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.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)