space
What I'm Writing
Thoughts on Music
The in-depth and devoted study of music is perceived by many as either fluff or irrelevant to today's education and world. It is neither. Archeological excavations have discovered various musical instruments that predate historical society, and every human culture, without exception, has some form of musical expression. Music, in particular classical music, is a discipline based entirely upon rigorously applied mathematics, requiring intellectual and physical abilities developed over a period of years. Music has been a key element in culture and politics for at least 50,000 years, and cultural musical achievements are inseparable from a culture's political, economic, and even military power.

Yet, even today, some politicians and educators question the value of music as a subject of educational study, assigning higher priorities to everything from driver education and athletics. After all, with American Idol, the message is that anyone can sing. With such skepticism and ignorance about the disciplined study of music, one must ask the basic question: Is music important to a culture, and if so, why, and to what degree?


The music enjoyed, played, and composed by a culture defines the soul of that society, and how music is taught in that culture, and to whom, not only illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of its education system, but foreshadows the fate of that education system -- and of the society itself.


Aristotle called music the keystone of education. In practical terms, more than any other single discipline, music improves intellectual functioning, emotional intelligence, and understanding of and ability to integrate multiple intellectual and physical activities. PET brain imaging studies show that sight-reading and performing engages more areas of the brain than any other activity.


As noted by a number of scholarly presentations over the past decade, music increases emotional intelligence, and as pointed out by the neurobiologist A.A. Anastasio [Decartes' Error], intelligence devoid of emotional content is an impaired and reduced intelligence. It is not exactly happenstance that Thomas Jefferson and Albert Einstein were both violinists, or that a high percentage of physicians have musical talents and abilities.


Ensemble musical performances also require cooperation and coordination under time pressure. This is a useful skill in a society that exalts individual success at any cost, particularly since we live in a complex society that rests on cooperation. One has only to look a various third-world societies or Middle Eastern cultures -- or even western situations such as Northern Ireland or Basque Spain -- to see the devastating impact of societal divisiveness.


Although it is scarcely politically correct to declare so publicly, all music is not equal, either within a society, or in comparing music from different societies. Because almost every human being can do something that can be called music, all too many humans equate what they like with excellence. Such popular personal taste does not necessarily recognize or reward technical expertise and genius. As in many fields, understanding and appreciating excellence in music takes education and talent.


In terms of the larger implications for American society, all too often overlooked and obvious is the fact that for the past 600 years western European music has been the most advanced, most technologically diverse, and most multifaceted... and that western European culture dominates the world -- politically and in terms of economic and military power -- and has ever since its music developed in its present form. The only cultures that have been able to challenge western-European-derived ones economically, politically, and militarily are those that have adopted -- if by adapting -- western European music.


Music is indeed complex. Like all of the most worthwhile disciplines, it requires study, long hours of practice, and is expensive to teach. But... as in all matters, what is cheap and popular does not survive. In that sense, it is far too expensive for the future for universities, especially state universities, NOT to teach music. Americans live in a nation that is increasingly polarized by two opposing straight-line, single-value camps of thought. Americans also live in a nation whose popular music has been degenerating technically and compositionally as this polarization has increased. This is scarcely coincidence or mere happenstance correlation.


Likewise, music teaches its students how to handle multiply faceted values and inputs, a skill more and more valuable in a complex and multifaceted world. Because music does increase intellectual and practical abilities, eliminating and/or reducing the study of music at state schools is another critical factor in effectively limiting, if not destroying, the position of the United States as the principal dominant society of the world.


That is because music will only be taught at elite state and private universities, and, when taught at other schools, educators are increasingly pressured to simplify and dumb-down the curriculum, because true musical education on the collegiate level is anything but easy, and difficult courses are less popular and have lower enrollments. This combination of exclusivity and content degradation will only help to increase the division between the privileged and the rest of the population at a time when the economic gap between these groups is already increasing. In addition, it will contribute to other trends already reducing the proportion of the population with the range of skills necessary to analyze, manage, and innovate in a complex world society.



Comments:
I agree with your comments and observations. Most public schools give music short shrift. Whenever there are budget problems, the music programs are the first to be cut.

The public school my girls attended had band, chorus, and art as options in middle school. However, since students had to take one of those subjects, no pretests for talent were given. Students with no musical aptitude were mixed in with students of high aptitude. All lessons were in groups by instrument or voice: there was no segregation by skill level. The band instructor was moody and often yelled at the students. The outcome was predictable: slow learning pace, frustrated untalented students who learned little, frustrated talented students who were bored, students upset by the teacher's rants, and a mediocre band that gave uninspired concerts. Both my daughters had musical talent (2nd flute and 1st trumpet); both hated band and quit as soon as possible.

After that experience, neither of my girls wanted to be involved with music. Offers of private lessons for the instruments of their choice were turned down. Their public school drove them away from playing music, but the school still brags about how it provides music education to all who want it. I write this to show that a poor school music program is worse than no music program.
 
My first response is "At least there are lots of private piano lessons going on in Utah," but I guess those wouldn't include the cooperative aspects of playing as a group.

I also wouldn't sell short the value of music as entertainment (pop, rock, country, etc.) Certainly many music students wouldn't have bothered beginning their studies without it. Shows such as American Idol at least encourage people to be interested in music, even if the technical merits of what is performed are questionable. It seems contradictory to say, "Only music performed by highly trained, technically excellent performers is worthwhile" while at the same time contending that more people should be learning.


I don't know of many middle schools teaching "band" that sort students by skill level. It's one of the many shortcomings of "standardized" education.

I still remember my middle school band teacher trying to impress upon the class the importance of keeping beat by watching his baton, rather than each of us trying to keep beat on our own. We were all supposed to silently keep beat for 50 measures and raise our hand when we finished counting. Unfortunately for the teacher, most of us raised our hand at almost exactly the same time.
 
I am not so sure that television programs such as American Idol encourage youth to get involved with music. American Idol's success can be tied more directly to the look-at-me mindset of my generation.

People want to be famous, not recognized for their talent. Just recognized. And American Idol has encouraged the mindset of anyone can be famous more than the message that anyone can sing. If I remember correctly, a man with no talent was offered a million dollar deal for butchering a pop song on American Idol. What kind of message does that send?

American Idol isn't the worst of the lot though... We've so called musicals in highschools and Hannah Montana being pushed by Disney. Nothing disturbs me more than seeing my neice trotting herself around like a teenager singing through her nose some god-awful song 'written' by Miley Cyrus. She's five. We're indoctrinating them as to whats 'good' music younger these days.

I appreciate Mr. Modesitt bringing this up.
 
I was recently reminded of a pattern I've observed over the years in academia, when professors sneak to a chair or a dean complaining about the acts or behavior of a colleague, citing their interest "for the good of the students." In no cases have such individuals actually talked to their colleague, even when the complainers are fully tenured and risk nothing, and in the majority of the cases, they don't even know the facts surrounding their complaint. Their sole interest is not in the "good of the students" or solving the problem, but in creating trouble for a colleague.

The problem with this kind of behavior is that, unfortunately, it's not confined to academia. Remember, there was a fellow named Hitler who engaged in genocide and created something called the Holocaust "for the good of" the Reich, the Fatherland, and the purity of the Aryan race. And there were some folks in the United States who seceded from the Union, for "the good of states' rights," otherwise known as the freedom to enslave others. We've recently had "ethnic cleansing" in what was once Yugoslavia and Rwanda, for the "good" of this or that group or culture. More than a few centuries before that, the Spanish inquisition and other functionaries of the Catholic Church tortured people to death in order to "save their souls," all for their victims' own good, of course.

In the United States, as a result of a single terrorist attack, we've endured all sorts of restrictions and infringements of civil liberties for our own "good" and security, even when subsequent acts by airline passengers, for example, have suggested strongly that repetition of the 9/11 methodology is highly unlikely to be successful a second time around.

Most recently, we've had the author of this blog, L. E. Modesitt Jr. lambasting the education system for its lack of support for music and calling for expanded programs for the good of "American society."

In all these cases, and doubtless hundreds, if not thousands of others, those who have professed to be "for the good" of something really weren't. They were using the argument of "good" to oppose, if not to kill or destroy, that which they opposed, and most of those using the "for the good of" argument have in mind restrictions and punishments of others, and not solutions to problems.

I object strongly to this tactic. It's hypocritical, devious, misleading, and unethical. If you believe something to be wrong, say so, and be prepared to explain exactly why it's wrong, and why you need to destroy, restrict, or otherwise infringe on the liberties of others, and why there is no other better solution. There times when that may in fact be necessary, but I'd wager that those cases are very few indeed, especially compared to the number of times when "good" is trotted out to harm others.
 
I'm sorry... I looked over Mr. Modesitts post once more, and have failed to find him talking about the greater "good" at all.

All I see is him making an interesting correlation between the complexity of music and the progress of a society.

I fail to see how the Third Reich can be involved at all, and it seems you are reading way too much into this.

In a world of flashing lights, little content, and much distraction I can see how a person could read something and completely ignore what it was saying and come up with something entirely different from what they read. This sort of temporary ADHD is normal in a society whose music and entertainment is becoming more and more about shock value and keeping your attention through bright lights, sex, and explosions.

I hear they have pills to fix that now, but that's an entirely new issue in itself.
 
Post a Comment



<< Back to all Blog posts

 

News & UpdatesMonhtly QuestionsBlog Entries
www.LEModesittJr.com  |  Terms of Use  |  Privacy Notice