Aware of the declines in financial support and in ticket sales for "classical" music concerts, I am both concerned and disappointed in the outlook for orchestras, operas, chamber music, and music training in general. Indeed it is true that academic music training has not changed much for at least 50 years, and the system of creating young musicians for performance, teaching, church, and other music related professions has overall been effective. It works and works well with academia producing gifted musicians for the myriad of musical professions needed. But what if we are training musicians for a world that is diminishing, a world that may always be present but only minimally and only in pockets of metropolitan areas. If this is true, and the signs are pointing that direction, then there are only a few options: 1) the world needs to revert back to what it was and appreciate the type of music it once supported, or 2) academia should give up and no longer train musicians (an unimaginable option), or 3) academia should adapt to a changing world.
But it is difficult to change and rather disappointing in many ways due to the benefits and substantial meaning found in classical music. Most trained musicians of which I am familiar stand for the purity and depth found in music of the great composers from the past and consider their music to be foundational to the training needed for musicians as well as meaningful for audience members. Willing and certainly capable of performing popular or commercial music, academically trained musicians generally prefer opportunities to hear and perform music from the past, music that has withstood the test of time, and music considered to be highly respected by critics, historians, and theorists. If it is true that knowledge is power, then it stands to reason that as a musician gains knowledge about music, he/she becomes influential over others, assuming a position of leadership in music by virtue of her skill and her knowledge. Subsequently, a great violinist, for example, performs at a high level music that is befitting of her skill, her knowledge, and her preference, hoping to gain an audience for her art. She is well-trained, skilled, artistic, and if she prefers the music of Mozart or Bartok, to name two highly respected composers, and she has the ability to perform their music with great excellence, then her training, her ability, and her preference for their music ought to reach a vast audience, to be enjoyed by all.
Many musical sociologists, among others, are working to address why declines in audience attendance and support are occurring and are in the process of making certain recommendations for change, including but not limited to better marketing, varied programming, environments, invoking of technology, reduced personnel, seeking larger donor base, and less formality. All these and more are part of the story, but my concern remains in the area of training and education for the musician of the future. The 2004 article from the New York Times is even more applicable today as scores of highly skilled and qualified performers seek to make a living using their gifts and training: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/arts/music/12waki.html?pagewanted=all. The argument in favor of music training as a demanding discipline that is applicable to all fields is certainly valid but also a little questionable in light of the need to prepare during college for the chosen profession. The degrees and the ability do not guarantee employment, a serious concern for all those spending great time and resources in preparation for the field of music.
While I personally believe in the "eclectic" approach to music programming and for curriculum development in our colleges and universities, I am also well-aware of the decided attitudes and feelings that many academic musicians have toward excessive eclecticism both in study and in performance. Often during my time of performing with orchestras have I overheard disparaging comments by the players toward popular music. Comments from performers such as, "junk" or "garbage" or "waste of time" or "I suppose we do this to pay the bills" are common and revealing of attitudes. Yet, in spite of the preference by many performers and established audiences for classical music, I do believe the "canon" of excellent literature is changing rapidly and what was once considered mainstream for orchestral performance is now relegated to few performances mostly for historical interest. Unfortunately for those desiring a musical world of Western Art music from the past, time marches forward and with it are societal changes in preferences and taste. Such is especially true in the arts and music in particular.
A moment of negativity: it is a sad commentary on our world when people no longer value an orchestra playing Beethoven or Brahms or Mozart and it demonstrates a lack of refinement and dedication to the craft and skill of the great masters of composition. I already miss the great music of the past and sometimes feel as though only the "top ten" most popular classical works are getting performances. It is certainly a loss and one that will likely never return except for the occasional retro moment similar to watching a VHS tape or listening to a vinyl recording. Charming and ironically rich, those opportunities are rare and although somewhat special, not all that rewarding in the end at least for the general populous. Which brings me to the big question, does art really need to reach large amounts of people or can it be great with a small but appreciative audience? If so, then academic music training should continue on its narrow pathway of focusing on the classics for those who know and love great music.
Yet somehow all this smacks of elitism and snobbery in an era when those traits are not highly regarded. Can we in academia sustain our own definition of excellence at a time when excellence is being redefined through the invisible hand of market forces? I want to say yes absolutely but deep down I also know it is nearly impossible to stop the trend of declining audiences and support for classical music.
A moment of optimism: the declines in audiences and support actually present a golden opportunity for the academy to revitalize its approach to training musicians by letting go of certain tired practices, keeping some things, and trying new ways. It may be time to parlay the old successes into something new for today's musical world. This may include commercial music, world music, technology, overseas study opportunities, choice of emphases and courses, business, and acoustics. This does not mean abandonment of classical music at all but could mean a judicious invoking of many types of music.
Yes I remain concerned with the losses and have some trouble letting go of a system that has worked for so long, and yes I am disappointed in a world that continues moving toward excessive eclecticism while losing the essence of classical music, but I am also excited about the possibilities for the future. It is a future of hope, of musical joy, and of creation, or it may be a future of forgetting the rich heritage of great music (let it not be so), but whatever the future holds, it cannot be prevented. It remains up to the academy to find a way to remind the world of the beauty of the past while forging forward for tomorrow.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Friday, December 26, 2014
Coffee, Horn, Books, Running
Sure do enjoy a good cup of coffee in the mornings when all is quiet and the world appears peaceful. While sipping on the coffee, I write, peruse articles, read the news, study the stock market, plan the day, and indulge in grand dreams for myself, my family, and my profession. With a great variety of interests, it can be both difficult and joyfully exciting to focus on any one area for very long. This makes a type of mental attention deficit disorder that is fun when nobody is around and distracting for others when surrounded by people. Just an area of weakness for me I suspect.
Horn playing has been and continues to be an important and valuable part of my life since picking it up at the age of 12. But horn playing has simply been a musical expression of myself similar to playing piano or composing or conducting or even listening to music. My horn career has included solos, orchestras, bands, chamber groups, churches, concert halls, tours, and everything in between. I love playing the horn and every time I pick it up, it feels like a best friend with whom I can share my secrets, my fears, my sorrows, my joys, and all the emotions in between. Yet I must admit that horn playing and I are not getting along as well anymore. Not sure why. Could be the slight beginning of arthritis in my muscles or the lack of consistent practice or some kind of air and embouchure disagreement, but I am just not playing at the level I once did. This is difficult to acknowledge and disconcerting in many ways. I have many horn playing friends in administration who have given up playing due to the time constraints and the inability to maintain a high level of playing. But I know other administrators who have kept playing and receive great satisfaction from being an active musician. Not sure where I will land on the spectrum but suspect there will be a time when the horn will be permanently set aside.
Books are disappearing. Libraries continue to reduce their physical collections and replace them with digital resources. Bookstores struggle to pay the bills and I rarely see people reading books. In London, book reading remains active and as many people hold a book in their hands as hold an e-reader but in our country most reading seems to be on a device of some kind. I prefer to hold a physical book in my hands. I am not quite ready to give in to the forces of the digital age and continue to prefer to buy a book and read it. The 1,000 books in my personal library can attest to my love of books of all types and, aside from the wear and tear on the back from moving them, they provide me with significant emotional and cognitive satisfaction. Yes this makes me a dinosaur but somehow I cannot let go of the joy of holding a book in my hands. But similar to horn playing, I can feel the change coming where I let go of physical books and begin to use an e-reader. Saves space, allows for ease of research, generally less expensive, lighter, easy to hold, and certainly quicker to receive, e-readers are now part of our culture's norms. Am I ready? No. Will I give up my books? Not yet. Will I begin to move toward this idea? Yes.
For years I got up every morning and started my routine of 300 jumping jacks, 100 sit-ups, and 100 push-ups. Then one morning my shoulder disagreed with me and said no more push-ups, causing me to take up running. Never being an avid runner, I had trouble imagining running more than about 1/4 mile at any one time. A friend recommended the marvelous book "Born to Run" which led me to believe I could actually run a mile or two. Now today as I write this blog, I just finished 3 miles and feel great. In the summers when I have more time and the weather is cooperating, I will run up to 5 or even 7 miles at times but in the winter months I reduce that to 3. I run nearly everyday and take a different path each time. It is usually dark when I run but I keep some pepper spray in my pocket in case a dog or something wants to have a discussion. I will not be winning any races and am not averse to walking occasionally nor sitting for a minute to remove a pebble or catch my breath. But I love the outdoors and the euphoria that accompanies adrenalin and muscle development. There will be a day when my body will tell me to stop running but that day is not today.
Such concludes this brief and boring essay of sharing my thoughts on coffee, horn playing, books, and running.
Horn playing has been and continues to be an important and valuable part of my life since picking it up at the age of 12. But horn playing has simply been a musical expression of myself similar to playing piano or composing or conducting or even listening to music. My horn career has included solos, orchestras, bands, chamber groups, churches, concert halls, tours, and everything in between. I love playing the horn and every time I pick it up, it feels like a best friend with whom I can share my secrets, my fears, my sorrows, my joys, and all the emotions in between. Yet I must admit that horn playing and I are not getting along as well anymore. Not sure why. Could be the slight beginning of arthritis in my muscles or the lack of consistent practice or some kind of air and embouchure disagreement, but I am just not playing at the level I once did. This is difficult to acknowledge and disconcerting in many ways. I have many horn playing friends in administration who have given up playing due to the time constraints and the inability to maintain a high level of playing. But I know other administrators who have kept playing and receive great satisfaction from being an active musician. Not sure where I will land on the spectrum but suspect there will be a time when the horn will be permanently set aside.
Books are disappearing. Libraries continue to reduce their physical collections and replace them with digital resources. Bookstores struggle to pay the bills and I rarely see people reading books. In London, book reading remains active and as many people hold a book in their hands as hold an e-reader but in our country most reading seems to be on a device of some kind. I prefer to hold a physical book in my hands. I am not quite ready to give in to the forces of the digital age and continue to prefer to buy a book and read it. The 1,000 books in my personal library can attest to my love of books of all types and, aside from the wear and tear on the back from moving them, they provide me with significant emotional and cognitive satisfaction. Yes this makes me a dinosaur but somehow I cannot let go of the joy of holding a book in my hands. But similar to horn playing, I can feel the change coming where I let go of physical books and begin to use an e-reader. Saves space, allows for ease of research, generally less expensive, lighter, easy to hold, and certainly quicker to receive, e-readers are now part of our culture's norms. Am I ready? No. Will I give up my books? Not yet. Will I begin to move toward this idea? Yes.
For years I got up every morning and started my routine of 300 jumping jacks, 100 sit-ups, and 100 push-ups. Then one morning my shoulder disagreed with me and said no more push-ups, causing me to take up running. Never being an avid runner, I had trouble imagining running more than about 1/4 mile at any one time. A friend recommended the marvelous book "Born to Run" which led me to believe I could actually run a mile or two. Now today as I write this blog, I just finished 3 miles and feel great. In the summers when I have more time and the weather is cooperating, I will run up to 5 or even 7 miles at times but in the winter months I reduce that to 3. I run nearly everyday and take a different path each time. It is usually dark when I run but I keep some pepper spray in my pocket in case a dog or something wants to have a discussion. I will not be winning any races and am not averse to walking occasionally nor sitting for a minute to remove a pebble or catch my breath. But I love the outdoors and the euphoria that accompanies adrenalin and muscle development. There will be a day when my body will tell me to stop running but that day is not today.
Such concludes this brief and boring essay of sharing my thoughts on coffee, horn playing, books, and running.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
Joys in Artistry
Having not written a blog post in many months, I suddenly feel compelled to share my thoughts. There are events and objects in the arts that increase my adrenalin and make me honored to be a small of the arts world, works that provide great joy both personally and collectively. While preferences are often singular, in most cases I respond to the arts in expected ways I suppose. If I were the only person who loved the works of Jackson Pollock, then why would his original works be favored by collectors? So I must admit, that in spite of the desire to posit contrarian artistic views, likely my responses are similar to most people. Yet, conformity aside, individual responses are, in fact, unique to that person and whether or not the responses are the same or different from other people is inconsequential. If a person enjoys a good cup of coffee and soon learns that thousands, perhaps millions, also enjoy a good cup of coffee, this does not reduce the individual enjoyment. It makes the experience somewhat collective but it still remains emotionally and personally satisfying. I may love to see the Mona Lisa by DaVinci and I may indeed recognize that my love of the Mona Lisa is not greater nor lesser than much of the world; yet, it is still my own love and is not negated nor strengthened by the market forces of love of the work.
With a broad view of the arts that encompasses both judgment and acceptance, I tend to see the world in cultural, artistic terms rather than scientifically. Most events past, present, and future seem to be more artistically driven than scientifically conceived. Data and objective reason can shape much of our decisions, but in the end it is art that defines the human experience, making life more art than science. In spite of my comprehensive and holistic view of art, I do believe that most people think of art in terms of positive good feelings and satisfying emotions. If an oil painting, a play, a movie, a book, a piece of music is enjoyed, then it must be good art or, to take it another step, it must be art. Therefore if a work of art is emotionally satisfying, then not only is it quality art it excludes other art not satisfying or unappealing. As we follow this logic, then we must conclude several things: 1) Good art is appealing, 2) Bad art is not appealing, 3) Good art represents the finest art, 4) Bad art is to be rejected, 5) Good art has become synonymous with art, and 6) Bad art should not be considered art at all. Such conclusions are without merit and force us to accept only that art that is appealing to an individual.
I recall a heated discussion with a person showing me an artwork that was not appealing in any sense. Her conclusion in the discussion was that the work was not art at all and should be forbidden from being seen. While I agreed that it did not need to be seen, I took umbrage that it was not art. By her definition, art is only art if it appealed to her sense of artistry. While I want to respect her conclusion, I soundly disagree with it. Not only is it weak to acknowledge art based entirely on personal views, it is ultimately unfair to what the arts mean in culture.
Recognizing this as a somewhat dangerous view, I cannot help but believe that all sound is music, all sights are visual art, all written expressions literary art, and all interaction theatre art. Knowing that most if not all people disagree with the previous statement does not deter me in the slightest in my broad view of art and culture. Yet the danger in such an inclusive view of art is in its lack of criteria for excellence. If all sound is music, then is it all equal? If so, then its very equality makes it either all grand and amazing or perhaps all mediocre or even poor. The idea of all being art, regardless of the time, value, or recognized quality, seems to shout that neither good art nor bad art matters in our cultural awareness.
But I admit that I gravitate to the idea that all around me is art and that judgment is personal and based primarily on the emotional or rather the artistic impact the work makes on the individual. Which then circles me back to art providing personal and collective joy in our society. I love reading a great book or even a beautifully written sentence. Here is one: “The business of the poet and the novelist is to show the sorriness underlying the grandest things and the grandeur underlying the sorriest things.” ― Thomas Hardy. I love seeing great art such as this piece by Rubens:
My love of the music of Brahms has never stopped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-qMtWVf0NA, nor my love of the Sibelius Violin Concerto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpS_u5RvMpM. Of course who can deny the theatre of Shakespeare or the power of Eugene ONeill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTQDkNuSaJY? Yet I also enjoy the rock music of Chicago and Bon Jovi, the paintings of Mondrian, the minimalism of Philip Glass, the film music of John Williams, the detective novels of Robert Parker, and the list continues. The sheer strength of great art (defined by its impact not only on me but on thousands, millions of others as well) is balanced by art that is meaningful but not as transformational such as comic books, furniture, home architecture, pop music, light dramas.
Our lives are filled with tension and repose as found in all of art, both completing our emotional gaps and cleansing them at the same time. Yet no definition of art has ever been entirely satisfactory leading me to seek not after a definition but rather a response. Art is transformational and great art more transformational than average or poor art. I am changed more by the writing of Dickens than I am the writing of David Morrell (one of my favorite modern writers) and I am impacted more by the music of Wagner than I am the music of One Direction (again, another current favorite). Regardless of the emotional response, in the end I find great joy in artistry of all types, shapes, and sizes, recognizing that the finest in artistry is that which is the most transformational, often having withstood the test of time. The arts are a blast and I will always remain a great advocate for the arts in our society.
With a broad view of the arts that encompasses both judgment and acceptance, I tend to see the world in cultural, artistic terms rather than scientifically. Most events past, present, and future seem to be more artistically driven than scientifically conceived. Data and objective reason can shape much of our decisions, but in the end it is art that defines the human experience, making life more art than science. In spite of my comprehensive and holistic view of art, I do believe that most people think of art in terms of positive good feelings and satisfying emotions. If an oil painting, a play, a movie, a book, a piece of music is enjoyed, then it must be good art or, to take it another step, it must be art. Therefore if a work of art is emotionally satisfying, then not only is it quality art it excludes other art not satisfying or unappealing. As we follow this logic, then we must conclude several things: 1) Good art is appealing, 2) Bad art is not appealing, 3) Good art represents the finest art, 4) Bad art is to be rejected, 5) Good art has become synonymous with art, and 6) Bad art should not be considered art at all. Such conclusions are without merit and force us to accept only that art that is appealing to an individual.
I recall a heated discussion with a person showing me an artwork that was not appealing in any sense. Her conclusion in the discussion was that the work was not art at all and should be forbidden from being seen. While I agreed that it did not need to be seen, I took umbrage that it was not art. By her definition, art is only art if it appealed to her sense of artistry. While I want to respect her conclusion, I soundly disagree with it. Not only is it weak to acknowledge art based entirely on personal views, it is ultimately unfair to what the arts mean in culture.
Recognizing this as a somewhat dangerous view, I cannot help but believe that all sound is music, all sights are visual art, all written expressions literary art, and all interaction theatre art. Knowing that most if not all people disagree with the previous statement does not deter me in the slightest in my broad view of art and culture. Yet the danger in such an inclusive view of art is in its lack of criteria for excellence. If all sound is music, then is it all equal? If so, then its very equality makes it either all grand and amazing or perhaps all mediocre or even poor. The idea of all being art, regardless of the time, value, or recognized quality, seems to shout that neither good art nor bad art matters in our cultural awareness.
But I admit that I gravitate to the idea that all around me is art and that judgment is personal and based primarily on the emotional or rather the artistic impact the work makes on the individual. Which then circles me back to art providing personal and collective joy in our society. I love reading a great book or even a beautifully written sentence. Here is one: “The business of the poet and the novelist is to show the sorriness underlying the grandest things and the grandeur underlying the sorriest things.” ― Thomas Hardy. I love seeing great art such as this piece by Rubens:
My love of the music of Brahms has never stopped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-qMtWVf0NA, nor my love of the Sibelius Violin Concerto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpS_u5RvMpM. Of course who can deny the theatre of Shakespeare or the power of Eugene ONeill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTQDkNuSaJY? Yet I also enjoy the rock music of Chicago and Bon Jovi, the paintings of Mondrian, the minimalism of Philip Glass, the film music of John Williams, the detective novels of Robert Parker, and the list continues. The sheer strength of great art (defined by its impact not only on me but on thousands, millions of others as well) is balanced by art that is meaningful but not as transformational such as comic books, furniture, home architecture, pop music, light dramas.
Our lives are filled with tension and repose as found in all of art, both completing our emotional gaps and cleansing them at the same time. Yet no definition of art has ever been entirely satisfactory leading me to seek not after a definition but rather a response. Art is transformational and great art more transformational than average or poor art. I am changed more by the writing of Dickens than I am the writing of David Morrell (one of my favorite modern writers) and I am impacted more by the music of Wagner than I am the music of One Direction (again, another current favorite). Regardless of the emotional response, in the end I find great joy in artistry of all types, shapes, and sizes, recognizing that the finest in artistry is that which is the most transformational, often having withstood the test of time. The arts are a blast and I will always remain a great advocate for the arts in our society.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
A New Theory for Music Theory
It is not within the scope of this study to examine the history of music theory and what that entails; however, a perspective is necessary before proposing something new or different. The study of music theory follows the creation of music. When we look at early treatises on music, we realize that music (sound organized) was first created and then studied. This was followed by more music and more studies. We have to study that which has already been created. One cannot study that which does not exist. Consequently we are not studying sound in and of itself but, instead, are studying how someone else has organized the sound into music. Because theory follows practice rather than practice following theory, it stands to reason that music is first created and then studied. Thus music theory as an academic discipline is born out of the need to understand the creation or organization of sound.
Not that there have not been many bold proposals for new ways to create music based on theoretical principles, but the expected study of music theory is based on actual examples of music from history. This is how it should be and generations of music students have been indoctrinated through the system, a system that works diligently to support young musicians in their careers by providing the essential knowledge and skills needed in music. In a type of music foundation curriculum, music theory gives students the tools they need to be musically successful regardless of their chosen field in music. Based primarily on a European model, the study of music theory provides an overview and the analytical skills to understand music, to create music, and to perform music whether that is on an instrument or voice.
As a theory supplement, most schools also require a modicum of keyboard skills that in turn help in the understanding of how music is organized. Keyboard skills are a necessary part of the curriculum depending on the direction of the musical career. Traditional music education requires musical comprehension of at least two clefs which in turn provides an aural and cognitive understanding of harmony. Rather than emphasizing one set of notes that create a melody, in music theory we work to help students grasp the complexities of more than one tone at a time. Having basic keyboard skills allows to move beyond the melody only and into the world of sound and its variety as well as potential. While the argument continues to be made that having keyboard skills is also necessary from a practical standpoint, ie. the need to play the National Anthem occasionally, or provide music for events or to accompany, that argument is less valid today than in year's past.
A word, however, on the value of keyboard skills is warranted. Recent declines in skilled pianists who can accompany, play church music, provide background music, or entertain for events will ultimately result in significant alterations of current music study including the expectations for applied music. Without accompanists, teachers and students are relegated to unaccompanied performance or performance with technological substitutions, neither of which is entirely satisfactory. Meanwhile, those pianists with the aforementioned skills are in great demand with no end in sight, catapulting their position not only in the musical world but also in communities and churches where pianists are needed. Unfortunately, because the nature of piano skills requires many years of dedicated concentration and practice, taking a few courses in piano, in many perhaps most cases, will not satisfy the need for having "functional" skills in piano. Yet, it does remain true that even basic knowledge of the keyboard enhances musical knowledge for students.
Back to music theory. It is time to reevaluate not only how we teach music theory but also the purpose behind the learning of music theory. When we analyze the goals of creating musicians for the future, we may call into question many of the expectations of what it means to have a working knowledge of music theory. Has the sequence of courses in music theory become a kind of "rite of passage" or does the sequence still have meaning and relevancy in today's world? The answer is probably a little of both, leading me to question the age-old system in music theory. Of course there is no right way nor wrong way, and a student's personal goals should be considered in the process, but if we were to redesign a music theory curriculum by examining the multi-dimensioned world of music and sound, we may find that the fundamental knowledge we treasure and value has changed and needs a healthy injection of modernism.
Although doubtful that changes in music theory need be iconoclastic, any change may require abandoning some old ways in favor of something new. And experiments in new approaches to music theory and rejecting some but not all of the "traditional" curriculum are occurring in our colleges and universities. Yes, something is certainly lost when students do not learn and ultimately love the music of Bach, but there are also inevitable gains when they learn how music in films, on stage, in concert halls, and popular music is created. In the end, I believe it is worth a try.
Not that there have not been many bold proposals for new ways to create music based on theoretical principles, but the expected study of music theory is based on actual examples of music from history. This is how it should be and generations of music students have been indoctrinated through the system, a system that works diligently to support young musicians in their careers by providing the essential knowledge and skills needed in music. In a type of music foundation curriculum, music theory gives students the tools they need to be musically successful regardless of their chosen field in music. Based primarily on a European model, the study of music theory provides an overview and the analytical skills to understand music, to create music, and to perform music whether that is on an instrument or voice.
As a theory supplement, most schools also require a modicum of keyboard skills that in turn help in the understanding of how music is organized. Keyboard skills are a necessary part of the curriculum depending on the direction of the musical career. Traditional music education requires musical comprehension of at least two clefs which in turn provides an aural and cognitive understanding of harmony. Rather than emphasizing one set of notes that create a melody, in music theory we work to help students grasp the complexities of more than one tone at a time. Having basic keyboard skills allows to move beyond the melody only and into the world of sound and its variety as well as potential. While the argument continues to be made that having keyboard skills is also necessary from a practical standpoint, ie. the need to play the National Anthem occasionally, or provide music for events or to accompany, that argument is less valid today than in year's past.
A word, however, on the value of keyboard skills is warranted. Recent declines in skilled pianists who can accompany, play church music, provide background music, or entertain for events will ultimately result in significant alterations of current music study including the expectations for applied music. Without accompanists, teachers and students are relegated to unaccompanied performance or performance with technological substitutions, neither of which is entirely satisfactory. Meanwhile, those pianists with the aforementioned skills are in great demand with no end in sight, catapulting their position not only in the musical world but also in communities and churches where pianists are needed. Unfortunately, because the nature of piano skills requires many years of dedicated concentration and practice, taking a few courses in piano, in many perhaps most cases, will not satisfy the need for having "functional" skills in piano. Yet, it does remain true that even basic knowledge of the keyboard enhances musical knowledge for students.
Back to music theory. It is time to reevaluate not only how we teach music theory but also the purpose behind the learning of music theory. When we analyze the goals of creating musicians for the future, we may call into question many of the expectations of what it means to have a working knowledge of music theory. Has the sequence of courses in music theory become a kind of "rite of passage" or does the sequence still have meaning and relevancy in today's world? The answer is probably a little of both, leading me to question the age-old system in music theory. Of course there is no right way nor wrong way, and a student's personal goals should be considered in the process, but if we were to redesign a music theory curriculum by examining the multi-dimensioned world of music and sound, we may find that the fundamental knowledge we treasure and value has changed and needs a healthy injection of modernism.
Although doubtful that changes in music theory need be iconoclastic, any change may require abandoning some old ways in favor of something new. And experiments in new approaches to music theory and rejecting some but not all of the "traditional" curriculum are occurring in our colleges and universities. Yes, something is certainly lost when students do not learn and ultimately love the music of Bach, but there are also inevitable gains when they learn how music in films, on stage, in concert halls, and popular music is created. In the end, I believe it is worth a try.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)