1.) Is it always this difficult?
2.) Are lesson plans a guideline or law?
3.) Feeling discouraged.
1.) After reading this chapter it occurs to me that developing an entire curriculum is very hard and quite time consuming. I noticed that it takes a lot of planning and pro-activity to pull off a successful curriculum. One thing that I cannot get my head around is that I have been given the task to form an entire educational plan for children that I do not even know.
I feel that the skills to build a curriculum should be built up slowly and over a long period of time; hopefully starting in college. My greatest question is, does it ever get any easier to develop a curriculum.
Most concepts in life are made by growth; you start from nothing and eventually build upon mistakes and successes until something is made very simple. It seems to me that this rule should apply to curriculum design. But I see many obstacles to building upon successes.
With a constantly changing system of standards and expectations a curriculum must change with what our government or school district wants. Noticing that the outcomes of what students are to know by a certain time is always in flux, how can a curriculum ever be truly successful. My hope, and wish, is that I am able to create a type of curriculum that allows for my students to learn the maximum amount that their developmental ability allows them to.
2.)Another question that I came up with was that of the function of lesson plans. Are they to be taken as law or as guidelines. From experience I would say the latter is true, but the former also has merit to it.
A lesson plan can not take into account what happens in real time. It can only provide a basic structure for what is expected to happen. Because of this, I see the lesson plan as a blueprint that should be modified if it needs to be.
On the other hand a lesson plan has been specifically made for a certain class and needs to be kept to. If a teacher diverges away from their plan too much they might end up confusing their students and lose valuable time. A lesson plan is made to have a set amount of knowledge given, and any questions or interests should be held off until another lesson plan is developed to include them.
I realize that the statement I just made may seem harsh, but one has to remember that an interest for one person does not hold true for everyone else. In general, I am more for the belief that lesson plans are guidelines and are not set in stone. Yes, you must stick to specific things within the lesson plan, but the format and methods used in the lesson may be changed at will.
3.) I have been feeling very down recently because of lesson planning and designing a unit for music. I guess I never really saw how much impact I could really have on student's lives. I found that I have a lot of power that I am not sure I am ready for.
This power is one that controls what my students know and understand about music. This is very scary to me and I feel lost at times because I do not want to let my students down. I want them to be successful and have the best experiences that they can, and many times I do not feel like I am giving them it.
I guess that means that I am motivated to find the best way to teach children, but I feel very discouraged when I do not do a good job or I see a student struggling. One might say that my quest to try and educate every student is admirable. I, on the other hand, see it as a necessity.
I have been entrusted with the job to correctly teach students skills and techniques that will continually benefit them throughout their life time. I hope that there is a day when I can act more confident and allow my natural abilities to show and feel more comfortable in my teaching.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Chap 16 POI's Version 2.0
#1. The IEP in music
#2. Fair and equal music education
#3. The issue of time
#1: Last year I had to research a topic of my choice for my Ed. Psych. class. I chose to research the IEP or Individualized Education Plan. The IEP is a document that is given to a child who has issues learning that can be accommodated for. It is this accommodation that I find very hard to implement in a setting with many studies.
The statistics that I was able to gather show an alarming percentage of students attaining IEP's. While I think it is necessary to include all students in a classroom, it should not be at the sake of other students. I am fully aware of the benefits of talking louder, using bigger hand gestures, using PowerPoint, and overall techniques that help out students who have the IEP. But many of the methods used to help 'hindered' students do not help the academically advanced ones.
This brings me to point #2 of fair and equal music education. I do not think that there is a problem if one child learns slower than another. In fact, it has been that way for centuries. I do have a problem with sacrificing the education of academically gifted students for the sake of the students that need more help.
Again, I do see many benefits in more direct and clear teaching. But students who are gifted should be challenged and have the ability to explore and advance their knowledge with the complete attention of a teacher. I think that the IEP and other laws that have teachers spend a lot of time 'catering' to troubled student's needs keeps the academically advanced stagnant.
To be absolutely fair and equal, the education system should have some sort of an IEP for every single student, or abolish it altogether. If we want to create a society that ignores the academic elite, who have a high potential to benefit our society, then they must be educated with the same tenacity that we are trying to educate students who need a bit more help.
A simple solution would be to have the teacher take time and make individual tests for each student. This is my POI #3: the issue of time. A teacher is only paid for the time that the work in their building. A teacher does not get paid to go home and read essays, grade projects, and fill out report cards. Instead a teacher is paid for their time in the classroom.
I am aware that teaching is not about the money, and it should be about the love of education and watching children learn. But, it is still the time devoted by the teacher that will make their students successful. The problem is that there is not enough time to devote to every single student.
I am all for 'mainstreaming' and I am all for inclusion in the classroom, just not at the expense of learning. With the spike in IEP's and the No Child Left Behind, many children have been left behind. It is inevitable that some children will be, for the lack of a better term, screwed over by any type of education system.
I believe that a teacher must facilitate learning, and must facilitate learning to every student. Yet, there are many factors that are keeping the teachers of America from accomplishing that feat.
#2. Fair and equal music education
#3. The issue of time
#1: Last year I had to research a topic of my choice for my Ed. Psych. class. I chose to research the IEP or Individualized Education Plan. The IEP is a document that is given to a child who has issues learning that can be accommodated for. It is this accommodation that I find very hard to implement in a setting with many studies.
The statistics that I was able to gather show an alarming percentage of students attaining IEP's. While I think it is necessary to include all students in a classroom, it should not be at the sake of other students. I am fully aware of the benefits of talking louder, using bigger hand gestures, using PowerPoint, and overall techniques that help out students who have the IEP. But many of the methods used to help 'hindered' students do not help the academically advanced ones.
This brings me to point #2 of fair and equal music education. I do not think that there is a problem if one child learns slower than another. In fact, it has been that way for centuries. I do have a problem with sacrificing the education of academically gifted students for the sake of the students that need more help.
Again, I do see many benefits in more direct and clear teaching. But students who are gifted should be challenged and have the ability to explore and advance their knowledge with the complete attention of a teacher. I think that the IEP and other laws that have teachers spend a lot of time 'catering' to troubled student's needs keeps the academically advanced stagnant.
To be absolutely fair and equal, the education system should have some sort of an IEP for every single student, or abolish it altogether. If we want to create a society that ignores the academic elite, who have a high potential to benefit our society, then they must be educated with the same tenacity that we are trying to educate students who need a bit more help.
A simple solution would be to have the teacher take time and make individual tests for each student. This is my POI #3: the issue of time. A teacher is only paid for the time that the work in their building. A teacher does not get paid to go home and read essays, grade projects, and fill out report cards. Instead a teacher is paid for their time in the classroom.
I am aware that teaching is not about the money, and it should be about the love of education and watching children learn. But, it is still the time devoted by the teacher that will make their students successful. The problem is that there is not enough time to devote to every single student.
I am all for 'mainstreaming' and I am all for inclusion in the classroom, just not at the expense of learning. With the spike in IEP's and the No Child Left Behind, many children have been left behind. It is inevitable that some children will be, for the lack of a better term, screwed over by any type of education system.
I believe that a teacher must facilitate learning, and must facilitate learning to every student. Yet, there are many factors that are keeping the teachers of America from accomplishing that feat.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Chosky on Kodaly Reading 3 POI's
POI #1. The hand symbols.
There are many reasons why these hand symbols are pedagogic gifts. On that I find most intriguing is that they can take on a religious form. When I observed at a private Christian school last semester, I noticed a poster on one of the walls in the music room. The poster contained all of the hand symbols, but each was associated with a specific aspect of Christianity.
The Do symbol represented God, as he is the foundation of everything as well as what everyone should serve. Therefor he is the base and the top of life, just as Do is always tonic. In addition, Do was elongated for Do(minus) the Latin for master.
While I do not remember the other hand symbols specifically, I do remember that all of the children used them. Outside of religion, I think that the hand symbols are a great tool for solfege. Each symbol shows the function of the note that is being used. Si or Ti points up to Do, where it will inevitably resolve. Also La sits atop Sol, as it does in a harmonic setting. I think it is a great way to teach many concepts to young and older children alike.
POI #2: Childhood development.
I found Kodaly's views on education the child based on their developmental stage very interesting; yet some how I do not think that I would use it in my classroom.
I understand why Kodaly does this. I am aware that when subjects are related to events and happenings that are more familiar with a students that they learn it quicker. However, I feel that this method does not allow a child to broaden their horizons.
I think that a child will always relate what they know to what they will learn, so when it comes time to teach a new subject or to introduce them to a new topic, it is okay to approach it from a more mature standpoint.
Of course, more complex material such as counterpoint or improvisation over chord changes will not be brought up with young students. I am not saying that all children should be taught like they are mini adults. I am only suggesting that sometimes it is okay to not teach to the child. Sometimes it is okay to teach from a more intellectual standpoint.
POI #3 Quality.
Yes! Yes! Yes! I am not sure about how much emphasis Kodaly actually put on quality, but I think it is very important to have students experience quality music all of the time.
It is important for students to hear quality music because, well, it is quality music. There is a reason why it should be listened to. It was practiced, perfected, and performed to the highest caliber. Students should have the opportunity to listen, watch, and participate with high level players so their experience is quality.
Players that listen, in my opinion, trump those that only play. Once a player learns to listen for tone, articulation, style, dynamics, or phrasing, they are now connecting themselves with an ensemble and not individuals. When a student hears a piece that is performed by an ensemble that has performed a piece of music accurately, it is imperative that they listen.
Once the child hears this piece, they will gain insight to tone, blend, and most importantly music. I think that Kodaly wanted quality music for his students because of how much a musician can learn from listening and not just from performing.
There are many reasons why these hand symbols are pedagogic gifts. On that I find most intriguing is that they can take on a religious form. When I observed at a private Christian school last semester, I noticed a poster on one of the walls in the music room. The poster contained all of the hand symbols, but each was associated with a specific aspect of Christianity.
The Do symbol represented God, as he is the foundation of everything as well as what everyone should serve. Therefor he is the base and the top of life, just as Do is always tonic. In addition, Do was elongated for Do(minus) the Latin for master.
While I do not remember the other hand symbols specifically, I do remember that all of the children used them. Outside of religion, I think that the hand symbols are a great tool for solfege. Each symbol shows the function of the note that is being used. Si or Ti points up to Do, where it will inevitably resolve. Also La sits atop Sol, as it does in a harmonic setting. I think it is a great way to teach many concepts to young and older children alike.
POI #2: Childhood development.
I found Kodaly's views on education the child based on their developmental stage very interesting; yet some how I do not think that I would use it in my classroom.
I understand why Kodaly does this. I am aware that when subjects are related to events and happenings that are more familiar with a students that they learn it quicker. However, I feel that this method does not allow a child to broaden their horizons.
I think that a child will always relate what they know to what they will learn, so when it comes time to teach a new subject or to introduce them to a new topic, it is okay to approach it from a more mature standpoint.
Of course, more complex material such as counterpoint or improvisation over chord changes will not be brought up with young students. I am not saying that all children should be taught like they are mini adults. I am only suggesting that sometimes it is okay to not teach to the child. Sometimes it is okay to teach from a more intellectual standpoint.
POI #3 Quality.
Yes! Yes! Yes! I am not sure about how much emphasis Kodaly actually put on quality, but I think it is very important to have students experience quality music all of the time.
It is important for students to hear quality music because, well, it is quality music. There is a reason why it should be listened to. It was practiced, perfected, and performed to the highest caliber. Students should have the opportunity to listen, watch, and participate with high level players so their experience is quality.
Players that listen, in my opinion, trump those that only play. Once a player learns to listen for tone, articulation, style, dynamics, or phrasing, they are now connecting themselves with an ensemble and not individuals. When a student hears a piece that is performed by an ensemble that has performed a piece of music accurately, it is imperative that they listen.
Once the child hears this piece, they will gain insight to tone, blend, and most importantly music. I think that Kodaly wanted quality music for his students because of how much a musician can learn from listening and not just from performing.
More Than Mere Movement POI's
POI #1: "The body was conscious of the life and the movement of the music."
This is a quote that I found quite intriguing, and I have no idea why. There is so much that can be said about this statement that it bewilders me. I think that this quote was why Dalcroze came up with eurythmics. Because the body inherently moves, and reacts to music, it must be utilized in conjunction with it.
The other part of this quote that really gets to me is the term life. Music has life. I think that as musicians that we consider music to have a motion, a certain flow or direction to it. I do not think that music is usually thought of as having life. Having life, or being alive, means breathing, interacting, and communicating. Music does all of these things.
Just as our body is conscious to other forms of life, it is also tuned to music. Dalcroze was able to see this connection that the human body has with music and sought to utilize it. This may be the answer as to why I think that this quote is so amazing. It is because the human body is able to experience music the same way as it experience love, hate, and jealousy.
POI #2: An 'inner' sense of music.
Until I took eurythmics, I never thought that I had poor rhythm. I have been holding down bass lines for years before I took my first class. While I was able to maintain a steady rhythm for my ensembles, I had not really found a way to keep a steady rhythm in general. It is eurythmics' goal to develop an inner sense of music in its' students.
This inner sense of music needs many facets to grow. It needs rhythm, tonality, silence, pulse, and energy. When it comes to having good timing, one cannot forget the other facets of music. You have a rhythm, what is its' tonality, its' pulse or energy? What about when the rhythm isn't playing. Eurythmics makes you hone in on skills that develop a full musical sense.
When a musician is able to have an innate musical sense, that is, a musical sense that he does not have to tap into manually, true musicianship can occur. I sincerely feel that this was Dalcroze's purpose. He wanted music students to learn the most basic concepts of music; rhythm, tonality, pulse, silence, and energy. When the student learns these concepts until they are automatic, he will perform his art at a higher quality. His musical sense can take over, allowing a for a better performance.
POI #3: Where's Dalcroze???
This article has made me wonder why a Dalcroze approach is not as popular in an early education setting as say Kodaly or Orff. Why is it that I have seen books dedicated to a combination of Orff and Gordon, but no mention of Dalcroze.
I notice many similarities with Kodaly and Dalcroze in the way that they relate music to their students. Dalcroze chose to educate the inherent musicality of the human body, and Kodaly chose to educate the specific student. While this may seem different, it is not. Both of these styles play to the strengths of the student.
I do understand that Dalcroze is taught, but why is his method not used as popularly as the others? Also, why is it so hard to get certified as a Dalcroze instructor, but a bit simpler to be Orff certified? I am not sure if this last question is true, but it does seem to me that there are far more Orff specialized teacher rather than Dalcroze.
I wish that this could change. I believe that Dalcroze hit the nail on the head when he started to educate the innate characteristic of humanity, music.
This is a quote that I found quite intriguing, and I have no idea why. There is so much that can be said about this statement that it bewilders me. I think that this quote was why Dalcroze came up with eurythmics. Because the body inherently moves, and reacts to music, it must be utilized in conjunction with it.
The other part of this quote that really gets to me is the term life. Music has life. I think that as musicians that we consider music to have a motion, a certain flow or direction to it. I do not think that music is usually thought of as having life. Having life, or being alive, means breathing, interacting, and communicating. Music does all of these things.
Just as our body is conscious to other forms of life, it is also tuned to music. Dalcroze was able to see this connection that the human body has with music and sought to utilize it. This may be the answer as to why I think that this quote is so amazing. It is because the human body is able to experience music the same way as it experience love, hate, and jealousy.
POI #2: An 'inner' sense of music.
Until I took eurythmics, I never thought that I had poor rhythm. I have been holding down bass lines for years before I took my first class. While I was able to maintain a steady rhythm for my ensembles, I had not really found a way to keep a steady rhythm in general. It is eurythmics' goal to develop an inner sense of music in its' students.
This inner sense of music needs many facets to grow. It needs rhythm, tonality, silence, pulse, and energy. When it comes to having good timing, one cannot forget the other facets of music. You have a rhythm, what is its' tonality, its' pulse or energy? What about when the rhythm isn't playing. Eurythmics makes you hone in on skills that develop a full musical sense.
When a musician is able to have an innate musical sense, that is, a musical sense that he does not have to tap into manually, true musicianship can occur. I sincerely feel that this was Dalcroze's purpose. He wanted music students to learn the most basic concepts of music; rhythm, tonality, pulse, silence, and energy. When the student learns these concepts until they are automatic, he will perform his art at a higher quality. His musical sense can take over, allowing a for a better performance.
POI #3: Where's Dalcroze???
This article has made me wonder why a Dalcroze approach is not as popular in an early education setting as say Kodaly or Orff. Why is it that I have seen books dedicated to a combination of Orff and Gordon, but no mention of Dalcroze.
I notice many similarities with Kodaly and Dalcroze in the way that they relate music to their students. Dalcroze chose to educate the inherent musicality of the human body, and Kodaly chose to educate the specific student. While this may seem different, it is not. Both of these styles play to the strengths of the student.
I do understand that Dalcroze is taught, but why is his method not used as popularly as the others? Also, why is it so hard to get certified as a Dalcroze instructor, but a bit simpler to be Orff certified? I am not sure if this last question is true, but it does seem to me that there are far more Orff specialized teacher rather than Dalcroze.
I wish that this could change. I believe that Dalcroze hit the nail on the head when he started to educate the innate characteristic of humanity, music.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Together in Harmony 3 Points of Interest
POI 1: What a teacher's job really is.
I was a bit upset to read Gordon's theory on music aptitude. Gordon theorizes that all humans a born with a predisposed aptitude towards music. He goes on to say that after nine years old, a person's music aptitude remains stable and does not change. Therefor we should try and increase the music aptitude of children when they can be molded.
The reason this upsets me is because this takes a teacher out of the equation. Secondary school teachers are the inherently useless if the aptitude of their students is fixed. The goal of a teacher is to help their students surpass their predisposed expectations and further them academically, socially, and intellectually.
I feel that all humans have a music sense that is embedded within our DNA. Because of this inherent sense, we will continually work with music and continue to watch it grow as an art form. It does not matter what a students aptitude is to music, a teachers goal is the same, to help that student understand how music will affect their life.
POI 2: Where was Dalcroze?
I like the fact that Diane Lange decided to combine the strongest aspects of both Orff and Gordon, but I feel that she left out Dalcroze in her combination. From personal experience, I can say that taking a Dalcroze Eurythmics class has been essential to my musicianship. I see no reason that it should be left out of any teaching strategy.
I understand that both Gordon and Orff have very similar styles in their teaching. They both seem to highlight the same strength in children. I feel that a Dalcroze approach should have been taken into account because of the skills that it tries to hone in with students.
Maybe I am a bit biased when it comes to Eurythmics, but I have seen the benefits of it very quickly. How I approach many of the 'beginning' aspects of music has changed. I am much more aware of space in relation to time as well as pulse (the music's and my own). I think that if a Dalcroze approach were added to this philosophy that it could only be made stronger.
POI 3: A bit extreme.
I am no expert in what should me taught musically in our schools. I do have my own thoughts on what a general music class should teach children about music. My own thoughts are geared more towards music as a function of life (clapping, singing folk songs, personal enjoyment); I see Lange's purpose geared more towards a professional career.
The things that she wants to teach students in a general music class are things that I first learned when I expressed and interest in a musical career. I am not sure if she wants to breed musicians or just very talented humans. Either way, I feel that she is covering some very complex things that may be better being saved for a later date.
I understand that I am not a leading expert on pedagogy, but I am a musician and an educator and I feel that there is a natural progression to teaching children. For instance, I would never teach an altissimo fingering on the sax to a student in my band. You will never see a note the requires an altissimo fingering unless you are dealing with advanced solo repertoire or advanced chamber music.
There would be no need for a student, who joins band for credit, to learn this. While it would be very nice for him to learn it, it would make more sense to further his education in something that he would benefit more from.
There is a series of teaching. It goes from simple to complex. That is why you learn algebra before calculus and root position chords before inverted secondary dominant chords. I feel that Lange is giving her students too much information for their age to handle. Again, I am no expert, but I feel that she is really trying to educate her students beyond what they can handle.
I was a bit upset to read Gordon's theory on music aptitude. Gordon theorizes that all humans a born with a predisposed aptitude towards music. He goes on to say that after nine years old, a person's music aptitude remains stable and does not change. Therefor we should try and increase the music aptitude of children when they can be molded.
The reason this upsets me is because this takes a teacher out of the equation. Secondary school teachers are the inherently useless if the aptitude of their students is fixed. The goal of a teacher is to help their students surpass their predisposed expectations and further them academically, socially, and intellectually.
I feel that all humans have a music sense that is embedded within our DNA. Because of this inherent sense, we will continually work with music and continue to watch it grow as an art form. It does not matter what a students aptitude is to music, a teachers goal is the same, to help that student understand how music will affect their life.
POI 2: Where was Dalcroze?
I like the fact that Diane Lange decided to combine the strongest aspects of both Orff and Gordon, but I feel that she left out Dalcroze in her combination. From personal experience, I can say that taking a Dalcroze Eurythmics class has been essential to my musicianship. I see no reason that it should be left out of any teaching strategy.
I understand that both Gordon and Orff have very similar styles in their teaching. They both seem to highlight the same strength in children. I feel that a Dalcroze approach should have been taken into account because of the skills that it tries to hone in with students.
Maybe I am a bit biased when it comes to Eurythmics, but I have seen the benefits of it very quickly. How I approach many of the 'beginning' aspects of music has changed. I am much more aware of space in relation to time as well as pulse (the music's and my own). I think that if a Dalcroze approach were added to this philosophy that it could only be made stronger.
POI 3: A bit extreme.
I am no expert in what should me taught musically in our schools. I do have my own thoughts on what a general music class should teach children about music. My own thoughts are geared more towards music as a function of life (clapping, singing folk songs, personal enjoyment); I see Lange's purpose geared more towards a professional career.
The things that she wants to teach students in a general music class are things that I first learned when I expressed and interest in a musical career. I am not sure if she wants to breed musicians or just very talented humans. Either way, I feel that she is covering some very complex things that may be better being saved for a later date.
I understand that I am not a leading expert on pedagogy, but I am a musician and an educator and I feel that there is a natural progression to teaching children. For instance, I would never teach an altissimo fingering on the sax to a student in my band. You will never see a note the requires an altissimo fingering unless you are dealing with advanced solo repertoire or advanced chamber music.
There would be no need for a student, who joins band for credit, to learn this. While it would be very nice for him to learn it, it would make more sense to further his education in something that he would benefit more from.
There is a series of teaching. It goes from simple to complex. That is why you learn algebra before calculus and root position chords before inverted secondary dominant chords. I feel that Lange is giving her students too much information for their age to handle. Again, I am no expert, but I feel that she is really trying to educate her students beyond what they can handle.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Chapter 10 Pointes of Interest
POI #1: Too much creative freedom.
Having your students be able to explore is a wonderful thing. Giving them the chance to invent and improvise is truly amazing. However I believe that it is only so fantastic up to a certain point. I think of creating as a bell curve. A student should be allowed the right amount of creativity to perform as best they can. Otherwise too little creativity will create a mundane performance whereas too much may muddle what concepts need to get across to an audience member.
A few examples of this are; improvising out of key, not keeping the proper tonality, playing instruments in new ways that make them sound poor or not at all, or not following proper form to where a piece becomes inaccurate and historically wrong.
I feel that it is important to allow children to use their creativity, just as long as they retain their musical aspects. If the composition starts to turn from a round into a chaconne, do not call the piece around. You must explain to the student that they have now created a new piece that is different from a round. If a student starts to play an instrument incorrectly, it must be fixed so their musicality does not suffer. Sometimes I see teachers allowing too much freedom with their students to a point where their musicality is affected greatly.
POI #2 Crossing into other academia
I feel that creating obviously open the door to crossing content boundaries. Children may want to make up their own movements to dance or their won pictures to music. They may relate pieces to aspects of history or places that they have been. I think that having your students thinking "outside the box" about music will help them in the long run.
Fantasia is a perfect example of music and art together. Disney animators do a wonderful job of showing the music with their art. Their art also does not take away from the magnificence of the music. It combines to mediums into a wonderful piece of work. The first was so successful that they made another one in 2000 aptly named Fantasia 2000. I highly recommend these movies to anyone who has an appreciation of art and music.
POI #3: Making instruments
I love this, I absolutely love this. Making instruments is a wonderful way for students to start to understand how sound works. Making instruments shows students different aspects of instruments that they might miss. This could include the finger holes with different pitches, the resonating chambers of guitars and stringed instruments, or the vibrations of cymbals.
Having students explore by creating instruments allows them to understand concepts that sometimes do not get taught in a school setting. If a teacher can utilize how to make instruments, they can easily have more educated students. As long as the teacher is willing to explain how and why instruments make sounds, their students will start to realize how the "real" instruments that they play function.
Claire de Lune (deleted scene from Fantasia)
Having your students be able to explore is a wonderful thing. Giving them the chance to invent and improvise is truly amazing. However I believe that it is only so fantastic up to a certain point. I think of creating as a bell curve. A student should be allowed the right amount of creativity to perform as best they can. Otherwise too little creativity will create a mundane performance whereas too much may muddle what concepts need to get across to an audience member.
A few examples of this are; improvising out of key, not keeping the proper tonality, playing instruments in new ways that make them sound poor or not at all, or not following proper form to where a piece becomes inaccurate and historically wrong.
I feel that it is important to allow children to use their creativity, just as long as they retain their musical aspects. If the composition starts to turn from a round into a chaconne, do not call the piece around. You must explain to the student that they have now created a new piece that is different from a round. If a student starts to play an instrument incorrectly, it must be fixed so their musicality does not suffer. Sometimes I see teachers allowing too much freedom with their students to a point where their musicality is affected greatly.
POI #2 Crossing into other academia
I feel that creating obviously open the door to crossing content boundaries. Children may want to make up their own movements to dance or their won pictures to music. They may relate pieces to aspects of history or places that they have been. I think that having your students thinking "outside the box" about music will help them in the long run.
Fantasia is a perfect example of music and art together. Disney animators do a wonderful job of showing the music with their art. Their art also does not take away from the magnificence of the music. It combines to mediums into a wonderful piece of work. The first was so successful that they made another one in 2000 aptly named Fantasia 2000. I highly recommend these movies to anyone who has an appreciation of art and music.
POI #3: Making instruments
I love this, I absolutely love this. Making instruments is a wonderful way for students to start to understand how sound works. Making instruments shows students different aspects of instruments that they might miss. This could include the finger holes with different pitches, the resonating chambers of guitars and stringed instruments, or the vibrations of cymbals.
Having students explore by creating instruments allows them to understand concepts that sometimes do not get taught in a school setting. If a teacher can utilize how to make instruments, they can easily have more educated students. As long as the teacher is willing to explain how and why instruments make sounds, their students will start to realize how the "real" instruments that they play function.
Claire de Lune (deleted scene from Fantasia)
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Chapter 9 POI"s
POI #1: Listening for Complexity.
I was very confused by this concept. More clearly defined in the book as humans are drawn to complexity. I would actually tend to disagree with this statement. I would argue the exact opposite and that humans are drawn to the more simplistic.
As a human race our goal has been to simplify everything. Inventions like the wheel, paper, and ramps, have made very difficult tasks far easier to accomplish. I believe that this characteristic carries over to music. I see it in the fact that a human can perform music alone with only their voice and body.
In my opinion, music that is too complex loses its appeal and therefor loses its audience. I am for teaching children about more complex music, but basing it off the fact that humans are drawn to complexity, I feel, is wrong.
POI #2: Active Listening
I have grown to love active listening. I think it is a great tool to have in your back pocket as a teacher. There are just so many activities that you can do with active listening that it can be put into any curriculum with a great amount of ease.
Another wonderful thing about active listening is how easily it enables as cross curricular opportunity. Without going into too many specifics, I feel that having students develop a sense for active listening will enable them to focus themselves in other areas. When a students must listen for a specific pattern or dynamic or even an instrument, you give listening a purpose rather than for just enjoyment.
This skill will prepare students if they will have a future in professional music. Being able to hear a seventh rubbing against an octave or being able to pick out the slightly out of tune trumpet. Developing the active listening skill now will prepare a student to be a fantastic musician.
POI #3: A POI Inspired by Chapter 9
I have always been curious why certain songs and keys evoke the emotions that they do. I have surmised that there is something aurally special about certain keys and phrases that make this so. Over the summer I was trying to determine why some of this truth was so evident in the musical world.
For instance, the key of C minor has been considered a very dark key. If you wrote in C minor you meant business. For some reason when a composer wants to write in a fashion that depicts triumph or agony or melancholy, C minor seemed to be the key of preference.
Another example is the key of F minor. Again this key is very popular among many jazz standards as well as many British tunes. Holst's Second Suite in F utilizes the power of F minor frequently. Adding the 7th to a F minor triad creates such a wonderful pull that when many jazz players improvise they play it.
I am still unsure as to why this appreciation or drive to use certain keys to evoke certain emotions . It may very well be a human instinct just like the pull to the number three. But I am sure that certain keys, phrases, rhythmic patters, and timbres are more comforting and appealing to every human ear.
I was very confused by this concept. More clearly defined in the book as humans are drawn to complexity. I would actually tend to disagree with this statement. I would argue the exact opposite and that humans are drawn to the more simplistic.
As a human race our goal has been to simplify everything. Inventions like the wheel, paper, and ramps, have made very difficult tasks far easier to accomplish. I believe that this characteristic carries over to music. I see it in the fact that a human can perform music alone with only their voice and body.
In my opinion, music that is too complex loses its appeal and therefor loses its audience. I am for teaching children about more complex music, but basing it off the fact that humans are drawn to complexity, I feel, is wrong.
POI #2: Active Listening
I have grown to love active listening. I think it is a great tool to have in your back pocket as a teacher. There are just so many activities that you can do with active listening that it can be put into any curriculum with a great amount of ease.
Another wonderful thing about active listening is how easily it enables as cross curricular opportunity. Without going into too many specifics, I feel that having students develop a sense for active listening will enable them to focus themselves in other areas. When a students must listen for a specific pattern or dynamic or even an instrument, you give listening a purpose rather than for just enjoyment.
This skill will prepare students if they will have a future in professional music. Being able to hear a seventh rubbing against an octave or being able to pick out the slightly out of tune trumpet. Developing the active listening skill now will prepare a student to be a fantastic musician.
POI #3: A POI Inspired by Chapter 9
I have always been curious why certain songs and keys evoke the emotions that they do. I have surmised that there is something aurally special about certain keys and phrases that make this so. Over the summer I was trying to determine why some of this truth was so evident in the musical world.
For instance, the key of C minor has been considered a very dark key. If you wrote in C minor you meant business. For some reason when a composer wants to write in a fashion that depicts triumph or agony or melancholy, C minor seemed to be the key of preference.
Another example is the key of F minor. Again this key is very popular among many jazz standards as well as many British tunes. Holst's Second Suite in F utilizes the power of F minor frequently. Adding the 7th to a F minor triad creates such a wonderful pull that when many jazz players improvise they play it.
I am still unsure as to why this appreciation or drive to use certain keys to evoke certain emotions . It may very well be a human instinct just like the pull to the number three. But I am sure that certain keys, phrases, rhythmic patters, and timbres are more comforting and appealing to every human ear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)