Combining the Philosophies

Rather than mutual exclusion, use of the combined philosophies presents a more acceptable approach for accommodating both the role of feelings along with the cognitive activities found in the music experience. Finding the middle ground that is a feasible and workable solution to decades of philosophical debate is an educator’s personal adventure. There will not be any guarantee that the use of any philosophical system will provide an educator with the perfect curriculum, however, the understanding of one’s philosophical placement will provide the avenues for exploration in order to present a thoughtful and provoking program. It is up to the student to choose to engage.
Perhaps, Reimer found his blend of philosophical thought as he submitted his third revision of A Philosophy of Music Education in 2003. From this revision, one reads about the enlightenment of a need for a synergistic approach to music education that proposes a model of experience-based music teaching and learning that joins the reality of the music created with the interpretation by individuals. (1)

-----
1. Bennett Reimer, A Philosophy of Music Education: Advancing the Vision, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2003), 38.

More thoughts about Praxialism

A praxial philosophy of music education highlights the action of music, and, “that music ought to be understood in relation to the meanings and values evidenced in actual music making and music listening in specific cultural contexts.” (1) Elliot further explains that, “Without some form of intentional human activity, there can be neither musical sounds nor works of musical sound. In short, what music is, at root, is a human activity.” (2)Therefore, when looking at music education philosophy from a praxialist thought, one understands the musical experience as, “explained completely in terms of cognitive challenges.” (3)
There are notable positive outcomes for embracing a praxial philosophy of music education - mainly the result of the integration of multi-dimensional musical aspects. Elliott suggests the high cognitive use of “performance-interpretation, the standards of traditions of practice, expression, musical representation, and cultural ideaological information,” (4) for music learning. Based on the understanding of music as a performance-experience, praxialism suggests promotion of high quality musicianship since the music student is involved in the various action-guided aspects. Highlighting action-based objectives, Elliott states that, “By itself, formal musical knowledge is inert and unmusical. It must be converted into procedural knowing-in-action to achieve its potential.” (5)
A second notable positive aspect of the praxial approach to music education is that it includes more inclusion of, “social, historical and cultural conditions and forces in which practices of music production arise and have meaning.” (6) It should be noted, that although, aesthetic music education did not originally give much attention to the social and cultural condition of music, revised understanding of aesthetic music education currently uphold the importance of the social and cultural conditions of music making.
Many challenges for Elliott’s praxial philosophy suggest that the core experience of praxialism is purely challenge at the cognitive level. Such challengers of praxial thought include Constantijn Koopman who stated, “There is no reason to believe that the enjoyment one derives from musical activities is exclusively a function of the magnitude of the cognitive challenge they involve.” (7) Praxial thought does not permit an explanation for those music experiences that do not provide high challenge opportunities. Taken further, this thought can lead to the assumption that if there is lack of challenge in performance, and therefore lack of true musical experience, one can also assume that the actual performance itself would be void of musical experience. This type of thinking can invalidate the performance of common, traditional works that perhaps do not require demanding facility solely on cognition of the performer and exclude the listener as well as the social traditions that the music may hold for society.
Therefore, it can be suggested that pure praxialism does not constitute a successful music experience. It explains the concepts of knowing about, and why a concept exists, however, it generally cannot give precise explanation on the reasoning for existing feelings brought forth from the music experience itself.

-----
1. David J. Elliot, Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 14.
2. Ibid., 39.
3. Constantijn Koopman, “Music Education: Aesthetic or "Praxial"?” Journal of Aesthetic Education 32:3 (1998): 9.
4. Ibid., 11.
5. David J. Elliot, Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 61.
6. Philip Alperson “What Should One Expect from a Philosophy of Music Education?” Journal of Aesthetic Education 25: 3, (1991): 236.
7. Constantijn Koopman, “Music Education: Aesthetic or "Praxial"?” Journal of Aesthetic Education 32:3 (1998): 8.

Thoughts about Aesthetic Music Education Philosophy

Bennett Riemer, leading music education philosopher on aesthetic music education, posits that, “An experience-based philosophy of music education is one that focuses on and cherishes all the many ways music can be experienced and all the many musics offering the special experience music provides.” (1) Reimer further states, “All our musical experiences, no matter what sort, ‘educate’ our inner, felt life, refining, clarifying, broadening, and deepening our feelings in a way analogous to how language does the same for our conceptual reasonings.” (2) While emphasizing music’s, or sound’s, affect on feeling and emotion as central to aesthetic music education, Reimer includes various creative, multi-dimensional approaches for music learning. Music students are given opportunity to explore the aesthetic value of music through inclusion of seven areas of music that include, among them, composition, performing, listening and music theory. (3)
Highlighting inclusion for both the general music student and the professional music student, aesthetic music education philosophy emphasizes individual feeling and a more comprehensive understanding of the role of feelings in the music listener and performer as listener. This positive impact of inclusion of all types of music students permits a broad-based learning environment for diverse music programs and groups. Reimer further reiterates his desire for inclusion of all individuals in music education as he states, “ Music education should help individuals achieve whatever potentials they have to be musically intelligent – able to more fully experience musical satisfactions – in whatever ways they choose.” (4)Further acknowledging the impact of a performance-based system of learning, Reimer suggests that singling out one aspect of music can limit the number of ways music can be enjoyed, and discovered, and thereby limiting one’s overall musical experience. (5)
It can be understood that challenges to an aesthetic music education philosophy can arise from the actual limitation of scope created by the music educator. Upon his revisions to his initial A Philosophy of Music Education, Reimer rewrote it to expand his philosophy for a broader cultural and intellectual inclusion. Without this important inclusion, aesthetic music education philosophy would not be able to adhere to the declarations made from the Tanglewood Symposium (1967) that submitted that current music education philosophy could not adequately present the teaching and learning of non-Western music.
A second challenge to aesthetic music education philosophy again submits to the actions of the individual educator: If one does not fully understand the basis of aesthetic education, and merely intakes a superficial gleaning of the ideas therein of “perceiving, reacting, producing, conceptualizing, analyzing, evaluating, and valuing,”(6) then a music program could conceivably result in students that perform quantitatively, however lack quality of performance skill. This perhaps led to David Elliott’s statement that with aesthetic music education philosophy, “It fails to acquit the art of music.” (7) Such was the problematic issue that began to surface in American schools in the late 1960s. Music educators wanted to purport a vogue aesthetic music philosophy without much individual research and subsequent application into curriculum design. This then resulted in music educators stressing performance rather than artistic human experience as seen in the rise of more performance oriented programs.
-----
1. Bennett Reimer, A Philosophy of Music Education: Advancing the Vision, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2003), 69.
2. Ibid., 135.
3. Ibid., 199.
4. Ibid., 199.
5. Ibid., 69.
6. Richard Colwell, “Music and Aesthetic Education: A Collegial Relationship.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 20:4 (1986): 36.
7. David J. Elliot, “Music as Knowledge” Journal of Aesthetic Education 25: 3 (1991): 23.

Historical Perspective of Music Education Philosophy – Part III

While aesthetic education began to take form in music education, other ideas and philosophical thoughts began to emerge. Other music education philosophers, such as David J. Elliott, began to question how aesthetic education could not respond appropriately to other non-Western music teaching. Concurrently, as educators began to debate and re-evaluate music education philosophy, the development of music education organizations continued. Various monumental music education meetings, such as The Yale Seminar (1963) and the Tanglewood Symposium (1967), began to take place. Music education philosophical reform came to the forefront as music educators begin to seek answers as to why “public school music programs had not produced a musically literate and active public.” (1) Active philosophical debates increased with the surfacing of Elliott’s “praxial” philosophy which emphasized music value through performance rather than the aesthetics’ music value through listening. Music educators were challenged in their aesthetic education view as Elliott published his critique of aesthetic music education in his 1991 book, Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education. To repudiate Elliott’s critical proclamations on aesthetic music education, Reimer notably updated and revised A Philosophy of Music Education in 2003 to reflect his most recent views on music education. To date, both music education philosophies are found in the music classroom, moderately utilized in a dichotomous web.
From this brief historical background, one can observe how two seemingly different music education philosophies have evolved over the past 100 years. Both philosophical views present admirable teaching and learning aspects of music education that can provide a student with a developed music curriculum, and consequently a music learning environment, that promotes the value of music. It is at this point that the two philosophies break away from each other, as they begin to define what gives music meaning: feeling or cognition.
-----
1. Michael L. Mark and Charles L. Gary, A History of American Music Education (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2007), 399.

Historical Perspective of Music Education Philosophy – Part II

By the mid-twentieth century, American society focused on education reform due to the flurry of technological advancement brought on after WWII. US Political leaders began to place emphasis on the development of science and math so that the American system could compete on a worldwide level with the organized education systems found in other countries, such as Russia. It was at this time that the elevation of the subjects such as math, science and reading created public bias towards other subjects such as music. (1) Governmental reports such as, “National Goals in Education” (1960), President Kennedy’s emphasis on educational research and development, and increased governmental funding towards scientific research education perpetuated the bias at a governance level as well.
The former progressive education movement prior to the mid-twentieth century no longer held first place in such technological advancement. This perpetuated the resultant lack of substantial for music education philosophy and direction. The 1960s brought forth a school curriculum that was more student oriented as a result of the vast displays of organized youth movements that encouraged freedom of the individual. Inductive thinking and learning became vogue in the educational setting. Overall curriculum structure and development began to concentrate on conceptual teaching.
With the lack of substantial music education philosophy at the time, the parallel resolve of lack of value and development for music education resulted. (2) Music education needed philosophical reform in order to survive. It around this time that early leaders of aesthetic education philosophy, i.e. Charles Leonhard and Allan Britton, began to present the unique qualities of the study of music that separated music from other school subjects. Aesthetic education emerged at this time as a philosophy for music education.
Heightened verbalized need for change in music education peaked around the 1970s with the publication of Bennett Reimer’s, A Philosophy of Music Education. This music education philosophy sought to transform the music classroom through valuing music from the aspect of intrinsic feeling. Such was exemplified in the 1970’s writing of Abraham Schwadron:
The real problem in contemporary music education which are daily concerns are to a considerable extent value-centered. We are coming to realize that a new or alternate approach is needed for the construction of value-oriented curricular design. The context of this emerging curriculum will focus on issues relevant to the nature of music and to the lives of the students. It will lead students to ask fundamental questions, to engage in intriguing musical activities, and to seek answers based on personal reflection, inquiry, discovery, and research; it will help them formulate their values of music on both logical and introspective levels.

-----
1. Michael L. Mark and Charles L. Gary, A History of American Music Education (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2007), 386.
2. Michael L. Mark and Charles L. Gary, A History of American Music Education (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2007), 417.
4. Michael L. Mark and Charles L. Gary, A History of American Music Education (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2007), 420.