A Response to the Grammys

When reporting the results of the Grammy Awards last night, the reporter for the Washington Post wrote: “In one of the bigger surprises so far of this year's Grammy Awards, Esperanza Spalding won the best new artist award, beating out better known names Justin Bieber, Drake, Florence + The Machine and Mumford and Sons. If you're a serious music (especially jazz) fan, this was a moment in which integrity triumphed over mass popularity.” But, the out of tune singing and playing was shocking. Last week Aguilera forgot the words to the national anthem in front of two Presidents at the Super Bowl and this week the pop icons of our time (singers and instrumentalists) can’t seem to find DO (although Lady Gaga and Eminem did not disappoint). The best opera recording went to "L'Amour De Loin," by female composer Kaija Saariaho. How many of you know her music? How many of you have Esperanza Spalding on your playlists? For the world music advocates, there was a category for Native American music. That Grammy went to "2010 Gathering Of Nations Pow Wow: A Spirit's Dance." I wonder how many music teachers are teaching cuts from that album in their general music classes. The Best Classical Album and Best Choral Performance went to Riccardo Muti and the Chicago Symphony and Chicago Symphony Chorus for the Verdi “Requiem.” How should music educators, and music educators informed by critical pedagogy respond to all of this?

A music lesson for Martin Luther King Day

Here is a music lesson for Martin Luther King Day. Enjoy.

Happy Holidays from Frank and Ellen

Trip to Hungary - November 20-24, 2010

Budapest is the capital and largest city in Hungary. It is the nexus of Hungarian politics, culture, commerce, and industry. Nearly 2 million people live in Budapest and like the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul; the Danube River divides the city into Buda and Pest. Travel guides often claim Budapest to be one of the most beautiful cities in Europe and the guides are correct. Forbes ranks it as “Europe's 7th most idyllic place to live."

I arrived in Budapest on Saturday afternoon after a flight from Newark and then Zurich. My former student Andi Reith, who lives in both Munich and Budapest, met me at the hotel – the Gellert Hotel, one of the old grand hotels of Europe and renowned for its spa and baths. We climbed part of Gellert Hill to view the city at night and it was truly breathtaking. Andi cooked a traditional Hungarian dinner complete with chicken paprikash and wine made at the family vineyard. On Sunday, we toured Jewish Budapest, visiting the remains of the ghetto, two beautiful synagogues, and a monument to those who perished in the Holocaust. We wondered through an open-air food festival. I passed on the Rooster stew.

At dinner we joined László Norbert Nemes, the director of the Kodály Institute. The purpose of my visit was to meet with Professor Nemes to discuss possibilities for collaboration with Westminster through online and distance learning. Graciously, he invited me to make a presentation on Critical Pedagogy for Music Education to his staff and the students at the Institute and to visit his choral conducting class at the Liszt Academy. I saw the conducting class on Monday and traveled by train the Kodály Institute on Tuesday.

On Monday evening, I attended a performance of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat performed in Hungarian with English subtitles. It was wonderful.

Kecskemét is small town in central Hungary is a 90-minute train ride to the south from Budapest. Since the 12th century, the town has been know for its markets and has the most famous examples of Hungarian Art Nouveau architecture. In the main square one sees a Catholic Church built in the style of Louis 16 of France, the Town Hall, the Franciscan Church built in the 14th century a Calvinist church, the Lutheran Church, a theatre, a conference center that was once a synagogue and of course, the Zoltán Kodály Pedagogical Institute of Music.


A former Franciscan monastery, erected in 1736, in the center of town the building was renovated in the 1970s to house the Institute. There is an impressive exhibition of Kodály's life and work; beautiful wood furnishings throughout, and an extensive collection of books and documents in nearly every language in the library (including my own Case Studies in Music Education text).

I observed two classes during my visit. At the Liszt Academy in Budapest, I watched a choral conducting class. To conduct, students had to first play and sing the music on the piano from memory. They sang one part and played the others. At the Institute, I watched a solfège class where students also had to play 3 parts of Bach Chorales and sing the 4th. Everyone had wonderful piano skills and students appeared to play and sing with relative ease. It was quite impressive.

I spoke for about an hour on Critical Pedagogy for Music Education to an audience of students from Ireland, Singapore, the United States, Canada, Africa and the United Kingdom. Several Institute faculty also attended. We talked about how Kodály’s work mirrored that of Paulo Freire, about the shifting roles of teachers, about the goal to empower musicianship in children and how Critical Pedagogy might provide a perspective to view music education and how Kodály methodology might provide the scaffolding for children to develop musical literacy. We talked about Kodály’s vision for music education and how that vision might extend into the 21st century, particularly at a time when technology is rich in children’s lives.

The students and faculty were very receptive and open to new ideas and to dialogue. Professor Nemes will visit Westminster in April and we hope to have collaboration in place for our respective students very soon.

Why Music Teachers and Their Programs are Important

I know many music teachers who want to be like everyone else. They want their subject to be respected and considered seriously. They want grades to count, and administrators to take the time to REALLY understand and appreciate what they do. And that certainly is not unreasonable. After all, in many instances, they have larger classes (especially in ensembles), horrendous spaces in which to teach (often a cafeteria/auditorium/gymnasium sometimes with a study hall in the back or children eating lunch). They must resort to photocopies because the budget is too meager to purchase the materials they need to be effective. In many places they are the last to get technology for their classrooms. Pianos are tuned once a whenever, usually just before a performance.

The fact is, that we are not like everyone else. We teach beyond the cognitive domain and touch the body and the spirit. I would bet that students engage with music more hours in a day, listening to iPods and watching music videos outside of school, than they engage with many other subjects they study in school. Yet somehow, we are often at the bottom of the list of priorities in schools.

What makes us different is that our interactions with children in music classes, applied lessons and ensembles engage musical imagination, musical intellect, musical creativity and musical performance. Together, I suggest that these form the components of what some call musical intelligence (Gardner) or musical aptitude (Gordon). Those teachers applying Bernice McCarthy’s 4MAT cycle of learning could argue that musical imagination engages the Type 1 imaginative learners and musical intellect accommodates Type 2, the analytic learners. Musical creativity stimulates the hands-on preferences of the common sense Type 3 learner and musical performance unlocks potential in the dynamic Type 4 learners. That may or may not be true. Musical imagination is engaged by problematizing, musical intellect is addressed in the prescription where new content is presented. Engaging individual creativity personalizes the experience and performance brings celebration and closure. Changes in perception, that “aha” moment, may happen throughout and all conjoin to ensure value-added experiences.

In addition, this approach to lesson sequencing is a catalyst for problem posing and problem solving – hallmarks of Critical Pedagogy for Music Education. If one embraces the goal that a purpose of schooling is to prepare students to live in a global world, the ability to see multiple solutions when they unfold in a musical experience is a desired skill. It enables success in all areas of children’s lives. School music is unique. It empowers musicianship and teaches skills that prepare children for future success. As their music teachers, we are the facilitators. What do you think?

On the Nature of Value-Added Music Education: A Charge and Response to the Students in ME 581

The aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think, than what to think -- rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think for ourselves, than to load the memory with the thoughts of other men. (John Dewey)

Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world. (Paulo Freire)


At my college, there are more sections of basic musicianship than any other single course. Students call the course “Bobo” theory. Curiously, they come to that course after 12-years of music classes in school. That usually includes 8-years of weekly or bi-weekly general music and several years in multiple choral ensembles. Yet, they can’t figure out an interval or spell a harmonic minor scale. What happened?

At lunch recently, an administrator friend shared that his college admitted at least 8 students who cannot read music. Several are pianists. What happened?

A nearby school district boasts an outstanding elementary Kodály program. The development of music literacy skills is often a goal of such a program. Yet, in the high school choir, songs are taught by rote because students can’t read the notation. What happened?

Critical Pedagogy for Music Education provides a lens to examine and hypothesize some answers. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) Freire wrote that learners exist in a cultural context and insisted that students learn to think reflectively about themselves. He taught that true and meaningful learning takes place when the learning is a catalyst for a change in the student’s perception of reality. For him, teachers facilitate that connection by helping students to draw upon their own realities to create new possibilities. So the questions become: How should students engage with music inside and outside of school such that the knowings, doings and understandings they acquire facilitate a change in perception and perspective? How might these knowings, doings and understandings help children to know the world in more critical and significant ways? In other words, how might these experiences in school music add value to their lives?

Students are bi-musical. They have two distinct musical lives. One exists outside school and is mediated by a small mp3 player on which students search for, select, download and categorize music they choose to own. All are sophisticated, high level thinking tasks. Little white ear buds are the conduits through which students engage with music a significant number of hours each day. The engagement is private. Then, there is the musical life in school. That consists of general music classes and ensembles. This musical life is public, where a teacher makes the decisions about what children hear and more importantly how to hear or listen, how to classify, and how to understand. Teachers do this with the good intention of promoting a love and joy for music. While some students supplement their bi-musicality with private lessons on an instrument, most do not.

Students value the music they choose to download. It is precious and meaningful to them because it connects to who they are in significant and highly personal ways. Sadly, in the vast majority of instances, students dismiss the music they hear and study in schools because it does not evoke those same feelings. A musical education in schools should focus on experiences where children can think, act and feel as musicians when musicians are making music. Such authentic and empowering experiences would nurture musicianship and be conditioned by context, content and each student's individual and collective social and cultural (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977) capitals. Such empowering experiences would connect a student’s bi-musical worlds and once again, add value.

Wiggins and McTighe (2005) encourage teachers to design instruction that begins by defining content that can be assessed. As a result, many teachers teach only what can be quantified and focus their attention on teaching methodologies and strategies. Instead, they might be better served to find out who their students are beyond being Ms. Randolph’s 4th grade class. They need to blend informal music learning (Abrahams, Abrahams, Rafaniello, Vodicka, Westawski, & Wilson, 2010; Green, 2008;) with the formal requirements of the school curriculum guide, state mandated standards and assessments.

In Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Howard Gardner (1983) identified music as one of the aptitudes or intelligences all humans possess. In so doing, Gardner opened the door for music educators to re-think the goals of music instruction. Unfortunately, while the door was open, most music teachers did not walk through. Such a re-thinking might direct music teachers to consider music instruction within the nature and realm of human potential. Gardner (1997) himself wrote, “I think that music may be a privileged organizer of cognitive processes, especially among young people” (p. 9.) Noticing the ways musicians think, act and feel when engaged in music making, one might hypothesize that musical imagination, musical intellect, musical creativity and musical performance individually and collectively constitute a conception of musical intelligence and contribute to the ways one might understand music. Simply stated however, musical intelligence is “one’s ability to think in sound” (Elliott, 1997, p. 67). Music teaching and music learning provide moments of transformation “when a child connects to something that engages curiosity and stimulates further exploration” as a crystallizing experience (Gardner, 1997, p. 12). David Elliott (1993) advocates music teaching and music learning that develops musicianship. Aligning music teaching to promote such goals is appropriate and adds value to a child’s life.


In my classes, I teach that the purpose of music education is to empower musicianship and in the process transform both the students and their teacher. I suggest that the goal of music teaching and learning, from a critical pedagogy perspective, is to break down the barriers that exist between what children know, understand and listen to on their own, with what music teachers believe they should learn in school. It is the music teacher’s responsibility, in dialogue with the students, to find crosswalks to connect a child’s two musical worlds. The mantra “honor their world” is a familiar one among the students in my classes. Curriculum, I say, “is the interaction of teachers and students in authentic and meaningful experiences which are acknowledged as important to both of them. It is content, which becomes significant when situated in a context rich in social capital. The purpose of curriculum is to enrich and change the knowings, understandings, and perceptions that students and teachers have as individuals and as members of a sub-set in society.” Simply stated, it adds value.

What happened in the scenarios described at the opening is that students did not find value in the music program offered at school. They could not construct meaning on their own. They could not connect that meaning to their lives outside of the music classroom and so they shut down. For them, the engagements with music in school did not answer the questions “Why should I learn this? Why is this important? How will this enhance my personal engagements with music outside of school?” Until music teachers ask and answer these questions, they will continue to reproduce students for whom the experience in school music does not contribute in any positive way to human growth, development and culture.

Who determines what value is and whose value is added? That is easy. It is negotiated through dialogue among the students with their teacher and differs from neighborhood to neighborhood, school to school, classroom to classroom and rehearsal to rehearsal. Teachers, who embrace a critical pedagogy perspective, design music lessons that include a multiplicity of objectives, the most significant being the critical objective. Including that objective ensures that musical engagements inside the music classroom or rehearsal result in a personalization that reflects a change of perception and perspective. A focusing question will stimulate problem posing and problem solving and open a space for children to create meaning on their own and connect that meaning to their musical lives outside of school. Performance that includes a celebration of music making rich in original ideas expressed by students promotes learning that is remembered because of the value it adds to their lives.

References


Abrahams, D., Abrahams, F., Rafaniello, A., Vodicka, J., Westawski, D., & Wilson, J. (2010). Going Green: The application of informal music learning strategies
in high school choral and instrumental ensembles. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society of Music Education, Beijing.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage Publications.

Elliott, C. A. (1997). Music as intelligence: Some implications for public schools. In V. Brummett, (Ed). Ithaca conference ’96 Music as intelligence: A sourcebook (pp. 65 – 75). Ithaca, NY: Ithaca College.

Elliott, D. (1993). Musicing, listening, and musical understanding. Contributions in
Music Education, 20, 64-83.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Optimum.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The Theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1997). Keynote address: Is music intelligence special? In Brummett, V. (Ed.). Ithaca Conference ’96 Music as intelligence: A sourcebook. Ithaca, NY: Ithaca College.

Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning, and the school: A new classroom
pedagogy. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Critical Pedagogy for Music Education and the Choral Rehearsal

CRITICAL PEDAGOGY FOR MUSIC EDUCATION AND THE CHORAL REHEARSAL

Many have asked how one applies the principles of Critical Pedagogy for Music Education to the choral rehearsal. While it is easier to write a general music lesson using a plan that focuses your thinking to problematize, prescribe, personalize and perform, many do not see how that might carry over into the choir. While the lesson plan model for classroom music does not transfer easily, the strategies and global precepts of critical pedagogy and Critical Pedagogy for Music Education do.

It is important to remember that Critical Pedagogy for Music Education is not a methodology. Methodologies imply a particular sequence of steps and an ordering of learning in a very specific way. For instance, Kodály has a very clear process by which students become musically literate. There is a procedure of preparation, presentation and practice whereby teachers introduce musical intervals in a specific and ordered way. Sol-mi is first, followed by sol-mi-la, etc. The Kodály experience is rich in folk material that is indigenous to the culture and in play party songs (sometimes thought of as games) to reinforce concepts. Orff, on the other hand, introduces musical experiences as they are connected to speech and focuses on experiences that are rich in improvisation and movement. Gordon also has a very specific taxonomy of steps one follows when presenting learning sequence activities to children. It begins with oral/aural and moves to theoretical understanding in a very deliberate order.

The choral rehearsal presents a unique set of problems as the choral experience is focused on repertoire rather than a specific skill set. Since each piece the choir sings presents its own unique challenges, no one size fits all. For some ensemble conductors, the performance is the end all and be all of the choral experience. Learn the notes, sing the rhythms, unify the vowels, tune the chords, and spin the phrase. For those conductors, a systematic routine or procedure works well. Those who advocate critical pedagogy are concerned with those issues too, but also have a concern for the ways in which the choral experience adds value to the singer’s life by changing perception and by transforming what is to what might and could be.

Tenets of critical pedagogy include the importance of dialogue; of shifting the power inside the classroom/rehearsal from the all-knowing teacher working with students who know nothing, to a teacher/student relationship that acknowledges that both have contributions to bring to the rehearsal. Advocates of Critical Pedagogy for Music Education are concerned with empowering the students to be musicians by nurturing and empowering their musicianship. Music literacy, in that paradigm, is much broader than being able to identify a key signature, a dynamic marking and a rhythm pattern. Choral conductors who embrace critical pedagogy recognize the importance of dialogue. In the choral rehearsal such dialogue is both verbal and musical with the ratio of taking to music making considered very carefully. Such dialogue involves singers and conductor posing and solving problems together. Advocates of Critical Pedagogy for Music Education recognize the power of community and know that fostering community is appropriately accomplished in the choral rehearsal.

In a recent class, I introduced several strategies that align to a commitment to Critical Pedagogy for Music Education. One strategy, I call “Circle All Around.” In this strategy the chairs in each section are arranged in two circles – one outer and one inner so that students in each circle face each other. This forms a partnership of two. Together, and informally, each set of partners scans the music to identify rehearsal or performance challenges and brainstorm a solution together. They predict those issues they may encounter that might hinder the group’s performance. The conductor then asks representatives of the group to clarify their issue and summarize the solution. Asking probing questions, the conductor helps the group to connect the issue, the solution and the music. Then, when the group sings the music, students check their predictions against the reality of what happens. A brief discussion follows. In some instances there is need for re-focusing, refining and remediating. The conductor moderates that. This technique comes from the literature on reciprocal teaching and differentiated instruction.

“Circle All Around” empowers musicianship and causes each singer to accept ownership and responsibility for ensuring that musical challenges are identified and conquered. Sometimes the conductor also identifies challenges, but after presenting the challenge, calls on students to suggest remedies. Individuals are often asked what they will do specifically to make something better.

As a conductor, I was able to apply principles of formative and summative assessment throughout. Schools are very concerned that teachers do ongoing assessments. As to formative assessment, I visited each group to monitor student engagement and student ability to stay on task. For summative assessment I was able to make judgments when we performed the music as an ensemble. Each time we stopped, I asked for a higher level of contribution.