Music Curriculum

It's been said that classical music is in serious decline and I believe that is true. Not that the "classics" are less revered than in the past or that there are not many who love to hear the great music of the masters, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Wagner, and the list goes on. Or that classical music does not have meaning to thousands perhaps millions of people, people who love the depth and beauty found in Tschaikovsky or Rachmaninoff, people who are enriched by the majesty and power of Beethoven or the warm sensitivity of Ravel or Debussy, people who are enraptured by the songs of Schubert or the piano music of Chopin. All these and more continue to grace our concert halls and our listening at home.

Yet the entertainment industry has found a wide audience in music. Classically trained musicians living solely in a cultivated, artistic world are finding themselves without much of an audience. Amazingly gifted performers are unemployed or teaching privately in communities. String Quartets, trios, soloists, ensembles are without performing opportunities. A recent professional trio contacted me about performing at my school. A discussion ensued where it was discovered the rates were way beyond our financial scope. Plus the fact of attracting a very limited audience for the performance. It is not a responsible use of funding to bring in a top flight ensemble for the 50 people who would appreciate it.

Orchestras continue to struggle, many of them closing their doors to the future. Regional orchestras hold on desperately, depending on donations and foundations to support them. Rarely if ever does a singer get an opportunity to sing art songs outside of the university. Rarely if ever is an instrumentalist asked to play classical music in a setting apart from the academy. Are there people driving around hoping for an opportunity to hear a great horn recital or a song cycle or a violin sonata or a piano piece? I think not much. What about great choral music or even bands? Perhaps a military group continues to attract audiences or maybe the occasional boys choir or a choir from an exotic land. But in general, most art music happens in the academy and occasionally in our churches.

If this is true, then are universities creating an artificial environment that is primarily self-serving? We teach our students to play a Beethoven piano sonata by practicing several hours a day and studying the intracies of the work, finally delivering a steller performance of the work for other students who have to be present for college credit. Of course, the appreciative family members are excited and even a few supportive community members. But does this only happen in the academic setting?

It seems to me that creating a world, teaching a skill, providing an opportunity for something that is not valued outside of the bubble, is nearly an irresponsible endeavor. But let's look at some sideline benefits before leveling a diatribe against that which is considered tried and true. A college degree is not intended as a piece of paper demonstrating vocational skill. It instead is intended to show critical thinking skills, philosophical application, potential to learn, research capability, social interaction, writing abilities, and refinement. All these and more form the college graduate, a product of the unification of several disciplines.

A chef learns his skill through training and experimenting, ideally hoping to land that great position in New York serving the elite of the country the finest dishes made. Yet truthfully he knows that most of his time as a chef is making those foods people want and have had before including hamburgers, steaks, perhaps chocolate cake. He has the ability to produce at a higher level but spends much of his time creating simpler fare, fare desired by most people. He meets market demand by creating that which people want, perhaps desiring the opportunity to create a more elite dish.

A young journalist studies journalism, learning the trade that he can apply to his own profession. Yet he also studies the masters, great writers from the past. He knows he will not be writing like Shakespeare or Thomas Hardy, but his knowledge of their works improves his own writing. Sadly, until he makes it as a journalist, he may find himself writing promotional ads or brochures. He can do more and he understands great writing but feels relegated to that which pays him a living.

Back to music. Where are we going to land in this exploration of music curricula? Can we in academia go on teaching and preparing students for a world that is limited and nearly does not exist any longer? Is there a way to identify those essential skills necessary for all performing musicians regardless of the genre and offer training that can be a springboard for other types of music making?

We who are asked to help guide the next generation of young musicians must examine our curriculum, our purpose, our level of responsibility, and the market needs of the world. We cannot divorce social demands of music from our own personal preference. We may find greater meaning in Mozart or Stravinsky or Messiaen, but the popular masses have rejected such expressions from their musical world, at least to an extent. It is time to recognize this truth. In many ways, maybe our responsibility is to find people where they live and take them somewhere new. This is actually an essential truth of the educational process--from the known to the unknown, the concrete to the abstract.

But let us despair not for the demise of classical music. Rather let us redesign our curriculum, finding ways to help students discover their pathway be it contemporary popular music, sacred, classical, experimental, media related, theater, or maybe something new. I am posturing an advancement not abolishment of our current music curriculum and a moving away from an entirely classically based music curriculum. It is time to pull in all the styles, genres, developments in music and make them an integral part of the training.

More on this as thoughts get solidified.