams often assessed the value on the iPad as an instrument based solely on the concept of: the iPad is a new instrument/genre, like jazz was a new genre. Jazz is a great form of music; therefore the iPad must be a great form of genre. However, the iPad is not a new genre of music; electronica music has existed for some time already. The iPad is only a new instrument in that style of music. Electronic music has great value and is music, but it is not the focus of the article. The article is proving that the iPad is a musical instrument of “equal calibre” as the most traditional instruments. Therefore this argument has no merit; because jazz music was a new style based (frequently) on traditional instruments of music.
Secondly the article often employed strawman argument to support the position of the iPad as a musical instrument. This was employed almost directly towards western European classical music and specifically the style of teaching. Sentences like “believe there is only a short list of real instruments and high-quality musical styles” and “we offer basically one type of musical experience and we continue marginalize the various musical involvements” (95). These sentences undermine the classical position. There is 100% room for the classical community to grow; however especially in an education system there is a wide variety of styles presented. However many of these styles are not the most current and popular styles. Students usually have little experience with styles such as baroque, gospel, and early jazz, but these are different styles of music. In my own education experience I learnt several styles of folk, gospel, spiritual, musical theatre, and the whole variety of classical music, among others. Classes do not frequently present the most current music; however there is so much music and different styles that it is impossible to introduce children to all the different kind a of music. Therefore, the article undermines itself in several of its strongest arguments through this kind of treatment of counterarguments.
Lastly one argument I would like address, “Our mistake in traditional music education is that we evaluate the importance and worthiness of certain instruments. This is a mistake because it tends to marginalize other instruments” (94). In classical music the quality of sound is extremely important. It is common to talk about the kind of sound something produces. I believe it is not a mistake to judge music by the quality of the tones. It is through instruments we understand tone and mood of the music and to ignore this would be ignoring a huge tool of communication.
I still believe the iPad qualifies as an instrument. Upon further consideration, there is truth to the article’s position. Ultimately, anything is an instrument depending on how the person plays. I support this because I can’t deny that people can make cups, spoons, pencils, practically anything; behave like an instrument. Therefore, the person behind the instrument makes music not the instrument itself. Lastly there is no fine line that can be draw between making music on a computer and an iPad. Some of my favorite artists rely heavily on technology to make their music; so I believe the iPad can be a musical instrument.
Thibeault, M. D. (2012). The power of limits and the pleasure of games: An easy and fun piano duo improvisation. General Music Today, 1048371311435523.
Mathew D Thibeault’s article “The power of Limits and the Pleasure of Games” suggests a way to teach improvisation. In the article he presents the reasons why the game works before introducing us to the rules. He explains the use of limits as a means of simultaneously narrowing and broadening creative ideas. I found the organization at first difficult to follow. Being told how the game works to improve improvisation before what the game actually is was at first to create relatability. None the less, it made the presentation of how the game works convincing by the time the readers learnt what the game is.
I found the argument about the use of limits very interesting. In my personal experience limits on ideas and boredom are the only tools necessary for creativity, and leaning more heavily on boredom. There is practically nothing someone won’t come up with or do if they are motivated by being bored; and channelling that into the limits of what you can do will force someone to explore their limits. It’s the “How far can I go before I get into trouble” and personally I think why teenagers are some of the most creative people around. In this way limiting improvisation to a major scale offer enough variety to have creative improvisation but also limits it enough so students are not overwhelmed with options.
Improvisation is incredibly important to music. I am finding that more now than before, it seems that the more seriously you study an instrument the more people expect you to be able to improvise whether or not you have any experience doing so. It is also odd that improvisation is not taken more seriously because in the classical music tradition improvisation is incredible important especially for solo instruments.
Improvisation also suggests mastery of an instrument. Similar to how once you can make jokes in a foreign langue once you can begin to improvise it suggests a similar kind of mastery. I have never really learnt how to improvise, and wish I had somehow been able to incorporate that into my education. I always liked how ornamentation and other kinds of improvisation personalized the music I was singing. Knowing how to do that on command would bring student further into the music they are trying to learn as well empower them musically.
Mathew D Thibeault’s article “The power of Limits and the Pleasure of Games” suggests a way to teach improvisation. In the article he presents the reasons why the game works before introducing us to the rules. He explains the use of limits as a means of simultaneously narrowing and broadening creative ideas. I found the organization at first difficult to follow. Being told how the game works to improve improvisation before what the game actually is was at first to create relatability. None the less, it made the presentation of how the game works convincing by the time the readers learnt what the game is.
I found the argument about the use of limits very interesting. In my personal experience limits on ideas and boredom are the only tools necessary for creativity, and leaning more heavily on boredom. There is practically nothing someone won’t come up with or do if they are motivated by being bored; and channelling that into the limits of what you can do will force someone to explore their limits. It’s the “How far can I go before I get into trouble” and personally I think why teenagers are some of the most creative people around. In this way limiting improvisation to a major scale offer enough variety to have creative improvisation but also limits it enough so students are not overwhelmed with options.
Improvisation is incredibly important to music. I am finding that more now than before, it seems that the more seriously you study an instrument the more people expect you to be able to improvise whether or not you have any experience doing so. It is also odd that improvisation is not taken more seriously because in the classical music tradition improvisation is incredible important especially for solo instruments.
Improvisation also suggests mastery of an instrument. Similar to how once you can make jokes in a foreign langue once you can begin to improvise it suggests a similar kind of mastery. I have never really learnt how to improvise, and wish I had somehow been able to incorporate that into my education. I always liked how ornamentation and other kinds of improvisation personalized the music I was singing. Knowing how to do that on command would bring student further into the music they are trying to learn as well empower them musically.
Tobias, E. S. (2013). Toward Convergence Adapting Music Education to Contemporary Society and Participatory Culture. Music Educators Journal,99(4), 29-36.
Evan S. Tobias’ article on music education adapted towards modern preferences of children. He promotes the improvisation rethinking of music to engage children in music. In his article he discusses how children can take a song and think about ways of: covering, arranging, parodying, satirizing, multitasking, remixing, producing, mash-up, making tutorials, remediating, or discussing popular music.
This is fairly common as a hobby of children, but bringing it into a classroom it is more rare. It is interesting to notice, that this is similar to how teachers attempt to have students participate and understand Shakespeare. I still have the copy of the parody of Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy I wrote for my English assignment.
More over with YouTube, it is easy to watch or listen to a huge variety on these kinds of remastering of songs. Many artists make their careers off or this; Pentatonic makes acapella covers of popular songs. As well with technology students would be able to put tracks over top of each other to make a song, like what Panic at the Disco has become, Swedish artist Nomy, Gorillaz, and other musicians do.
However this leads into the more philosophical question that the article does not address: Can mixing music still be considered creating original music? This is important to discuss especially when teaching students about writing their own music, as the conclusion affects how we will teach students to think about their own creative process.
In my own experience, creativity under this light becomes a spectrum from plagiarizing through to novel works. There is a difference between making a cover and making a brand new song, and that distinction is important to remember and teach children. But there is nothing “uncreative” about remixing, and covers. Furthermore these kinds of activities can bread further novel works.
Keeping levels of creativity on a straight line perceptive is a little flawed, because you can promote the idea that novel equals more valuable that covers, which is not true. One of the most interesting remixes I have heard was at choir. A group of friends where bored so they decided to make a rap of our choir pieces with the lyrics.
Tobias, E. S. (2013). Toward Convergence Adapting Music Education to Contemporary Society and Participatory Culture. Music Educators Journal,99(4), 29-36.
Evan S. Tobias’ article on music education adapted towards modern preferences of children. He promotes the improvisation rethinking of music to engage children in music. In his article he discusses how children can take a song and think about ways of: covering, arranging, parodying, satirizing, multitasking, remixing, producing, mash-up, making tutorials, remediating, or discussing popular music.
This is fairly common as a hobby of children, but bringing it into a classroom it is more rare. It is interesting to notice, that this is similar to how teachers attempt to have students participate and understand Shakespeare. I still have the copy of the parody of Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy I wrote for my English assignment.
More over with YouTube, it is easy to watch or listen to a huge variety on these kinds of remastering of songs. Many artists make their careers off or this; Pentatonic makes acapella covers of popular songs. As well with technology students would be able to put tracks over top of each other to make a song, like what Panic at the Disco has become, Swedish artist Nomy, Gorillaz, and other musicians do.
However this leads into the more philosophical question that the article does not address: Can mixing music still be considered creating original music? This is important to discuss especially when teaching students about writing their own music, as the conclusion affects how we will teach students to think about their own creative process.
In my own experience, creativity under this light becomes a spectrum from plagiarizing through to novel works. There is a difference between making a cover and making a brand new song, and that distinction is important to remember and teach children. But there is nothing “uncreative” about remixing, and covers. Furthermore these kinds of activities can bread further novel works.
Keeping levels of creativity on a straight line perceptive is a little flawed, because you can promote the idea that novel equals more valuable that covers, which is not true. One of the most interesting remixes I have heard was at choir. A group of friends where bored so they decided to make a rap of our choir pieces with the lyrics.
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/
Drew Serres’ article offers a new perspective on disabilities, focusing mainly on what is described as a “ableism culture of normal”. Normal in the article is described as any culture where their world view becomes dominate. Much of the article addresses how the dominate culture suppresses those with disabilities and the issue of racism in false diagnosis.
The issue that is never properly addressed in the article is the diversity within disabilities. All disabilities in this article are clumped together. Quite a bit of the article brings up good points to reflect on, however the article generalizes disabilities. Most importantly it presents disabilities as being roughly around the same level. There is a huge spectrum of disabilities and severity within one type of disability. Furthermore it is not fair for a student with one kind of disability to be treated the same as another student with a different disability. Fundamentally they need different kinds of help.
One aspect I agreed with in terms of education is misdiagnosis. This is ramped among students with ADHD. The diagnosis seems to be too broad of the category incorporating children with high energy and those with ADHD together.
One aspect of the education system that is not mentioned is also the assumption of teachers when students are disabled. This is frustratingly common amongst learning disabilities such as: dyslexia, dyscalculia and dysgraphia that can be difficult to see. Very commonly students with these issues, even diagnosed, receive little or no help from teachers and are told to stop being “lazy” or they are not working hard enough.
For students with common learning disabilities there should be opportunities for students in elementary and junior high to get individual help they need. Students with these kinds of issues need a different kind of education; however there is general success for students that get the appropriate kind of education that they need in order to work around the disability. Often this kind of private tutoring is very expensive and poorer families cannot afford the education their child needs. Having a public teacher who specializes in testing, and then more importantly teaching students with disabilities that is publically funded; so all students have access to a solid education.
What the article said about the number of disabled people in prison is very true. However, I would argue this is because the resources these people need were not available or a realistic option for them when they were young. It is more vital that educators make the opportunities for all families.
Drew Serres’ article offers a new perspective on disabilities, focusing mainly on what is described as a “ableism culture of normal”. Normal in the article is described as any culture where their world view becomes dominate. Much of the article addresses how the dominate culture suppresses those with disabilities and the issue of racism in false diagnosis.
The issue that is never properly addressed in the article is the diversity within disabilities. All disabilities in this article are clumped together. Quite a bit of the article brings up good points to reflect on, however the article generalizes disabilities. Most importantly it presents disabilities as being roughly around the same level. There is a huge spectrum of disabilities and severity within one type of disability. Furthermore it is not fair for a student with one kind of disability to be treated the same as another student with a different disability. Fundamentally they need different kinds of help.
One aspect I agreed with in terms of education is misdiagnosis. This is ramped among students with ADHD. The diagnosis seems to be too broad of the category incorporating children with high energy and those with ADHD together.
One aspect of the education system that is not mentioned is also the assumption of teachers when students are disabled. This is frustratingly common amongst learning disabilities such as: dyslexia, dyscalculia and dysgraphia that can be difficult to see. Very commonly students with these issues, even diagnosed, receive little or no help from teachers and are told to stop being “lazy” or they are not working hard enough.
For students with common learning disabilities there should be opportunities for students in elementary and junior high to get individual help they need. Students with these kinds of issues need a different kind of education; however there is general success for students that get the appropriate kind of education that they need in order to work around the disability. Often this kind of private tutoring is very expensive and poorer families cannot afford the education their child needs. Having a public teacher who specializes in testing, and then more importantly teaching students with disabilities that is publically funded; so all students have access to a solid education.
What the article said about the number of disabled people in prison is very true. However, I would argue this is because the resources these people need were not available or a realistic option for them when they were young. It is more vital that educators make the opportunities for all families.
Hourigan, R. M. (2009). The invisible student: Understanding social identity construction within performing ensembles. Music Educators Journal, 34-38.
Ryan M. Hourigan’s article gives warning signs and tips for teachers to avoid the situation of what he describes as an invisible student. According to Hourigan’s definition an invisible student is one that does not necessarily have a disability, however, special needs students often falls under this category. Rather, an invisible student is one that falls outside of the student’s code of ‘normal’ or accepted behaviour.
The suggestions that Hourigan makes to include the invisible student have, in my personal experience, worked very well with the groups. My pervious choir employed many of these strategies to build strong group dynamics. Inclusion, from the beginning, was made to be the student’s job, and most importantly the seniors of the choir. In concordance to the article, using seniors as the driving force of inclusion usually works very well. Once thing I would include: that was not mentioned in the article but in my experience works very well; is talks about inclusion during overnight trips. Having these discussions led by seniors of the group can promote a stronger message than having a teacher dictate what students have heard many times, but have not always listen to. Seniors can relate to younger students on a much closer level and can be more inspiring for students to take to heart the message.
One aspect I did not completely agree with is the buddy system he mentioned for helping an invisible student to have more social interactions. In the article, he suggested pairing more a more socially outgoing student with an invisible student. This method does work, but rather than pairing based on extroverted qualities, I would stress more the character. For students that don’t fit into the mold socially, having a partner who is very socially outgoing can be more intimidating. Usually more extroverted people have a wider social group and might resent having to be paired with someone they don’t know. This can make it very hard on the invisible student. Hence why it might be better to put an invisible student with another student who might be on the quieter side but the teacher know will not mind.
Ryan M. Hourigan’s article gives warning signs and tips for teachers to avoid the situation of what he describes as an invisible student. According to Hourigan’s definition an invisible student is one that does not necessarily have a disability, however, special needs students often falls under this category. Rather, an invisible student is one that falls outside of the student’s code of ‘normal’ or accepted behaviour.
The suggestions that Hourigan makes to include the invisible student have, in my personal experience, worked very well with the groups. My pervious choir employed many of these strategies to build strong group dynamics. Inclusion, from the beginning, was made to be the student’s job, and most importantly the seniors of the choir. In concordance to the article, using seniors as the driving force of inclusion usually works very well. Once thing I would include: that was not mentioned in the article but in my experience works very well; is talks about inclusion during overnight trips. Having these discussions led by seniors of the group can promote a stronger message than having a teacher dictate what students have heard many times, but have not always listen to. Seniors can relate to younger students on a much closer level and can be more inspiring for students to take to heart the message.
One aspect I did not completely agree with is the buddy system he mentioned for helping an invisible student to have more social interactions. In the article, he suggested pairing more a more socially outgoing student with an invisible student. This method does work, but rather than pairing based on extroverted qualities, I would stress more the character. For students that don’t fit into the mold socially, having a partner who is very socially outgoing can be more intimidating. Usually more extroverted people have a wider social group and might resent having to be paired with someone they don’t know. This can make it very hard on the invisible student. Hence why it might be better to put an invisible student with another student who might be on the quieter side but the teacher know will not mind.
Dawe, L. (2016). Fumbling Towards Vulnerability: Moving Out of the Familiar for Music Education’s Sake, Canadian Music Educator, (57)2, pp.22-24.
This article brought an interesting view of how creativity in music is lacking in the traditional style of music education. According to this article Ms. Dawe feels that there is no room made for creative activities which stifle the learning and risk taking factor of students.
The arguments where compelling and it was an intriguing read as a result. In agreement with her argument; improvisation is not well taught in the modern education system. There is little emphasis placed in creating melodies, rhythm, and harmony. Yet there is an odd expectation that students are able to improvise on command.
Secondly I also agreed with the perfectionism that plagues music and the fine arts. While there is an age where such perfectionism is vital, and a useful motivator; in young children it can be detrimental. Teachers that expect more of a child than what a child can give at the time can turn the child from perusing the activity further. I agree that especially in a young age there should be less emphasis on perfecting music but rather exploring the depth and diversity and creating a sense of curiosity and natural feeling of music before musicianship skills.
One of the frustrations I had with this article was in part with the concept of creativity in music. This is never fully explained in the article. I found it frustrating because of the differentiated meanings “Creativity in music” can imply. For example, creativity in music can be the interpretation of a piece. On the other hand creativity in music can also be creating new melodies and rhythms.
There is also the implication that students will not be creative without a teacher showing them. This is a similar write off to “students need to be taught musicality”. There is an innate sense of creativity that will happen naturally if the curiosity is fostered.
Over all, the article brought up several valid points on one of the lacking areas of the education system. It many several other compelling points to consider when thinking about the style of education to take into a classroom.
This article brought an interesting view of how creativity in music is lacking in the traditional style of music education. According to this article Ms. Dawe feels that there is no room made for creative activities which stifle the learning and risk taking factor of students.
The arguments where compelling and it was an intriguing read as a result. In agreement with her argument; improvisation is not well taught in the modern education system. There is little emphasis placed in creating melodies, rhythm, and harmony. Yet there is an odd expectation that students are able to improvise on command.
Secondly I also agreed with the perfectionism that plagues music and the fine arts. While there is an age where such perfectionism is vital, and a useful motivator; in young children it can be detrimental. Teachers that expect more of a child than what a child can give at the time can turn the child from perusing the activity further. I agree that especially in a young age there should be less emphasis on perfecting music but rather exploring the depth and diversity and creating a sense of curiosity and natural feeling of music before musicianship skills.
One of the frustrations I had with this article was in part with the concept of creativity in music. This is never fully explained in the article. I found it frustrating because of the differentiated meanings “Creativity in music” can imply. For example, creativity in music can be the interpretation of a piece. On the other hand creativity in music can also be creating new melodies and rhythms.
There is also the implication that students will not be creative without a teacher showing them. This is a similar write off to “students need to be taught musicality”. There is an innate sense of creativity that will happen naturally if the curiosity is fostered.
Over all, the article brought up several valid points on one of the lacking areas of the education system. It many several other compelling points to consider when thinking about the style of education to take into a classroom.
Steward Rose, L., & Countryman, J. (2013). Repositioning 'The Elements': How Students Talk about Music. Action, Criticsim, and Theory for Music Education, 12(3): 45-46.
Leslie Stewart Rose and June Countryman’s article “Repositioning ‘The Elements’: How Students talk about Music brought up a very interesting point about the question the role the Western Canon has within Music Education for students of junior high and high school years.
I particularly agreed with the difficulties in systematic approach that is taken to the arts and fine arts in education. One of the best commentaries on such a system is the movie “Dead Poet’s Society”. There is a fantastic scene at the beginning of the movie where the students outline what makes a poem ‘great’ to which the professor John Keating replies “Excrement”.[Weir, P. (Director). (1989). Dead Poets Society [Motion Picture]. Likewise, it is idiotic to classify music based on objective quality, outlined by what is classified as “the elements” in the article. Music, like art, dance, and literature has an innate quality; which, quality is derived from the meaning and context individually perceived.
Another aspect of the article that surprised me was the comment of the “oppressive pedagogy” from the Eurocentric root of music education. Upon reflection, there is little diversity. This is an aspect of education that should be further embraced to widen the perspective students understand music. The Education system should encourage an expansion of the terminology; so that it can encompass and describe the full spectrum of music’s wide diversity of styles and methods.
One frustrating aspect of the article is the complete rejection of “the elements” of music. The article does not seem to take into account understanding how music was created, performed can bring depth into how a student reacts to music. One of the fantastic things about studying music and understanding “the elements” is the new appreciation of the process of creation. This understanding is an extra perspective which is an important tool at their disposal. Because of music’s innate nature one can talk about the effects of music; but without a base on which to grow vocabulary, meaning and intent will not always coincide. Having knowledge of these aspects of music is a great asset to all forms of participation in music, be it by: listening, studying, or performing.
The article mentioned there was a very low percent of students enrolled in a Grade 12 music course. The article suggested it was due to “Ivey League” mentality surrounding music. However, I am curious if the authors took into consideration how many students play an instrument. Part of the dichotomy in music comes from the knowledge of knowing how to play an instrument at a level where the student would feel comfortable to play among other students. Many students also don’t play a group instrument. There are only so many pianos in a band or a choir.
In conclusion, while the article brought up many interesting and valid points, I felt there was complete rejection of certain important aspects that is required to gain a fuller perspective of music.
Leslie Stewart Rose and June Countryman’s article “Repositioning ‘The Elements’: How Students talk about Music brought up a very interesting point about the question the role the Western Canon has within Music Education for students of junior high and high school years.
I particularly agreed with the difficulties in systematic approach that is taken to the arts and fine arts in education. One of the best commentaries on such a system is the movie “Dead Poet’s Society”. There is a fantastic scene at the beginning of the movie where the students outline what makes a poem ‘great’ to which the professor John Keating replies “Excrement”.[Weir, P. (Director). (1989). Dead Poets Society [Motion Picture]. Likewise, it is idiotic to classify music based on objective quality, outlined by what is classified as “the elements” in the article. Music, like art, dance, and literature has an innate quality; which, quality is derived from the meaning and context individually perceived.
Another aspect of the article that surprised me was the comment of the “oppressive pedagogy” from the Eurocentric root of music education. Upon reflection, there is little diversity. This is an aspect of education that should be further embraced to widen the perspective students understand music. The Education system should encourage an expansion of the terminology; so that it can encompass and describe the full spectrum of music’s wide diversity of styles and methods.
One frustrating aspect of the article is the complete rejection of “the elements” of music. The article does not seem to take into account understanding how music was created, performed can bring depth into how a student reacts to music. One of the fantastic things about studying music and understanding “the elements” is the new appreciation of the process of creation. This understanding is an extra perspective which is an important tool at their disposal. Because of music’s innate nature one can talk about the effects of music; but without a base on which to grow vocabulary, meaning and intent will not always coincide. Having knowledge of these aspects of music is a great asset to all forms of participation in music, be it by: listening, studying, or performing.
The article mentioned there was a very low percent of students enrolled in a Grade 12 music course. The article suggested it was due to “Ivey League” mentality surrounding music. However, I am curious if the authors took into consideration how many students play an instrument. Part of the dichotomy in music comes from the knowledge of knowing how to play an instrument at a level where the student would feel comfortable to play among other students. Many students also don’t play a group instrument. There are only so many pianos in a band or a choir.
In conclusion, while the article brought up many interesting and valid points, I felt there was complete rejection of certain important aspects that is required to gain a fuller perspective of music.