Some Thoughts on Music Education

I have been involved in music education in one way or another for all of my working life,  as  lecturer in a music conservatoire, class teacher of theory at a music school, instrumental tutor in a one-to-one learning and teaching situation, and examiner -(surely just another version of educator in the fullest extent of the term). I want to focus mainly on the music education of young persons at secondary level, because that is the age group with which I am most familiar. 

It seems that the subject of this essay has been and still is beset by a number of confusions which have had the consequence of making the role of music teachers in schools an insecure one and of putting music as a taught subject   at or near the bottom of schools’ lists of priorities. Not that the picture is quite as gloomy as it once was, thanks to the pressure applied by at least some of the more concerned educators both within and outside music which has finally led to it  now being a compulsory  subject up to year 9. We in the UK definitely take music education more seriously than many other countries where, because of financial restraints or cultural attitudes, it is either non- existent or exists in a rudimentary form only at primary level.

But that there are confusions within the profession becomes only too apparent when we examine at all closely just how we educate young people in this subject; how  music education compares with that for other subjects; and most importantly the results of music education at a later stage- i.e. how  adults approach and respond to music.

The confusion starts with what exactly we mean by the word “music”. Do we mean it to denote an activity or an intellectual discipline? “Music” has been so often confused with “music-making” that we hardly notice the difference, and yet they are not the same. Music may denote the end-product of the art and science of organising sounds into coherent and meaningful forms, and as such has been a respected area of study for many centuries.  Music-making is the practical realisation of those meaningful forms into sound so that they can be experienced by the listener. Now at junior level it may be all very well to concentrate on the latter and merely give a rudimentary outline of the former, but at secondary level I truly believe that this will not do.  Imagine another subject, and one which always comes high on the list of priorities within taught subjects at all levels- namely mathematics, and now try to imagine the consequences of concentrating on those practical activities such as calculating with plastic counters, using the abacus etc which are perfectly respectable in the junior school but would be laughable if carried on into secondary levels. At all but the preliminary stage in mathematics the concentration is upon the intellectual content first and its practical applications second.  And yet I have witnessed groups of secondary school girls banging away at drums and trying out group “compositions” without knowing anything of the nature of the sounds they were making, of the difference between rhythm and meter, or of the most elementary formal principles. In this example the focus was definitely on music as an activity. Instruction on the scientific basis on which all music is founded and on even the most rudimentary aspects of form had probably not been given. On the other hand I remember my own secondary school days in the 1950s and 60s, and music lessons in which recordings of the “great classics” were played- which we were supposed to somehow “appreciate” -for the whole duration of the lesson. There was no practical music making at all except singing hymns at morning assembly. In class lessons the emphasis was (rightly) on the classics, but (wrongly) on appreciation without any adequate prior background knowledge of what we were supposed to be appreciating or any instruction on the nature of sound or the fundamentals of musical form.

The second confusion arises because of the sheer vastness of the subject. Every decade or so music educationists ask themselves just what types of music should be included in the curriculum and what should be omitted. When I was at secondary school the only music even mentioned in music lessons was Classical Music- which would be deemed far  too limited nowadays, and rightly so.  Now, classroom music teachers are obliged to include a little of everything: jazz, popular, classical, ethnic music and music technology so as to appear not to favour any one group or interest.  Along with the attempt to include as much variety of music as possible goes the dubious assumption (born of modern political correctness) that all types of music are worthy of equal amounts of attention. That jazz, popular music, reggae, gamelan and classical are all equal in the eyes (or ears) of the music educator has become virtually an article of faith, and to query this is tantamount to heresy. The possible problems arising from this attitude are that classes may end up knowing a little of everything, but not much of any one thing in particular, and that the music teacher is obliged to teach in areas in which he or she has no specialist knowledge, which will probably  result in faulty or superficial treatment of subject matter.

This brings me to the third confusion and one that I suspect has not been so much as noticed by the vast majority who work in music education, namely: should we be teaching music as an art or as an entertainment, or both?  The two terms are nowadays so frequently used together, especially in the information churned out by local government departments that we have almost come to accept them as synonymous. It would require a separate essay to go into the fullest implications of these two words, but suffice to say here that a work of art, to be effective as a means of communication, always needs our full attention, whether it is a picture, sculpture, book or piece of music. In the case of those art forms which unfold in time, our attention is required for their full duration if their meaning is to be effectively transmitted to us.  Entertainment, although it requires some awareness of its presence, does not require anything like the amount of attention we should give to an art-work.

If we regard music as merely an entertainment, something you have as a background to other more arresting things like films, television, dancing, or flower arranging, then it hardly needs teaching in classes  at any level, but could better   be relegated to the status of  an after school activity or lunchtime “club” along with chess and model aeroplanes.

Alternatively, if we teach music as an art, then we are up against the problems of attention and attentiveness. The universally known fact that children in classes, at all ages, are not good at paying attention, lies, I suspect, at the root of  the inclusion of so many varied types of music into the curriculum. The policy of giving  them a little of what they know (and hence presumably enjoy) mixed with the unfamiliar, which hopefully they will  come to appreciate , is undoubtedly an attractive one compared to  the prospect of  facing  classes  of bored teenagers, totally inattentive to the finer points of  symphonic structure or Renaissance polyphony. But is not lack of prolonged attention one of society’s present day maladies? The modern means of the dissemination of vast quantities of information have led to a general inattentiveness. Instead we are all tempted to hop from one item of information to another, giving each item the minimum of attention so as to get on to the next as soon as possible. We have become consumers of information in the same way that we are consumers of food, clothing, electronic equipment and so on, and as such we are constantly urged to consume more and more to keep manufacturers in profit and the economy in a healthy condition. We are only obliged to be attentive for long spans in our work and our driving! The ability to attend fully to a work of art so as to grasp its meaning is low on the list of achievements for most people, and I suspect that is because they have not been taught its importance. Also, we must remember that prolonged visual attentiveness is easier than prolonged aural attentiveness, which always needs more effort.  Should we be teaching “attentiveness skills” then, at secondary level, before any attempt is made to teach “appreciation”? How can one fully grasp the content and meaning of, say, a Mahler symphony without concentrating on it for its complete duration?

The fourth confusion stems from the quite recent concept of music education as being in some way beneficial in other areas, for example as an aid to achievement in other academic subjects, or for increased manual dexterity in certain sports, and so on. In other words, teaching music not for its own sake but because of the benefits it might bring to other fields of activity.  This concept, the validity of which is as yet not proven, must have been invented by those with no understanding or experience of what music (in the sense of its being an art and science) may do for us. It is also an insult to those who do know the reality of the power of music to enrich and transform our experience of life, and the goal of music education should surely be to bring young people to an awareness of this power, even if the final experiencing of it does not happen for all of them.

I am certainly not going to propose a single solution as to how these confusions may be clarified, but will put forward my own suggestions, based on many years of teaching, thinking and experiencing music.

What I would like to propose is that a core of incontrovertible factual information be given first, before any consideration of the social, cultural and subjective aspects of music are dealt with.  This core of facts would begin with the natural properties of sound: frequency, amplitude and timbre; then the basic ingredients   of all music: rhythm, meter and tempo, the organization of sounds into scales, motives, phrases and sections; then harmony:  intervals; chords and their progressions.  Then progress to the fact that music as organised sound may have an effect on us, but that effects vary from one listener to another. At this point we enter the subjective realm, and education, in its role of   inculcating factual information, breaks down. As soon as we concern ourselves with the subjective experience of music, we, as educators, can really do only two things: expose our students to certain types of music that they have had little or no earlier experience of, and inform them of how other listeners have reacted to it.  We cannot make them, or anyone else, “appreciate” it, but hopefully we can make them aware that music can mean something in and for itself and not in relation to what it might be used for.  I would emphasize music as an art, rather than an entertainment, for the reasons given above. Indeed if we keep in mind the original meaning of the word educate, as “leading onwards”, then we must be seen to be leading our pupils onwards (and upwards?)  to regions as yet unvisited by most of them, and not backwards to where they  have been before.  To merely give them examples of what might be termed “easy listening” in the guise of diversity, is not to educate at all, but to take the easy way out for both the pupils and the teacher.

Activities are essential in school music classes, but they should not dominate, as they sometimes do, the more intellectual (for want of a better word) aspects of music- namely its organization, cultural significance, and aesthetic qualities.  The aim of the class music teacher should definitely not be solely to produce performing musicians, anymore than that of the English literature teacher should just be to produce actors. We should never forget that the value of music is to the whole community and not just to those who perform it. If those who have no skill or inclination to perform feel that they are being pressured into doing so, then their enthusiasm for music will quickly wither away.

A far more important aim, I feel, should be to open minds and ears. There is so much waiting to be discovered, but the biggest obstacle to making discoveries, apart from mental laziness, is prejudice, and the roots of that lie in our almost instinctive tendency to pre-conceive.  In the words of Frances Flaherty, in talking of her husband’s pioneering work as a documentary film-maker:

 “Non-preconception is the pre-condition to discovery, because it is a state of mind. When you do not pre-conceive, then you go about finding out.” [1]

 Some typical prejudices that one would probably encounter both in and out of the classroom include: 

1. Classical music is only for upper middle class intellectuals. I am not an upper middle class intellectual; therefore classical music is not for me. I will get nothing out of it. 

2. Only music written down is “proper” music, therefore jazz and ethnic music is not correct and I will not give it much attention. 

3. Popular music is all mass-produced rubbish. It is never worth listening to.

I am sure we could all note more of this sort of thing, and we all have our “deaf spots” when it comes to evaluating music or any other form of communication. Along with preconceiving, is making generalisations based on insufficient knowledge, which may begin with little matters like the biased assessment of ALL popular music noted above. The end of that path is of course much more serious- discrimination, conflict and war.

The music teacher’s job then, is to break down prejudices and generalisations and foster a spirit of exploration and understanding. The latter may not actually equal liking but it can certainly lead to it. With music that most young people find difficult to understand and consequently like, a very secure foundation in those factual matters referred to above, together with an understanding of why the music sounds the way it does, is required for any appreciation of it to ensue. 

Postscript

On reading the above essay through after several months, I am aware that I have probably taken a somewhat idealistic view of the school classroom. I know that for many teachers just keeping classes quiet and attentive takes most of their time and energy and they can only impart a few tiny nuggets of information in one session.  I am also aware that, regrettably, some young people do not want to learn anything. But such has always been the case. However I still stand by the gist of my argument that music needs to be taught in a more academic and scientific way if it is ever to achieve the status, which it really does deserve, of subjects such as the sciences and languages.

06/10