I believe…that all students should be provided with music education.

I believe…that all students can learn music and become appreciative of music and its many qualities and meanings.

I believe…that music educators should always remember that each student has their own set of musical intelligences, and that our curriculum needs to reflect this.

I believe…that student ideas and opinions should help teachers to guide their teaching. 

I believe…in studying the music of our own culture.  Much of this music may be considered popular music, and its incorporation into the curriculum is as valid and necessary as incorporating classical/elite music.

I believe…in fostering respect for the music of other cultures in my students.

I believe…that music is an education of feelings.  This is foreign territory for almost every other subject in school that our students encounter, and we need to cultivate their feelings and emotions in order to to help make them more well-rounded individuals.

I believe…that music is too unique and multi-faceted to be standardized.

I believe…that a goal of teaching should be to foster critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, and curiousity in our students.

I believe…in creating a curriculum that incorporates the asking of thought-provoking questions to my students, and having the answers to these questions lead our way.

I believe…in professional development that helps me as a music educator to stay current in my profession, be that in technology or in philosophical ideas relating to music education.

After my eye-opening experience in Philosophy class, here is some of the “residue” I will be taking with me:

- Music education is an education of feelings.

- There are different styles of teaching including the executive, facilitator, and the liberationist.  It is okay to pull from each of the main values representative of these styles to form an environment that is productive for both you and your students.

- There are many musical roles, and we should be structuring our teaching to develop all of those roles.                                                                               

- My classroom curriculum should have the learner’s needs at its center (not the teacher’s) and therefore, does not have be stringently planned…let the learners take it where it will when appropriate. For example, teaching music notation can be done when the learner presents a need to know.

- Teaching students in a way to develop critical thinkers, creative minds, etc. is imperative.  Problem based learning allows this to happen…ask your students lots of questions!

- Music education cannot, and should not, be standardized.  We should not feel the need to standardize it in order to validate our profession. 

- Incorporating Popular music/common music into our curriculum allows us to create a connection with our students, and can act as a ‘doorway’ in for many of them who do not see themselves as particularly musical.  Also, common music is essential to elite music/’school music’ just as much as elite music is essential to common music…without one, the other becomes less valid and sustainable.

-CHANGE = GOOD

            My wonderment has to do with the following quote from Estelle R. Jorgensen’s book Transforming Music Education:

“Without elite music, common music may become banal, dull, and lifeless; without common music, elite music may become sterile, tedious, and irrelevant.” (34)

 My choice to use this quote actually derived from my small group conversation in class today.  The discussion came around to a question that was posed by one of my group members asking if we believed that the symphony orchestra would ever adopt the use of some of the currently evolving electric versions of instruments into their performances.  The answers of my group members varied but most of us believed that the standard model for the make-up of the symphony orchestra would not change. We believed that use of electric instruments would never became commonplace and that, especially in the larger cities, the classic symphony orchestra would exist, as is, forever. One person even gave the opinion that the orchestra would probably cease to exist before this would happen.

This idea of merging ‘elite’ musical ideas with ‘common’ musical ideas is popping up occasionally in groups such as the Kronos Quartet who play common music on traditional instruments, or the violin duo Nuttin’ But Strings who merge classical music and violin playing with R&B and Hip-Hop. Then there is the British string quartet Escala, who play classical repertoire but on electric versions of the instruments found in a string quartet.  The Kronos Quartet dresses more traditionally and is often heard in traditional venues.  But the other two groups I have referenced stray from tradition in other ways as well; both Nuttin’ But Strings and Escala got their start in the business as competitors on a reality show; both groups also look nothing like traditional orchestral players; Nuttin’ But Strings are African American brothers with braids who are often seen wearing jeans and t-shirts during performances, as well as ‘hyping’ the audience during each piece, possibly even rapping a bit; the members of Escala are four attractive, provocatively dressed young women.  

So to get back to Jorgensen’s quote from above, if the existence of elite music and of common music are necessary for the other to thrive (which I agree to be the truth), than what should we make of the incorporation of common musical elements into elite music or vice versa? Does this cheapen them, or make them more interesting? Does it become a new genre or is it just a temporary fusion of ideas?  I don’t have the answers to these question, but as I have stated in many of my prior writings for this class, I do enjoy incorporating popular, or common, music into my traditionally structured choral concerts.  I like the interplay of genres and what it does for the performer and for the listener to see music from across the board all in one show.

But I do fear that classical music may be a dying genre.  Jorgensen references the words of Rose Rosengard Subotnik who states that “classical music has lost its connectedness with its traditional and popular roots.  Unless it recovers connectedness, it will become increasingly meaningless and irrelevant to the experience of its public.”  I think the same can be said for school students.   If all they know is common music and elite music is more or less eliminated from our sphere of knowing, than I fear that this common music will become “mundane, mediocre, material, crude, violent, and even destructive” as Jorgensen says. I feel that it is my job as a general music and choral teacher to help make connections for my students, or help them to develop “a need to know” about classical music, or any other genre of music that has come before what they are currently experiencing in their culture today. 

But Jorgensen expresses how hard it can be to transform elite music into something that has some sort of connectedness to current times.  She references the Kronos Quartet as well and also the crossover albums of Yo-Yo Ma.  These ideas have not always been widely accepted.  I was reminded of an experience that I had at a SUNY Potsdam benefit concert performed by Renee Fleming at Riverside Church in New York City several years ago.  At this concert, Renee Fleming, famous for her operatic roles and voice, included as part of her set a number of jazz standards.  She told a story of her days as a student in Potsdam, and how in those times she would often have been found in a dark basement bar singing jazz.  I personally loved that she did not solely sing in the style she is best known for singing, but also incorporated a style that she just truly loves and enjoys singing.  But what I remember most was how so many people commented to me afterwards that they were disappointed in the fact that she sang so many jazz tunes, and that she should “stick to what she does best”, and that they weren’t expecting it so it caught them off guard.  It was as if because we were all dressed up, in a church, at a formal event, that the inclusion of something even slightly less than formal and elite was not considered okay.  This leaves me with proof that it can be hard for people to change, or even accept the idea that incorporating new things is a viable option!

I love how Jorgensen states that we must break down barriers and “…enlarge the borders of musical knowing…” (34).  I think I will take with me her ideas of how to go about doing this: she states the idea of “…moving from those things nearest at hand to those most distant from the learner’s initial understanding, the simplest to the most complex understanding from the learner’s perspective…” (35).  This makes complete sense to me, but I never would have thought about this as a way to go about incorporating both common music and elite music into our curriculum…I feel that this is the reverse of how I was taught and how we as educators are taught to teach our students.  We usually think of giving them a more traditional background of music knowledge and then allowing them to venture into how this applies to the current music they are listening to (if we even get that far).  But from the learner’s perspective, the common or popular music is what is the simplest for them!  Why not use that as the starting point and develop a “web of ideas” from there.

             My “wonderment” has to do with the following statement from the Estelle R. Jorgensen’s book Transforming Music Education:

“It is also less threatening to go abroad to other nations and collect their musics, to focus on the exotic and the different, than to confront the many diverse musical experiences at home, especially in a culture that is ‘monochromatic’ despite its claims of diversity.” (127)

           This is really a two-part statement as I see it, and the first part draws my curiosity as much as the second part.  Initially I was drawn to the idea that Jorgensen sees it as “less threatening to go abroad to other nations and collect their musics, to focus on the exotic and the different, than to confront the many diverse music experiences at home…”.  I am immediately prone to wondering if music teachers see this idea as a generally accepted belief.  I myself do not feel this to be the case at all.

            In a world containing so many vast, unique, and varying cultures, some of which have not even been thoroughly studied and documented, I do not see the collection and use of these materials in my classroom as being easier than discussing my own culture’s music. In Chapter 6 of Bennett Reimer’s A Philosophy of Music Education: Advancing the Vision, the author presents the Contextualist viewpoint of incorporating multicultural music education in to the classroom.   The following statement was made from this viewpoint: “To think people can genuinely understand the music of a foreign culture is to deal with that music with ultimate disrespect, ignoring or denying what is essential about it – its own cultural integrity, embodying a world view very different from that of cultures foreign to it.” (Reimer, 181). Although I am not in complete agreement with this mindset, I do understand the importance of creating a classroom environment that is very respectful of other cultures’ musics when trying to incorporate them into the classroom.  I believe it is much more difficult as a teacher to create this respectful environment, and to try to convey to my students a sense of being ‘an outsider looking in’, when studying music from other nations.  How are we supposed to ever fully understand the music of a culture that we are not a part of?  How are we supposed to know what would be considered the most “quality” works to show a student to represent that culture?  How do we ensure that our students do not have the arrogant mindset that they now must fully understand a culture’s music just from the little bit that they have experienced in our classroom? Although it is important to expose students to sounds and music other than those that surround them on a daily basis in their own culture, I do not feel that it is “less threatening” than discussing our own culture’s music…in fact, I feel it is the opposite.

The second part of the Jorgensen quote from the top of this paper deals with the idea that the culture of the United States is “… ‘monochromatic’ despite its claims of diversity.” I feel it only fair to cite examples of what the author is talking about in reference to this quote for the purpose of discussion. She states the following: “In the United States, …, one comes face-to-face with the lack of freedom; unfinished racial business; a profound neglect of native peoples and other invisible minorities; and injustice and discrimination on the basis of gender, age, language, religion, color, ethnicity, class, or lifestyle… . Looking abroad for exotic musical cultures can mask a widespread lack of interest in or indifference to the makers and takers of the many diverse yet marginalized musics of our own place.”

Let me first address my feelings toward the idea that our country is not truly diverse.  I certainly do not agree with this statement. I actually feel that our country is a multicultural melting pot all its own.   I also feel that one kind of music of our culture is specifically a platform for all people to have a voice: popular music (including the many subsets of our culture that have their own unique ‘popular’ music). Look at blues, jazz, R&B, Soul, Country, etc.  All of these musics represent a different sub-culture of the United States, and the voices of these people are clearly heard.  Some may disagree with me.  For example, one might reference Rap music and how it is often sexist toward women.  But if you have ever heard a female rap artist’s work, you know that they also have a strong voice all their own, often putting down the words of the men of their genre and retaliating with a very strong viewpoint.  If you look at the Billboard Chart today, you will see that woman are currently dominating the field (ex: Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Rhianna, etc.).  Many races are often present (White, Black, Hispanic, etc.).  Many ‘older’ artist are still on the charts as well (ex: U2, Steven Tyler, Paul McCartney).

Having said all of this, I can see an instance where Jorgensen may have a point.  In a music classroom that is formalized, and one in which the teacher holds the belief that the only music with value is that music in the Western Classical tradition.  I can see where someone would say that there is a large amount of discrimination on the basis of gender, race, etc.  Yet, I see myself and my teaching in my music classroom as very far, or at least straying, from these ideas.  I am truly an advocate for the incorporation of popular music into the classroom due to the success I have had when using it.  It provides each of my students a voice and a common point of reference when we are talking about all kinds of music concepts, theory, etc., regardless of their age, race, sex, poverty level. 

I plan to incorporate a few of the ideas presented to our Philosophy class today by Dr. Campbell.  What if we began a discussion about American music by posing questions to our students? Something as simple as “What do you think constitutes American Music?”, could open so many doors of discussion.  Each student would surely have a different, unique answer based on their experiences of being American themselves. Dr. Campbell described the plethora of possible answers that could be given as “…a beautiful mosaic that could represent the pluralism and multiculturalism of our country.”  We also discussed how this could lead us toward a more personalized, or individualized, level of music instruction for our music students, and how their own “multicultural” answers to our questions could be a great starting-off point for us to do this. Please consider this quote from Bennett Reimer: “The music of a culture expresses, or captures, or formulates, or gives voice to this reality as only sounds organized to be meaningful can do…” (Reimer, 176).  Having them take part in the development of what American Music is to them would “give voice” to their realities through the music of their culture.

             When I look back at the initial quote from Jorgensen, I also believe that some of my confusion arises from the contradiction existing within it.  In one instance she claims that it would be easier to pursue ‘exotic’ musics rather than to pursue our own country’s “many diverse musical experiences at home..”.  But in the other instance, she claims that our culture is “… ‘monochromatic’ despite its claims of diversity.”  So which is it? If you say we are diverse in one breath, how can you claim we are not in the next.  I feel that it is wrong for one to see the culture of the United States as anything but diverse.  Although stereotypes and biases exist in all cultures throughout the world, I do not feel that the correct word to describe us is ‘monochromatic’. 

What I take away from all of this for my teachings in the music classroom, is that I have developed a goal of incorporating the music of other nation’s cultures in a respectful and realistic way.  I also have a goal of creating a sense of what exactly American Music is, in a respectful and meaningful way for my students.  I am also going to try to incorporate their viewpoints and experiences into the teaching of American Music so that they can form some kind of personal connection to music in general and allow them to have a voice.

    Chapter 8 of Reimer’s book A Philosophy of Music Education:Advancing the Vision, is especially ripe with content.  In this chapter, Reimer presents us with the seven-phase model of the total school curriculum, ideas about redefining and restructuring general music, and ideas about restructuring the content standards.  Honestly, all of this packed into one chapter was rather overwhelming to me, and I didn’t know where to start when blogging about what I have taken from the chapter.  I soon decided that a good place to start would be to take a thoughtful look at my own school and my current practices in the classroom. I was quickly drawn to the 7th Phase on the model of the total school curriculum: The Expectational Phase.

    In my school, I was made immediately aware of the expectations of my administrators and the community in which I teach.  I was told upon my hiring that my only real job was to “make sure I got those kids on the stage where their parents can see them.”  I was essentially seen as a PR tool, and they weren’t really shy about sharing that with me.  My assumption was that they meant this for the performing ensembles, but quickly learned that they meant the same thing concerning my general music classes.  I am a teacher that only sees her general music students 1 out of 6 days.  The teacher who had my position before me had even made a plea to the administration, stating that this wasn’t even possibly enough seat time in class for the performance expectations to be the same for the K-4 students as for the upper level ensembles….this plea was responded to in the following way: “The community would be saddened and outraged if there was no concert each winter and spring.”  The expectations were clear.

     I then had to take a long hard look at my own expectations for my music classes, and I found that I believed the National Standards to be a good, solid, foundation for my teaching. But is it truly feasible to think that a teacher with my current kinds of time restrictions can create a truly balanced and comprehensive general music program and carry it out with the students…are there enough hours in the year?  I pondered Reimer’s statement concerning the differeing viewpoints that have naturally occured between music educators and the community members. He states that “…for education to be effective both perspectives must be considered in a synergistic spirit.”  I am honestly still struggling with how to do this.  I try to make my repertoire choices ones with which I can somehow incorporate all of the national standards into the teaching of the piece, but I find myself having to drill the students so much on memorization and words, that my desires get pushed to the wayside.  Also, let me not forget to say that during all of this, I am also trying to think about how I can involve the students in activities that engage them in the music, and in some way that takes into account their interests as well.  This is HARD!

    In the closing paragraphs of the chapter, Reimer makes us think about how our time constraints within the total curriculum should not be used as an excuse for not incorporating everything that needs to be present.  He states that this would be assuming that “what we do now is, somehow, sacrosanct; that we have already discovered the one inviolable truth and therefore nothing can be changed.”  I acutally do not feel that this relates to me and my music program at all.  I am still in the experimental phase of developing good curriculur materials and ideas for teaching.  I am willing to change, try new things, etc. but, only if I had the time…hmmm

      Although this chapter touches upon a number of topics dealing with the contextual dimensions of music, I have chosen to focus on the following main theme from pg. 168 in the Reimer: “In applicatons to teaching, a music largely ‘foreign’ to American music education - popular music - is claimed to be a literature our profession needs to take seriously if the importance of this music in our culture is to be represented fairly.”  Reimer also states some of his beliefs about why this music should be taken seriously and is important.  IF Reimer’s claim that popular music is “the music that has most influenced the musical experiences of the majority of people in America over the course of a century,” THEN I feel it is most certainly our job as music educators to determine how to incorporate popular music into our curriculum.

      I would first like to briefly discuss the personal evolution of feelings I have had about incorporating popular music into the choral program.  When I initially started my student teaching, I remember vividly feeling appaled about a couple of the choices of one of my sponser teachers:  First, when deciding on the final piece to work on for the semester to be performed in the Spring concert, she left the choice up to her high school choir; Second, she providing them with a few choices, one of which was a pop tune (‘Crocodile Rock’ by Elton John).  How could she do such things, I thought to myself… of course they will pick Crocodile Rock because they’ve probably heard it on the radio and think they won’t have to work so hard. I was coming from a very formal “choral upbringing” and just couldn’t comprehend why she would do this.  Of course the students immediately chose to work on the Elton John piece.  

     Many years removed from that experience, my viewpoint has certainly changed. I now see myself doing similar things within my own classes, and I have had lots of success experimenting with the incorporation of pop music into my curriculum.  I am in strong agreement with Reimer (and with my former sponser teacher!) that pop music is a vital part of our culture, and I feel it is so alive and current I don’t understand how we can ignore it!  I love the following quote from pg. 176 of the Reimer: “The music of our culture expresses, or captures, or formulates, or gives voice to this reality, as only sounds arranged to be meaningful can do…”.  I think this greatly goes along with why pop music is important, and you can even put this quote towards the many cultures existing within the broad umbrella of pop music (Rap, Rock, etc.).  Each culture is so unique, and has thoughts, values, and ideas it wants to express…this is often done through the words and tunes of their music.

    In the classroom, I have had success in terms of pop music as a tool for recruitment and retaining existing students in my choral groups.  When I give the students a voice concerning their preferences for what we should sing, and when they are genuinely interested in the repertoire, it means something to them.  I have had students come to me and say “I heard you guys are singing ______…can I join chorus?”  This is not to say that I am allowing the students to choose whatever pieces they want with no regard to how this music will benefit them as a student of music.  Of course, many pop songs are immediately eliminated due to subject matter not appropriate to a school setting (language, racy subject matter, etc.).  I find myself trying to train their ear into discerning what qualities would make a piece appropriate for the choral setting…things such as Range, adaptability to sounding good with only a piano accompainment, etc. I also try to expose them to a great deal of new pop music being arranged for choir that is currently out there at our fingertips. 

      I have never had so many students come to me in the morning before school, or as soon as they enter my room, to tell me a piece they found that they think would be great for our group.  They share ideas about arranging, possible instrument accompainments, how we can incorporate dance, readings about the content, on and on and on.  They suddenly had initiative to be looking into music in their free time, in their real life.  What I am doing with them, or allowing them to do, in the classroom is now affecting the choices they are making as soon as they walk out of the door…what radio station to listen to, what to download, what Pandora station they make, what TV they watch, etc.  Many of them are even going onto J.W.Pepper.com to browse choral music…who would’ve thought!!!

    These are only a few of the possible benefits to incorporating pop music into our classroom.  A few other examples could be the use of pop music to teach about American History, to teach about music technology, and to teach current events in our country and around the world.  Whenever something is new, it can be scary or intimidating, but I feel the idea of incorporating this music will have so many benefits to our studnets in the long-run, that it is definetly worth stepping out of our comfort zones.

Chapter 5: The Meaning Dimension of Musical Experience.

     As the title suggests, this chaper deals with the meaning of music. Reimer states as a main theme of the chapter that “Music can be described (or defined) as sounds organized to be inherently meaningful, in which the inherence can incorporate a great variety of additional meanings.” This statement initially confused me…how can a “definition” be so vague and unclear? Here lies a problem that people have probably run into for centuries when trying to describe the meaning of music.

     Reimer provides what I consider to be a reason for this confusion in describing music: “Music is created and shared though the process of artistic/aesthitic perceptual structuring, yielding meanings language cannot represent.”   IF music yeilds meaning that language cannot, THEN it should be our job as music teachers to find language that can help nurture our students’ or community’s or administration’s understanding of music. That is, it is our job to find a way to describe the functions and meaning of music through the main form of communication that people understand: Language. 

      As I discussed in class, I have found this task very difficult  How does one put into words that which cannot be put into words? Again, one of my faults is becoming apparent through the course of this class: I tend to look for one right answer…and as is the case with many things in life, there just isn’t one!  Our class conversation really opened my eyes to the fact that this is okay, and that the goal of describing the meanings of music cannot be attained with one simple sentence or thought.  Music is simply too multi-faceted and special in its own unique sense to simplify it in such a way.

      Having said this, it is then our job to compile what we feel are the functions of music, and figure out how to verbally communicate these things to make sense to our students/community members/administration.  This is still a work in progress for me.  To me there are such endless functions of music that I need to “boil them down” to ideas that are the most important to me and the school community.

     I really enjoyed looking at Alan P. Merriam’s Anthropology of Music.  How interesting it is to see how someone outside of the music world breaks down the functions of music.  I will not list all of his 10 functions here, but I specifically appreciated the items on his list that I feel could really “strike a chord” within any person, regardless of if they were students of music or if they do not consider themselves particularly musical.  Some of these are as follows: music as ”Symbolic Representation”, “Enforcing Conformity to Social Norms”, and ”Contribution to the Continuity and Stabalizing of Culture.”  I believe these functions would be considered “valuable” in our society.  Although I do believe strongly that music is an education of our emotions, and I would be sure to include this in my future verbaliztions of the meaning of music, I’m not sure how well this idea alone would hold up if I were to be, let’s say, defending my music program to a Board of Education.  In a society that often believes expressing one’s emotions carries a negative connotation, I believe that highlighting the social and cultural importances of music would be very beneficial.  AlthoughI have a long way to go, I feel that I am on the right track to developing my own way to communicate my personal ideas of the meaning of music and the meaning of music education in schools.

Chapter 4: The Creating Dimension Of Musical Experience

    This chapter began by simply asking us to question “What - or When - is Creative?  Immediately I realized that I had never answered this question for myself, and never set parameters for how and when I use this word to describe my students.  I also quickly realized from the chapter that there are differing viewpoints on when to use the term creative: the “Big C” vs. “small c” debate.  I, as a teacher, certainly feel that the ideas of the “Big C” believers (that only “world renowned, historically eminent exemplars - the one’s whos achievements have altered the course of their domain’s history” pg. 104) are not entirely accurate.  My beliefs are certainly more in-line with Reimer’s ideas about “small c”.  This belief encompasses the idea that children, and anyone else really, are capable of being creative. He states the following: ”I will argue that anyone being creative is, at that time, creative.” (107)

IF anyone can be creative, THEN how can we as teachers use the different musical roles to allow our students to tap into their creativity in the music classroom?…

      Please take into account the following list of characteristics generated by Reimer to describe a person when they are being creative (Western ideas):”…creativity requires qualities of imagination, originality, divergence, ingenuity, openness, inventiveness, nonconformity, innovation, novelty, uniqueness, fluency, flexibility, and the like.” (108).   If we then take into account the musical roles of Composing, Performing, Improvising, and Listening, the possibilities seem endless for allowing students to be imaginitive, original, etc., or CREATIVE, within these roles.  Two of the roles specificially, I feel, have always been thought of as obvious creative outlets: composing and improvising. I have always tried to incorporate these roles into my classes in some way, and I have never doubted their ability to allow the children to be ”creative”. When you allow a group of general music students to compose for classroom instrument after a rhythm unit, or have a choral singer “scat” on a jazz piece, the qualities of creativity are very apparent to anyone listening.  Whether or not their work is technically perfect, they are certainly being creative with their knowledge and creating something new, or novel, and unique.   

        But it is Reimer’s discussion of the Performer and the Listener as “creative” that have very much sparked my interest, and changed my mind in many ways.  In terms of performance, I had never really seen the students role (I will use students as choral singers for reference seeing that that is what I teach) as being particularly creative.  I had somewhat considered my role as the conductor creative, seeing that there are choices that are left up to me to make by the genre or the specific composition, but never had I seen the students as having to be creative in this process.  I suppose I have tried to incorporate their ideas in a few instances, for example when a section is to be repeated an unspecified number of times, I have asked them to help me decide how many times or what dynamics would make it sound the best in their opinion.  But Reimer describes that within the heirachy of composer-conductor-performer, the performers even in a group setting are experiencing “joint creativity, a self-combined-with-other-selves experience in which individuality and community are fused in service of original musical expression.” He also describes this experience as”…enhancing both the sense of self and the sense of self united with other selves as to change the inner lives of all who have been privileged to undergo it.”  This genuinely made my feelings about the importance of each individual choir member very clear:  we are all being creative together to express someone elses creative composition.  Simple, but now clear to me.

    Lastly, Reimer touches upon the idea of creativity in Listening.  I had truly never thought of listening as particularly creative.  I had thought of it more as an individual hearing sounds and possibly describing what they heard after. I had certainly accepted that the listeners would have emotions and feelings about the music, but never had I thought of this as being creative.  But the following thoughts from Reimer have made me realize that this may not be the case: “In a real sense it is not possible to listen without being imaginative, original, inventive, and so forth—that is, creative—because no experience except one of chaotic, meaningless sounds could occur without acts of individual imagination to creat meaning out of what is being heard.”(117).   Well, if you put it that way…

      I think this is defiently true.  I feel that it is our job as teachers to foster this “listening creativity” by giving the students many varied experiences of listening: Different genres, live and recorded experiences, listening to peers perform, etc. I try to do this at every level of general music and with my choirs, but I always try to do it in a very structured, guided way.  Reimer’s statement does make me realize that it is simply the exposure, the act of listening, that holds the importance.   I now see listening as an important creative act.

Chapter 3: The Feeling Dimension of Musical Experience

       In Chapter 3 of Reimer’s text, he addresses the relationship between emotions and music.  He includes the following statement as a main theme of the chapter:  “The emotional dimension of music - its power to make us feel, and to ‘know’ through feeling - is probably its most important defining characteristic.”  IF this is the case, THEN how do we as music educators incorporate the teaching of the “emotional dimension of music”, or our feelings about musics, into our everyday music classroom.

      First, I would like to say that I believe that instilling this idea about music and its relations to emotion and feeling is something that should begin very early on in a child’s music education.  As a matter of fact, I think discussions about music and how it makes us feel, and why it makes us feel that way, should be held beginning with students’ arrival into general music in kindergarten.  These students are perhaps the purest example of a person who can express their emotions in an unbiased (I mean this is terms of their life experiences, social or cultural knowledge that they bring into the room with them, etc.) way, and as we all know, they are completely uncensored.  They may not possess the vocabulary to go into strong detail about why something makes them feel a certain way, but they are certainly able to get their feelings across.  Posing simple questions such as “How did those sounds make you feel?” after listening to a musical example can start a wonderful dialogue with students at this age level.  I have also used the question “Did that music remind you of anything in your life…a person…a place…a thing, and what about it reminded you of that?”  These kinds of conversations begin the process of a child being aware of the fact that music does something to them…it elicits a response to the sounds that they hear, and hopefully, will verbalize.

     I really enjoyed our experiences today in class with Kate Hevner’s Adjective Circle.  As we discussed, the possibilites of ways to incorporate this diagram into the music class are truly endless.  I really like the idea of trying to incorporate it into teaching the late elementary level (4-6th grade) or junior high level (7-8th grade).  At this point in a child’s life it seems that they suddenly do not want to share their feelings, or emotional opinions on things, specifically in a group setting such as the classroom.  Using this diagram as a list to pull from when describing a piece takes a bit of the pressure off of them.

      Another idea proposed today by a classmate that I think I will incorporate into my curriculum, is the suggestion of using the Adjective Circle as the basis for a project.  Let’s say you’re doing a research project on a specific artist or composer (depending on what time period/genre you are studying, this could be as varied as Ray Charles or Mozart).  Then have students find pieces performed or written by this person that they believe fall into each of the categories on the Adjective Circle. Also have them explain why or what about each piece made them feel this way.

       In a society that does not particularly value someone for being “in-touch” with their emotions, how do we make this aspect of what music is at its core important to the students we are teaching, and the society in which we live.  As stated above, in terms of the student, I believe that if we begin incorporating lessons or discussion about our feelings and the emotions being conveyed through music beginning early on, I believe these ideas will resonate with students throughout their music education, and hopefully, throughout their lives…if they have always been in touch with this part of their thinking, then it will be natural for them to express how music effects them. 

          The long-term goal of this, for me, would be to help create citizens who are conscious of there feelings, and of the importance of their feelings in making decisions, their creativity, cognitive abilities, etc.  In these postmodern times, I do believe we need to sway away from a formalist approach in the music classroom, and allow the students ideas, beliefs, and feelings  to become an intregral part of what we are teaching, how we are teaching it, and why we are teaching it.

           In the article “What is the Music Education Paradigm?” by Lee Bartell, the author helps us to first understand what exactly a paradigm is (“a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitute a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them.” Bartell XII) , and second, what the music education paradigm currently is.  This all sounded simple enough and interesting enough to me, so I forged on in my reading with an open mind. 

          What I did not expect were the feelings I began to have shortly after Bartell began listing some of these assumptions, concepts, and values.  He begins by addressing the list of paradigms of “How we teach”.  He starts out gently by listing things such as the rehearsal model (a teacher-directed environment where the teacher is at the front of the class starting and stopping to make corrections), and the structural feature that exists within music education of students being grouped by age-level.  Again, this all seemed simple and appropriate to me.  But then he began to explain how music educators are “proud of the discipline creating by participation” through repetition, “practice-makes-perfect”, etc.  He goes so far as to say that “music teachers are demanding teachers…in ways that may at times approach abuse” (Bartell XIII).  ABUSE?  I am not sure that I hold in my set of values and practices the idea of being so demanding that it borders on abuse….I began to wonder, do other teachers in my Philosophies of Music Education class, for example, consider themselves to be this kind of “abuser” to their students….if not, do they know many others in the profession who act similarly to this?

        As I read on, I was hoping that this was just one odd example within the paradigm that I did not believe to be true.  I began to write down each of the paradigms listed by Bartell in the topics of “How we teach”, “What we teach”, “For what we teach”, “What is expected of teachers and how we teach them”, “Whom we should be teaching”, and “What are our fundamental assumptions?”.  I then highlighted each of the characteristics that I did NOT agree with.  For an article that was not particularly long, I had highlighted 8 different ideas that I did not agree to be true as paradigms in music education.  How could this be, I wondered? Do music teachers today really not ever listen for enjoyment or incorporate pop music.  Do the majority of teachers actually assume they are teaching someone who will go on to a professional career? Do music teachers actually generally assume they should only be teaching the “talented” after the elementary level?

      I looked back at the definition of paradigm…are these really the assumptions, concepts, values and practices that are going on?  As if to ease my mind, Bartell begins his Conclusion by quickly referencing the fact that he is only providing an overview of characterizations in music education and that these characterizations will never be “true of everyone in every place.”   This made me feel a bit better. But almost immediately he confused me again by explaining that people who are not in line with this paradigm are the “exceptions, people on the fringe” and that these kinds of people are “self-conscious of being alternative…different…innovative”.  Although I know that I am in a rapidly changing world, and I am a member of a generation of forward-thinkers, I have never thought of my teaching values and beliefs as “alternative”… I attempt to follow the National Standards in an enjoyable way for my students.   But wait a minute…as I examine my last statement including the words “in an enjoyable way for my students”  I realize that that sounds rather Postmodernistic.  Maybe my current set of beliefs, values, assumptions about the way I teach, what I teach, etc. is forward thinking and I just always accepted it as the norm.   Hmmmmm….