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.