A reply . . .
[Note: This is a reply to the comment made regarding the immediately preceding post. It simply was to long to be a mere 'comment'.]
Hmmm . . . well, yes there is a compositional voice, in fact, this might be all there is . . .
Consider Punk and its aesthetic, where the whole issue is anarchy: we don't know how to play our instruments and we don't care how we play our instruments . . . f**k you. It's a nice idea, but a bit of a misnomer/red herring/Dick Cheney, because musicians are concerned about their sound, their technique, their message, their look, whatever . . . so, yeah music is more than just music. After all, why do musicians do it? It's an attitude, a feeling, an addiction, and, in a more evangelical sense, a calling. It's simply a desire to do it. I am drawn to it; it keeps me up at night. Even when things are not going so well, I always return to it and it is always there for me. So yes, to para/re-phrase, music becomes ancillary to the desire of creating music, individual expression as you say. Music is just the outcome, not the goal: which is making music, a process.
It is a process here, and every one has a different tact. I can teach technique, I can teach ideas, historical precedence, etc. Teaching individuality, well, let's just say I leave that up to the advertisers, the fascists, and Walt Disney. I don't think you teach 'composition', 'painting', 'writing', or 'insert latest medium here.' We are seeking a process that has to be discovered. Which is funny, because now there are programs in 'multi-media', 'design', and 'interactivity.' I think we have the same problems here with these developing arts (which actually are media, as is 'writing', 'composition', 'dance', etc.) We can teach proficiency, but not necessarily aesthetic innovation. In fact, we are not teaching, we are leading others towards self-discovery. This I can agree upon.
To extend the argument, I believe that, in the above context, we could argue that technology is irrelevant when it comes to music . . . the tools are irrelevant to the act of music-making -- though they may be completely relevant to the music being made. Cage's 4'33', the so-called silent piece, was originally performed at the piano, from a pianistic (technological) standpoint, the instrument was irrelevant -- made even more so if you listen to one of the many recordings of the work. (Of course there are performance aspects to which the piano is vital, but leave that for another discussion.) This is all rolling towards the statement that music (art) is an event, a process, and a performance. Which relates to this education thing, formal or otherwise.
The problem with the standard, formal education, is that it can only give so much . . . certainly music is more than just the Groves Music encyclopedia, a set of recordings and sonata-allegro form. Sure it is, however, it was this externalized approach to music (the analysis, the theory, the history) which was the gist of my formal education. (It took me years to realize that music theory was irrelevant as well). Play the notes, ignore the music . . . Was it Schaeffer who argued for the 'primacy of the ear.' Is reading, studying about music a valid musical experience, and if not, why are our students paying good money (either directly, or through taxes) to not have a valid aesthetic experience (music, drama, writing, dance, etc.) . . . you could pull this across into all disciplines for this matter . . . chemistry, astrophysics, sport, etc. But we don't teach students how to learn, we teach students how to get the right answer. We stuff all this information into their heads and think, hey, that's knowledge. Well, it isn't. Knowledge is a process, an outcome, an innovative moment . . . not those damn dots on a page, not this formula, not that line of code. It is live, not Memorex.
Onto your question, if a structured system of musical education is even relevant anymore . . . well, perhaps we need to ask if the formal paradigm of education is relevant anymore. This gets into deeper waters and I will have to sleep on it; perhaps a new discussion tomorrow.
jg
Hmmm . . . well, yes there is a compositional voice, in fact, this might be all there is . . .
Consider Punk and its aesthetic, where the whole issue is anarchy: we don't know how to play our instruments and we don't care how we play our instruments . . . f**k you. It's a nice idea, but a bit of a misnomer/red herring/Dick Cheney, because musicians are concerned about their sound, their technique, their message, their look, whatever . . . so, yeah music is more than just music. After all, why do musicians do it? It's an attitude, a feeling, an addiction, and, in a more evangelical sense, a calling. It's simply a desire to do it. I am drawn to it; it keeps me up at night. Even when things are not going so well, I always return to it and it is always there for me. So yes, to para/re-phrase, music becomes ancillary to the desire of creating music, individual expression as you say. Music is just the outcome, not the goal: which is making music, a process.
It is a process here, and every one has a different tact. I can teach technique, I can teach ideas, historical precedence, etc. Teaching individuality, well, let's just say I leave that up to the advertisers, the fascists, and Walt Disney. I don't think you teach 'composition', 'painting', 'writing', or 'insert latest medium here.' We are seeking a process that has to be discovered. Which is funny, because now there are programs in 'multi-media', 'design', and 'interactivity.' I think we have the same problems here with these developing arts (which actually are media, as is 'writing', 'composition', 'dance', etc.) We can teach proficiency, but not necessarily aesthetic innovation. In fact, we are not teaching, we are leading others towards self-discovery. This I can agree upon.
To extend the argument, I believe that, in the above context, we could argue that technology is irrelevant when it comes to music . . . the tools are irrelevant to the act of music-making -- though they may be completely relevant to the music being made. Cage's 4'33', the so-called silent piece, was originally performed at the piano, from a pianistic (technological) standpoint, the instrument was irrelevant -- made even more so if you listen to one of the many recordings of the work. (Of course there are performance aspects to which the piano is vital, but leave that for another discussion.) This is all rolling towards the statement that music (art) is an event, a process, and a performance. Which relates to this education thing, formal or otherwise.
The problem with the standard, formal education, is that it can only give so much . . . certainly music is more than just the Groves Music encyclopedia, a set of recordings and sonata-allegro form. Sure it is, however, it was this externalized approach to music (the analysis, the theory, the history) which was the gist of my formal education. (It took me years to realize that music theory was irrelevant as well). Play the notes, ignore the music . . . Was it Schaeffer who argued for the 'primacy of the ear.' Is reading, studying about music a valid musical experience, and if not, why are our students paying good money (either directly, or through taxes) to not have a valid aesthetic experience (music, drama, writing, dance, etc.) . . . you could pull this across into all disciplines for this matter . . . chemistry, astrophysics, sport, etc. But we don't teach students how to learn, we teach students how to get the right answer. We stuff all this information into their heads and think, hey, that's knowledge. Well, it isn't. Knowledge is a process, an outcome, an innovative moment . . . not those damn dots on a page, not this formula, not that line of code. It is live, not Memorex.
Onto your question, if a structured system of musical education is even relevant anymore . . . well, perhaps we need to ask if the formal paradigm of education is relevant anymore. This gets into deeper waters and I will have to sleep on it; perhaps a new discussion tomorrow.
jg
posted by geistweidt at 11:13:00 PM
5 Comments:
It think a lot of the onus must lie with students in meeting the challanges of working in the modern artistic culture. The boundaries between art forms which include elements of an auditory nature have become so blurred that it is moving outside the remit of an institution (for lack of a better term)to be able to offer a broad enough sphere of knowledge. Personally I think the nature of music education could do with substantial revision as present days courses tend more towards conservation of historic concepts. (Apologies for this sweeping generalisation.) I think the insitutions are still vital but perhaps more in bringing people into contact with ideas and allowing them to follow their own paths to their own conclusions. This is a really interesting area though. Can of worms for sure.
Well, I would have to agree with you, it is moving outside the "remit of the institution." It is impossible to pull it all into a 10-week course. Poof!, you are a musician, composer, whatever. I think there is a misconception when you enter university that you are going to learn things and then apply those things to your life. The more you know, the more you will succeed. Further, somehow, education will magically provide a future, a career, an answer. At least this is a perspective from the American side of things. Preparation for a job vs. preparation for a life, etc.
Formal education is just part of the equation . . . and I believe that our cultural and scholarly institutions have a great deal to give/contribute to our society.
Yes, the conservative slant on education is certainly to be considered, however, I am not ready to write off the idea of formal education yet (and, well, neither are you.) As stated above, universities have much to give. I like, and agree with, the idea institutions are to bring people into contact with new ideas, experiences, etc. Is it Malcolm Gladwell that talks about 'hub' personalties, those people that serve to connect other people and bring them together? This is perhaps what is needed: universities (or whatever) serving as hubs for bringing people together. How do we increase this network of experience? Education, the art of sharing and interweaving our work into other's experiences, perhaps? Here is a problem with the current system, it's a selfish system. In order for us to move forward we have to work together. We are becoming an increasingly networked society, are we not? I can see the old guard bending in the wind . . . we need a conversation and influential people are not willing to talk. Again, I meander.
Yes, students have to meet the university halfway as you say, the 'onus' is on them -- actually on everybody. We have to do it together.
Just to add my 2c worth...
Firstly, if you wish to consider music education, I think you need to look at where it's come from, who's been teaching it, and why it's taught. This is a big area to cover but in my opinion, in the case of musicology, boils down to the idea that a student comes to university to learn about the great works of Western history in order to (somehow) make them a "better" person. In practice, this has meant that some musics were taught (because they were considered worthy) and others were not (because they were "cheap", "manufactured", "noise", "inferior", whatever). Lecturers acted as the "gatekeepers" to the "higher" knowledge and the cultural capital that it accords to its "owner". And they acted primarily as "Men of Reason" in the way they approached and studied music by intellectualising its study. In practice what this meant was that students studied Western art music, non-Western art musics (Gamelan, etc.) and occasionally some jazz. Note that all these are "sit down and listen to them" musics, not "dance to them" musics. This was problematic in the case of say, West African drumming, which is an art music tradition but had strong integration with dance. (Ethno)musicologists got around this by claiming that dance musics were OK if they were "over there" but we're not interested in the ones here (BTW, I find it interesting that Queen's teaches music technology but not a musicology of all (including popular) electronic musics--to me that highlights a problem).
This was challenged in the 1980s with the rise of the musicology of popular musics. In this case, authors normally had to begin their studies by justifying why it was worthwhile, something that was usually taken for granted in musics that fit into the traditional canon.
Of course, the rise of postmodernism has made the schism between "art" and "popular" all the more apparent. But it still exists. The real problem for musicology is popular dance musics which have arguably been the dominant Western musical style for the past 20 years. How does it understand them? Are they significant? What about dance?
For homework (:-)) I suggest having a look at Richard Middleton's "Studying Popular Music" which goes through a lot of these ideas in great detail. Also, "Rationalizing Culture" is a good read for those more interested in electroacoustic music. And Kerman's Musicology is good too...
I think that's about 10c worth...
Bravo! Really enjoyed this response, will heed your reading suggestions . . .
RE Queen's offering MusTech and not musicology of all musics, etc. This is an issue which is being considered (from what I understand.) I believe the quote from the person I was discussing this with was something along the lines of "We ignore this at our peril." Hence, the so-called Popular Music Studies might rub shoulders with the 'canon' before too long. Someone is going to need to figure out how to frame this, and I am sure some have already done so.
There is an ethnomusicology outpost in the anthropology department; I wonder what they are doing? I did attend a discussion about two years ago (in the ethno department) that was looking at the pirating, mixing, creation of CD's/DVD's (with homemade cover art, liner notes, etc.) in African nations. (I can't remember exactly where . . .) But it was nice to look at the use of technology and how it was being appropriated by others to create, distribute, and codify their own musical interests/experiences. In fact the funny thing I remember now was a video for one original song that incorporated clips from MTV videos such that the performing artists appeared to be interacting with popular artists of the time. Slick editing with cheap hardware and pirated software.
As for dance, it would be worth going back and trying to find out where exactly dance left Western Art Music (rather, where Western Art Music left dance and how it reformed it in the guise of ballet -- the 'USDA approved' choreography). For that matter, when did formal Christian worship dispense with dance? It may come down to this 'gatekeeper' function that you mentioned previously. The holders of knowledge, dispensing information. Is it a power issue? Well, maybe the key point is access these days?
One aspect of our consumer culture and the capitalism that drives it is that access is getting cheaper. More people can create in the digital wonderland. Hence there are more and more sub-cultures being established every day.
(As an aside, at what point will digital/media art become part of the canon and be rendered the new classicism? Perhaps it won't because the rate of change is so rapid these days that it can't be frozen and examined?)
It's only when technology is used to subvert such natural growth (ie, Digital Rights Management) that problems arise. Record companies, television networks, and even nations try to play 'gatekeeper' as well. Who are the cultural 'gatekeepers'? I will give your suggestions a read and get back to you.
All the best,
jg
Thanks for this post. It Very nice Blog. It was a very good Blog. I like it. Thanks for sharing knowledge. Ask you to share good Blog again.
Post a Comment
<< Home