Takeaways from my reading on Reimer and Elliott...

The biggest take-away for me from the readings I have done is how much Reimer adapted his philosophical belief system from 1970 to 2003, the year his third revision of A Philosophy of Music Education was published. From the reading of the 3rd edition, we are really given a blending of the two philosophies (aesthetic and praxial) yet, we may not have necessarily understood the implications of the blend. It seems that Reimer is quite humble in his estimation that his former writings do not quite hit the mark on cultural orientation for the music experience, but I am sure that we can all agree that he definitely exemplifies his acceptance of social and cultural contexts in the 3rd edition.

As for Elliot, I am still not sure that I can walk away knowing that I have indeed reached the level of “musicer.” I realize that Elliott is trying to establish a hierarchy, but I think that perhaps the high inclusion of cognitive challenge to establish music as experience limits his philosophical position.

When Reimer rephrases Ryle: “Your capacity to understand (and therfore estimate properly the value of) my musical thinking-in-action is one in type with knowing how to think musically in action yourself (Reimer, 57) it opens a very large window of questioning for me. For example, does this mean that we can say that someone is not a good enough music in knowledge to be a good enough listener of “my music” or “your music?” I.e. is this a way to justify “bad” music – in that we only need to say that the listener just isn’t experiences/knowledgeable enough to understand. This could lead to a few less grammy nods…

The take-away from a teaching perspective is that, as educators, we can go beyond the knowing areas of the music educator – beyond the sufficient – and explore outside the constraints of one’s background. Therefore, observed from a learner’s perspective, this means that one can initiate both technique and creativity at the onset of learning.

----
Reading sources:
Bennett Reimer, A Philosophy of Music Education: Advancing the Vision (2nd ed. Prentice Hall/Person Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002), 11.

David J. Elliott, Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 33.

The Influence of Blue and Ragtime on Jazz

Due to limited historical data, it is difficult to determine when was the impetus of Jazz, however it can be determined through careful comparison and study that Jazz was highly influenced from both Blues and Ragtime. Jazz in its many forms can be said to be a product of Blues and Ragtime.

The initial label of “Blues” came from the 1862 memoirs of Southern Carolina slave, Charlotte Fortner. In her response to her life, she considered her days of slavery to be her “blue” days. From this initial label, Blues grew to encompass the music of slavery and eventually solidified characteristics of call and response, falling or moaning vocals, use of b3, b5 and b7 harmonies, 8 or 12 bar melodic form and rhythmic interplay. Similarly, Ragtime (1890 – 1920) had much influence on the birth of Jazz. Music from composers such as Scott Joplin (“Maple Leaf Rag”) and Fats Waller (“Ain’t Misbehavin’”) hold identity of 16 bar themes, syncopated melodies, improvisation, and polyphonic textures of harmonic and instrumental identity.

As the timeline of commercial music history began to progress, one can hear that both the influence of ragtime and Blues united to create the genre that is today known as the Jazz. Initially, the young New Orleans Jazz genre was heard in the standard form of King Oliver’s Creole Jazz Band’s recording of “Dippermouth Blues” (1923). Up until this time, improvisation and composition were viewed as separate identities. In the recordings of “Dippermouth Blues,” both the Okeh version of 1925 and the Gennett version of 1923 exemplify a soloing structure that incorporated spontaneous composition as part of the improvisation structure. It is at this musical juncture that the term Jazz emerged as a description for music with an emphasis on spontaneous composition and improvisation.

With the incorporation of set spontaneous composition and improvisation, “Buddy Bolden’s Blues” “Dippermouth Blues” and “West End Blues” (and most definitely, Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue”) can be labeled the beginnings of Jazz, however, in my opinion “St; Louis Blues” can be found on the Blues side of the musical fence with its tethered Blues vocal traditions or moaning lyrics, call and response melodies, and Blues form in combination with the freely improvised trumpet.

Where does music begin?

If we are honest with ourselves, we define personal boundaries on music every time we hear sound. Whatever the promoter, or amplifier (i.e. car radio, television, elevator sounds or person), our sonic filters make a decision to either absorb the sound or not. However, the linear idea of sound initiation goes back farther than the amplifier and starts with the composer.

The composer is the initial decision maker on what sounds will be used. Particularly, the composer is not the creator of sound, but the vehicle that chooses which sonority to utilize and at which point in the music notation or production. With this in mind, it is the composer that has the ability to push the sonic envelope by being on the musical fringe or stay within the known for-profit sector of music. It is the composer’s choice to work within the developed framework of the music marketplace or risk by venturing into new music streams that may not have a for-profit sector.

Since every person has some type of unique music within them - scientists have proven that DNA mapping is actually a sound – I submit that some composers have a built in need to release music no matter if it is for public consumption and/or economic reasons. Many people would call this built in need one’s passion. If one squelches passion, he or she is essentially denying the unique identity made within. Composers are generally people that cannot afford to let passion die within; they usually find someway to vent the music- be it in a form the public finds acceptable or a form that may only be acceptable to the composer himself.

Absolute vs Referential Expressionism

For all of you die-hard music education philosophy fans out there, here’s a reminder of the debates that continue to circulate... yes, it’s been a long week!

Absolute Expressionist’s says:
It’s all about the music. I am an objective observer; I have nothing to do with the musical object. If the composer provides the musical object to interject unpredictable sounds in the music, I will let it cause emotion in me. All I do is permit my emotions to be activated by the music. Music has meaning; it comes from the music and the resultant sounds it creates. All I have to do is listen to hear the outcome of what the musical object produces. I don’t need to know a thing about the music’s context or be an educated music listener. So, let’s get on with the music. Let your music affect me, composer!”

A Referential Expressionist says...
Music has no value unless I say it does. The music is not about itself but it is about me and how I understand it to speak to me and those around me. I will shun music that is a copy cat. Music must be more than pleasure and beauty. It must reveal the divine nature and promote unity among his people. Yes, I demand many answers from the music. Is it simple? Are the musical lines clear and to the point? Can it be enjoyed by everyone? In my opinion, if there is art in the music, I will be able to tell you – actually, anyone should be able to perceive the artistic value in a piece of music. After all, it isn’t art unless I determine that it is art.