Okay all, just for the sake of it I'm starting this thread to see where it goes. I'd put it in current events, but a lot of us avoid it.

I'm interested in your thoughts on musical education as part of primary and secondary education required curriculum. I've got a ton of reports (and am writing an essay on it as we speak) but would like to simply hear your opinions, pro or con.

This won't really be used anywhere in my studies except to make sure I'm covering both sides of the argument, so feel free to voice those opinions!

~Ang

I think we need more music education. There's so much crap out there that people are calling music, we've obviously failed as a society to properly educate generations of kids!

Seriously though, I think kids need exposed to a little bit of everything there is to learn about in a classroom type setting. There is probably a lot better way to teach it than I remember my experience of sitting in a classroom listening to some old bat ramble on and on, but I think it needs to be taught in some form.

A friend of mine has started learning about "classical" education which includes learning about all types of areas in lieu of just focusing on a core group of subjects like we're currently doing with our kids. I know I'd prefer our children get a more well rounded education.

I agree with Buck, that we need more music education.

There are so many avenues to this as well, vocal lessons, instrument lessons, history of music, learning about the different genres (classical, jazz, rock and roll, etc), the list goes on. I played the flute for 8 years starting in the 4th grade and through my senior year of high school, and I don't feel that my educational experience would be the same without this. I was exposed to different genres of music that I otherwise wouldn't have been exposed to, as well as familiar pieces. Music also incorporates math, following instructions, proper care for your instrument, practice and training, geography, and other concepts necessary for children (and adults) to learn. To learn how music can tell a story, how it can stir emotions, can we really rob our kids of this experience? Or at least the opportunity to have it?

On the flip side, let me play devil's advocate for a second. Music programs in schools are expensive and take necessary money away from other programs and therefore are high on the list, along with PE, for the budget chopping block. Schools should only have programs that they have the means to pay for, such as, *ahem* big budget football teams, etc. If they want music education or lessons, let the kids go outside to expensive private lessons for something the schools could have provided.

Sorry for the sarcasm at the end there, but I totally disagree with the other side of the argument. Obviously I don't think a school system should go bankrupt for music education, but realistically, the community should take some action and make sure their priorities are in order. After all, if a kid plays football they could easily play in an outside league, and get exercise that way too, while a kid who wants to learn the french horn would have a harder time doing that outside of a school educational program.

We had music lessons for three years in my "middle school" (italian schools are in three levels, primary from 6 to 11 years old, middle school from 11 to 14 and high school from 14 to 19, and only primary and middle schools are compulsory).

It mostly qualified as listening to an old bat, as Buckshot said. She was not a talented teacher. She clearly did not like children. She never put an instrument in our hands. We read music from notes, waving our fingers in the air and trying not to grimace. I hated it. The last year, however, she taught us history of music. In her case it was only classical music and a bit of opera. I then realized that she really loved music. I started to like her that year. SOmetimes she wd take us to theater in the evening. We paid a very small ticket as students, or may be nothing at all. Theater in my town is a grand baroque thing in crimson velvet and gold leaf and huge christal chandeliers.

Why I am saying all this? Because, as Phoenix said, I appreciate enourmously that we were given a chance to know something that probably we wd have missed otherwise. Not many families nowadays wd have you listening in a detailed way to Mozart and Verdi, and take you to theater to see the orchestra and hear the real thing. Her music program certainly did not cost much to the school, and while we could have beed spared the first painful years of reading notes, the last year was beautifu, heady, inspiring. And very educative.

I have to say that I notice the same sad general lack of education in many fields. History of art, literature, practical gardening and growing animals. You may think these last points rather eccentric, but coming to grips early with plant and animal life can make you enormously more aware and respectful of ecology and nature. Growing a small kitchen carden in the school yard, keeping an acquarium or hatching baby chickens from the eggs, raising mice... I had the joy of doing these things at school thanks to an experimental teacher and they really... made me what I am.

Italy is rather antiquated in matter of schools. The most valued schools here are the lyceums, that are indeed about classical education in the most ... classical! sense of it. Latin, ( and in some also ancient greek), literature, history and philosophy are just as important in these schools as math, phisics, chemistry and so on.

I did such a school. Completely useless from a professional point of view, but I wd do it again every time.

I have a unique perspective on this.

My politics are very conservative, which means I cringe when I hear of vulgar pieces of art being funded with public money.

I just returned from L.A. where I attended the Grammy awards with a friend of mine who is connected. Those of you who watched saw, and probably noticed, there was a frightening lack of good new material. Old music from Smokey Robinson, Lionel Richie, The Eagles, James Brown, all in one night. The highlighted the three 'good' songwriters, John Mayer, Corinne Bailey Ray, and John Mayer, like it's a special thing to be able to write a song. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO WRITE A SONG, THIS IS THE MUSIC BUSINESS. (I wanted Corinne Bailey Rae to win, but she lost to the Dixie Chicks who got away with switching political flags and re-hashing the chorus from "In the heat of the night" by Bryan Adams to get record of the year. I was VERY underwhelmed.)

So, why do we have neither songwriters nor appreciation of such things? Because we have been conditioned to make music disposable. 30 years ago, you had to listen to the whole side of a record. Now, on your ipod, you don't have to listen past the first chorus. This is a trend that had progressed ever since music moved from performance to recording. 200 years ago, you had to go sit through the whole symphony. Now we can't sit through two minutes. In turn, music is made to have shorter legs. The cycle time for new songs is much shorter than it used to be, songs and artists come and go faster than ever.

I was in music in school, mostly because there was more opportunity to have fun and travel. (And all my friends did it with me.) Band, orchestra, marching, jazz, band camp, pep band, backing music for theater, and after I went into the army, I got serious about rock bands.

I feel the same way about music funding as I do about social security. Take care of yourself, the government won't do it for you. To me, this means I have to teach my kids the fundamentals on my own. White keys, black keys, major scale, minor scale, lead line, backing line, Baroque era, swing era.

It helps that both of my parents are music professors.

I wish that there were more dedicated schools for the arts, but I live in the state where 50 cents of every tax dollar goes to education, and we are STILL dead last in the nation for funding. Private lessons, band camp, and filling their lives with good music is most of what I can do. This is what will let my kids discern the Corrine Bailey Raes from the Britney Spearss.

In the UK music lessons start from the beginning of schooling. Each child will have at least one music lesson a week, geared to their age and ability. Add to this lunch time and evening classes where they can learn to play an instrument and school choirs.
When I was at school, and NO you can't ask how long ago that was, the focus was on classical music but now there is a whole spectrum taught. You will find children learning how to make and play steel drums and all sorts.

The nearest theatre to us has a classical concert series in the winter and at most of the concerts there would be a large group of teenagers there from the local schools - they always seemed to enjoy and appreciate what they were listening to.

The ability to make and enjoy music is so important that |I don't think there can ever be too much money spent on the subject.

Often children who have educational problems will become more focussed and work better having spent time learning how to play and instrument.

I better stop, I could ramble on for hours on this topic - Ang. if you want more of my meanderings just ask

it so differs from place to place geographically.

my daughters district in northern cal, there is little or no funding for any arts whatsoever. this includes fine and industrial arts. even things like auto shop are no longer taught. art classes are multiple discipline, so they can include all kinds of medium. music instruction although there. is also weak with resources stretched to the edge. couple this with a shortage of teachers that reach the kids, and you see where im going here.

in the district where i live in ohio, fine arts are stressed and industrial arts are disregarded. i think this is due to demographics.
but all are much more funded than california.

tie this in with no child left thinking reforms. and you begin to see that the fiduciary machine is really screwing up the quality of education in the u.s.

its the arts!
best
Nigel.

I'm getting a lot of really good input. GG, meander all you want!

Something I'd like for you to see is a snippet of information from a study I'll be using in my paper. This is from a statement by Dr. Frances Rauscher who is/was (I don't know which) an Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin. He was speaking to the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies in 1997. He's continued his research but I can't find any published studies since this one.

Essentially, they tested groups of preschool aged children on their spatial-temporal reasoning over the course of eight months. One group had music lessons, the other didn't. The spatial-temporal IQs of the children with the music lessons resulted at 35% higher than the children without. The percentage of improvement for the kids with music training was 46%. The scores of the children who did not have music lessons improved by only 6%.

"We have long known of the cultural and social benefits of school-based music programs. But we now have scientific evidence, both behavioral and neurophysiological, that music does so much more. It generates neural connections, uniquely enhancing higher brain functions that enable a child to reason abstractly in subjects such as math, physics, and engineering."

Wow. I've got eleven pieces of research material that I'm using for this paper, and they're all just as powerful.

~Ang

I have been around the site for many months but have been too English and reserved to contribute. However music in education is a subject on which I feel very strongly.
My children are now at university or beyond, however when they were at primary school (aged 5-11), music was part of the curriculum and they were encouraged to learn the recorder and to sing from an early age. At that age learning to read music seemed no harder to them than learning to read words, and that ability has stayed with my two girls throughout their lives.
The school had an enthusiastic music teacher who arranged weekend field trips to inspire children to develop an interest in making music. To see the wonder on the faces of young children who had never played an instrument before come out of a two hour session realising that they had actually made music was amazing.
On another occasion some children performed The Lion and the Mouse, singing songs set to the music of Mozart. Then a quartet from a local senior school played the music to them as originally composed by Mozart and the reactions as they suddenly recognised it from what they had just been singing were a wonder to behold.
Which is all a roundabout and long-winded way of saying that introducing children to music at an early age can broaden their minds, bring them a source of enjoyment, give those who are perhaps less academic another opportunity to shine and give them social skills and confidence they might otherwise lack.
My youngest is now at Uni in Scotland where her music gives her social (and earning) opportunities that she would not otherwise have whilst studying science. My oldest is currently working in Europe, but even when at Uni (also in Scotland) studying languages, her singing and musical abilities gave her opportunities to widen her circle of friends and to travel that she would not otherwise have had. For all of my children, music making has been a major outlet and comfort in times of stress
We paid for instrumental and singing lessons, but the original foundations were laid at school at an early stage and these are life skills that will stand them in good stead throughout their lives. The younger they start the easier and better it is, though sadly in English schools it has been in danger of being squeezed out by other priorities

We had to fight for every dollar. When the district had a little money, they had to decide if they wanted to get a new rubberized track or a new set of lighting for the auditorium, which incidentally, was the same facility my grandfather used when HE was in school.

Those who allocate funding believe they are making practical decisions when they neglect humanities, but I reflect th what Robin Williams said in "Dead Poets Society", something to the effect of, "Physics, engineering, economics, all of these are noble pursuits. But none of them are as important as remembering what we work FOR, why we love to live."

I have plenty of practical aspects to my own life, but I never want to become so practical that I lose the thrill from Beethoven's 9th, the opening riff from "Unchained", or laughing at Bottom in A Midsummer Night's Dream.

All of us must make a conscious effort to work to live, not live to work.

I came from an inner city public school system in the South. Music was only offered once a week until fourth grade. After that, it was gone thanks to budget cuts. Being a musically-inclined person who grew up in abject poverty, those limited experiences, along with an out-of tune, hand-me-down out-of-tune piano and a large, musically-inclined family were the basis of my musical education as a child. I learned what little they could teach me there, and expanded on it on my own. It wasn't until I was an adult and could afford to study music that I truly studied music, and developed a real appreciation for Opera and Classical Music. Sadly, I hated that there were 25 years of my life where I was deprived of such utter beauty because I had not been educated in music. Mozart, Beethoven, Handel, Puccini, Schumann... I missed all of these in my formidable years. Hearing them now, and comparing them to what we currently consider to be music, I shudder to think of the sheer lack of originality and creativity that our musical future holds.

That same lack of education in the Arts kept me away from two other future loves: Theatre and Art. It took going to college to really develop a love for the latter, and a friend giving me a bootleg of "The Phantom of the Opera" to fall in love with the former.

But, I never noticed the football or basketball teams at my high school ever faltering because of a lack of funding. Sure, we had a band and a choir, but neither got to do too much because all of the funding went to athletics.

And that takes us to my point: We value sports over art. It's all about winning and success, not about emotion and expression. If it can't be measured in points, we put no real value on it. How many talented, non-Rock-or-Pop musicians can you name? Now, how many basketball and football players can you name? We live in a world where creativity is almost without value (unless it can make a buck, of course), but a man that can throw a ball and run fast is treated as a demigod.

We have neglected the arts in our educational system to a point where the general public sees no value in it. That, and those who cannot afford to study privately will almost never be allowed to discover the value of the arts.

When someone comes to me and brings up the argument if I'd rather have art and music or math and science in our schools, I always ask: "So, then it's fine with you if they go ahead and completely eliminate sports as well, right? I mean, we have to cut everything we can to ensure our children's futures, right?" I never get an answer.

Finally, I'll add this to the list of how sad our local lack of arts education really is:

Every Monday night in Memphis, Tennessee for over three decades, 10 to 12 thousand people crowded in a local arena to watch Monday Night Wrestling. Attendance at our local live theatre productions and symphony performances: They couldn't give tickets away. It's amazing we even have an arts scene in this town. It's gotten a lot better, granted, but it's taken nearly 30 years to get there, and it has a long way to go.

quote:

Mozart, Beethoven, Handel, Puccini, Schumann... I missed all of these in my formidable years. Hearing them now, and comparing them to what we currently consider to be music, I shudder to think of the sheer lack of originality and creativity that our musical future holds.

While I tend to agree quite heartily with the last two posts,I find it fascinating to read one of the very first critics of Beethoven Ninth. Whatever is coming in the future of music is ... different ... but in 200 years it will be an icon for them, as the Ninth is for us.

(Sorry I just had this in italian and I fed it to the google monster for re-translation, I was too lazy)

“Elegance, purity and measure, that were the principles of our art, gradually have surrendered to the new style, frivolous and mannered, that in these times, from the superficial talent, they have adopted. Brains that, for education and habit, do not succeed to think of anything more than dresses, fashion, gossip, novel reading and moral dissipation, make hard work to feel the pleasures, more elaborate and less febrile, of science and the art. Beethoven writes for those brains, and in this he seems successful, if I must believe to the praises that, from every part, are blooming for this last job of his.” (The Quarterly Musical Magazine and Review, 1825)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Snowflake,

I also think it depends on what kind of musical education you speak of.

If you are talking about the amazing classical performers, Mozart and Beethoven or Bach, then I think that they should definitely be given a permanent place in the school system. I had them in a small amount of my curriculum and wish that I had more.

If you are talking more along the lines of instrumental (saxophone, clarinet, Trumpet) music class (Ie bands, class trips, tours, etc.) then I still say yes. I say this for one main reason. I worked with the saxophone for over 8 years. I found that since I have asthma and wasn't exactly the socializing type, I found that this instrument helped me make life long friendships with my fellow band mates. Plus it almost curred my asthma due to my lungs being exercised on a daily basis.

Also, it gave me the determination I needed in order to get good grades and showed me anything is possible if I just set my mind to it.

All in all, music of ANY sort is an asset to a school system, whether it be the past or present musicians or yourself.

~Kathy~

Another thought occurred to me while I was reading the rest of the posts. Kids can immediately see the fruits of their efforts with music and the arts.

With practicing their instrument, they can go on to more difficult pieces and be proud that they can do this. It's great for confidance. If, when I started the flute in grade 4, someone had shown me the high school's music, I would have been terrified. But in 8 years, we were playing difficult pieces with wonderful results. It's good for kids to be able to see their progress, and be proud of it, to be able to know that they can do something based on their efforts and achievements.

Very true indeed, Phoenix. I learned that a piece called Jitter Bug Blues was a good stepping stone for me in grade 7 to play. I never imagined that I'd end up playing the 1812 Overture in grade 12. Plus, you gain responsibility with an instrument. Cleaning it and maintaining your reed (if wind instrumental) are important for maintaining the sound and like animals, children learn a sense of belonging but responsibility as well for caring for this object of theirs.

~Kathy~

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kathy & Jay,