Historical Perspective of Music Education Philosophy – Part I

In the US, during the nineteenth century, the practice of singing from rote was used for musical expression of worship in church settings. The practice of teaching of music in singing schools was then replaced by music schools. With basic rote teaching methods in place, it can be understood that the philosophical thought during this time was merely that music held value in society and that it should be included in one’s education. Common school curriculum included music and the need for specialized music educators began to grow in size and scope. Music educators were encouraged to develop more teaching methods resembling that of Pestalozzi and Froebel thus utilizing more of a psychological approach to music education teaching.
As American society moved into the twentieth century, music continued to hold integral value in education programming and additional features, such as instrumental music performance and fundamental music teaching, began to take shape. Replaced by foci of general music education and patriotism, worship became a minor focus for musical training. The increase of music education societies and associations, such as Music Teachers National Association and Music Supervisors National Conference, began to assist music educators across broad geographical areas providing avenues for expressing methods, organizational development and musical thoughts related to music education on a larger scale. Larger scale organization permitted vast exchange of thoughts and ideas throughout the music education community as the growth of professional music supervisors grew. Readily accessible radio and phonograph technologies birthed new avenues for music appreciation and listening, thus heightening the popularity of bands and subsequently increasing the need for more full-time music educators with formal training, music publications and related music materials. A growing music education philosophy began to form as a community of music educators began to share ideas and pedagogies of progressive education as exemplified in the establishment of the Music Supervisors National Conference of 1907, which would later become the Music Educators National Conference.
-----
1. Bennett Reimer, A Philosophy of Music Education: Advancing the Vision, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2003), 245.

Developing a Music Education Philosophy – Part II

To many educators, developing a music education philosophy can be a daunting task, however, with a little self-reflection and motivation, one can set-out on the life-long path of discovery. By developing a music education philosophy an educator can begin to understand the central core of what musical experience means at a personal level, and then be able to explore the pedagogical implications. Intentional or not, the beliefs held within an individual, specifically teaching beliefs, will, in some way be manifested in the classroom setting. Knowing, or beginning to know, one’s music education philosophy will assist the educator in awareness of strengths and weaknesses that may be present due to beliefs therein.
When exploring the deep waters of music education philosophy, there are premises that need to be established before getting into further philosophical inquiry; the primary premise being that a music educator assumes music has value. Without music being given a place of value within the educator, a music education philosophy cannot be adequately established since all relevant core issues of music education will contradict future action-making experiences.
Secondly, it is assumed that a music educator also assigns value to the actions of teaching and learning such as personal growth and regular curriculum development. Since it is within oneself to give or deny value, personal reflection is needed to determine such distinctive qualifiers. Personal reflection leads to personal reaction. From such reactions, or lack thereof, all of our outward methods and concepts for teaching and pedagogy are displayed. It is such reactions that will determine and prioritize music curriculum, activity and daily routine within the classroom. Therefore, with music, and teaching and learning as established value premises, one can begin the process of discovering a personal philosophy of a music educator.
There are many examples throughout the history of music education that mirror how music education philosophy, and at times a lack of philosophical understanding, has affected teacher preparation and student learning. As one develops a music education philosophy that will be an active part of one’s teaching and learning, it would behoove oneself to understand the historical backdrop so that further critical thinking and ideas can be acknowledged, aptly understood, and either discarded or absorbed.

Developing a Music Education Philosophy – Part I

For music educators, many parts of the day includes musical sound; sound that signals us to wake up, sound that signals a start of school, sound of the students warming up in a band room, and the sound of silence as the day is done. Our days are marked by sound. It is a reminder of who we are and why we press on: music educators with a passion for teaching sound, or music, to the next generation of music students.
Like other educators, music educators not only need reminders of why they continue to teach day in and day out, they need to actively live out their underlying beliefs about music teaching and learning. Such action-based belief is what many call music education philosophy. It is a set of beliefs displayed in daily classroom routines and activities. When truly anchored as belief within an individual, philosophy takes on an active, visible form in one’s outward life. It is through an individual philosophy that one is able to map one’s assumptions to understand what direction needs to be taken or which direction to follow. With an applied music education philosophy, educators invoke their individual philosophy and map it so that they are better able explore, probe and process musical thought and inquiry exemplified in the music classroom. Thus, a well-formed music education philosophy enables a music educator to present a strong foundation of formulated critical understanding to better equip music students for their future learning and musical experiences. It is through the application of an active philosophical discovery that this paper will promote how a music educator can strengthen one’s music education philosophy, develop purposeful curricula and thereby present a well-rounded music program and experience capable of providing opportunity to engage today’s music student for a lifetime of learning.

Balanced Teaching in the Music Classroom

The art of balanced teaching in education should be a desire of all teachers. Sadly, most students graduate with a perspective only as wide as their teachers. As we look specifically at the music classroom, I believe that if we are honest about our past musical teaching, each of us, at some point in time, have taught music from our own understanding and perhaps avoided teaching on material that we either do not have formal training in, or that we do not find of personal interest.

That being said, as music teachers, it is our job to educate our students about music. This broad subject category called music covers the world over – both large and small cultural groups. Building on our knowledge as pedagogues, we can see that the music classroom crosses into many other subjects such as mathematics, geography, art, history, and social studies. By coordinating other subject disciplines with the music classroom, the burden of teaching students such a vast amount of knowledge can be lightened – and even making it easier for the different learner-types to understand. Using the resources of cross-classroom teaching will permit the music classroom to engage students in learning about the more specific music aspects of a music genre while still permitting the student to gain adequate knowledge about his or her instrument.

By cultivating and incorporating a balanced ethnomusicologist understanding in the music classroom, we will be leading our students, by example, of how we are each responsible to respect individuals, and cultures, outside of the classroom walls. The next generation of a country’s leadership is formed by the values and ethics that are taught, or neglected, in the education classroom.

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.