"Fun" in the classroom

[themusicteacher]

As anyone can surmise from my handle, I am a music teacher. I teach public school instrumental, mostly at the high school level, but also am assigned to one elementary school. I have a dilemma and while I can't say it's unique, I'm wondering what other teachers, arts or not, have experienced with this and how you deal with it from a philosophical and practical standpoint. Here goes:

The kids I work with (both elementary and high but I'm referring here more to the elementary kids) talk excessively during class. Now, we meet during lunch (just twice a week) so they're tired and hungry and we're looking into changing the schedule to see if we can't help this. So, we don't get a whole lot done but the other big issue here is that they don't practice. Of course, they have the same excused my high school kids do, "I don't have time." Well, I call BS on that and tell them that it's their homework for our class and it's really the only way we'll get better since we have such limited time together. I let parents know that they are expected to practice and I even sent them a practice guide since, like most people, they are musically illiterate and wouldn't know good practicing if it slapped them on the butt.

Here's where the problem comes in. The pushback I always get from parents (and kids, to a certain extent) is that music classes are supposed to be fun and that, somehow, by asking them to practice and improve, I've just made it "work" and, therefore, no fun. Aside from the logical fallacies involved in this level of argument, my biggest point of contention is that "fun" is a relative and useless term - what is fun to me may not be fun to you. I get the distinct impressions that:

1. They don't care if there kid is good at playing an instrument, just that they play one because it, you know, makes them smarter and stuff.

2. Have done enough mental gymnastics and rationalizing to justify saying that hard work in science or math or reading or whatever is okay but hard work in music is not because music is about "fun" while other subjects are about learning "practical skills and knowledge." Nobody ever says, "You're not making math fun so I'm yanking my kid from your class."

I try to make the point that, usually, when we're good at something, we tend to enjoy it more, that becoming good at something usually takes work and, let's face it, working at something that is difficult and makes you feel a bit inferior and humbled is not always "fun." However, working through it and becoming better can be "fun" (fulfilling or meaningful probably are more appropriate terms). I try to give them access to as many aids and resources as possible and I never ask them to work on things we haven't done in class.

I happen to think I'm in the right on this, in principal, and am willing to tell parents this. However, some parents just get fed up with my "unreasonable" (20 minutes of practice a day) requests and just let their kid fail and then quit since it's a voluntary class. I feel like I'm just having standards and trying to help them have a good experience while realizing that it takes time, effort and patience to be good at an instrument. Parents seem to not care about the fact that most of their kids aren't really any good at it and only want their kid to "have an appreciation" (whatever the hell that means) for music. What sort of appreciation is gained when they don't bother to do any work or try to improve? If they want an "appreciation," I can direct them to a number of books and websites and recordings that can broaden their musical horizons without wasting my time.

Bottom line: I didn't work my rear off in school (twice!) to become some sort of song and dance man. I'm a music educator and I expect kids to work to a reasonable degree in order to improve, master skills and mature musically so that they can be confident, competent individual musicians and access a broader and more advanced array of musical experiences with understanding that goes beyond the superficial.

I'm wondering what other educators have experienced with this "education-as-entertainment" paradigm both in and out of the arts. What is your take? Am I wrong? Do you think it is my job to make music class fun? Is it your job to make your subject material fun? Is it unreasonable to ask students to learn things regardless of their level of interest or whatever fun they may be having? Whack away...

[Flo]

I'm wondering what other educators have experienced with this "education-as-entertainment" paradigm both in and out of the arts. What is your take? Am I wrong? Do you think it is my job to make music class fun? Is it your job to make your subject material fun? Is it unreasonable to ask students to learn things regardless of their level of interest or whatever fun they may be having? Whack away...

It is the job of an educator to try to make learning and practice as enjoyable as possible. You can't however learn anything by only having fun, and not learning is the surest way of losing interest rather fast. I have met with the same problems teaching kendo: too many parents are just dumping their kids on sports or music coaches in the hope of getting rid of the little monsters for a few hours a week, and are incensed at the thought they have to participate somehow, if only by asking their cherubins not to spoil it for the other students. I find it absolutely reasonable to insist on some discipline (see below) and commitment on their, and their children's, part, or to just refrain from showing up if they're not ready for that effort.



The musician has three instruments: the hands, the head and the heart, and each has its own discipline. So, the musician has three disciplines: the disciplines of the hands, the head and the heart. Ultimately, these are one discipline: discipline. Discipline is the capacity to make a commitment in time. If the musician is able to make a commitment in time, to guarantee that they will honor this commitment regardless of convenience, comfort, situation and inclination of the moment, they are on the way to becoming effectual. An effectual musician is a trained, responsive and reliable instrument at the service of music.The Road To Graceland. Robert Fripp, guitarist and leader, King Crimson

[DallasDad]

If the parents don't support a well-rounded education, and if the kids themselves aren't self-motivated, there isn't much you can do. Music and the other arts are optional because they're only needed for personal growth, not for a job at Burger King.

Pragmatically, most adults remember school music classes as exercises in futility. Although their parents made them practice and practice, they never rose above mediocrity in performance. And as soon as the mandatory lessons stopped, so did all practice ... and enjoyment had stopped long before.

Play Pachelbel's Canon in D Major for your class. Watch your students as they listen. The ones who are enraptured, or who cry, or who close their eyes, or whose hands dance involuntarily -- teach them everything you can. The rest, do your duty and move on. You can lay a groundwork for them to use if they later become interested in music, but you can't do much else.

[rwguinn]

If the parents don't support a well-rounded education, and if the kids themselves aren't self-motivated, there isn't much you can do. Music and the other arts are optional because they're only needed for personal growth, not for a job at Burger King.

Pragmatically, most adults remember school music classes as exercises in futility. Although their parents made them practice and practice, they never rose above mediocrity in performance. And as soon as the mandatory lessons stopped, so did all practice ... and enjoyment had stopped long before.

Play Pachelbel's Canon in D Major for your class. Watch your students as they listen. The ones who are enraptured, or who cry, or who close their eyes, or whose hands dance involuntarily -- teach them everything you can. The rest, do your duty and move on. You can lay a groundwork for them to use if they later become interested in music, but you can't do much else.
May I speak to this from the other side, both as a student and as a parent of a band student?
Practicing alone is, IMHO, boring. It is also necessary to master (or at least become relatively competent in) the basics-like what note is which, etc. We went through it with my son, and while learning to play the saxophone is not something particularly soothing to the people around you, we endured. He and his buddies practiced bot solo, and together--and the kid won the High School "Louis Armstrong" award his Junior year-after nearly dropping out after 6th grade due to lack of interest from the teacher--who seldom showed up for their concerts!
Encourage the kids to get together and practice. It makes it more fun, and any practice tooting the horn is useful, at that age.
Anecdote, where I live, band is a big deal. This fall, when school started, I heard "Blatting" from a trumpet over here, and over there, squawking from a clarinet, and screeching from a flute yonder. A couple of days later, they all came from the same place. Now, only 4 months later, I hear melodies from one place or another, as they all got together. Sure, there is still the occasional "blat", "Squawk", and "Screech", but on the whole, I'd say they progressed quite admirably in a short time.
I have the same problem as a perpetual guitar student--but I use a karioke (??) machine, with music I want to learn playing, and me playing along with it. I still prefer playing in a group, jamming, because I can learn more, and it's more fun.

[rwguinn]

If the parents don't support a well-rounded education, and if the kids themselves aren't self-motivated, there isn't much you can do. Music and the other arts are optional because they're only needed for personal growth, not for a job at Burger King.

Pragmatically, most adults remember school music classes as exercises in futility. Although their parents made them practice and practice, they never rose above mediocrity in performance. And as soon as the mandatory lessons stopped, so did all practice ... and enjoyment had stopped long before.

Play Pachelbel's Canon in D Major for your class. Watch your students as they listen. The ones who are enraptured, or who cry, or who close their eyes, or whose hands dance involuntarily -- teach them everything you can. The rest, do your duty and move on. You can lay a groundwork for them to use if they later become interested in music, but you can't do much else.
This^^^!

[Dr. Keith]

If the parents don't support a well-rounded education, and if the kids themselves aren't self-motivated, there isn't much you can do. Music and the other arts are optional because they're only needed for personal growth, not for a job at Burger King.

Pragmatically, most adults remember school music classes as exercises in futility. Although their parents made them practice and practice, they never rose above mediocrity in performance. And as soon as the mandatory lessons stopped, so did all practice ... and enjoyment had stopped long before.

Play Pachelbel's Canon in D Major for your class. Watch your students as they listen. The ones who are enraptured, or who cry, or who close their eyes, or whose hands dance involuntarily -- teach them everything you can. The rest, do your duty and move on. You can lay a groundwork for them to use if they later become interested in music, but you can't do much else.

DallasDad has said it better than I could.

I would add that you may have a communication problem. How is the class being marketed to the parents and the students? Are they being asked to sign up for a "fun exploration of music" or "music appreciation" or "band instruction." Often these auxiliary classes at the elementary level are consider social affairs by the students and parents.

Personal Anecdotes: My daughter participates in a before school choir that is very much of a social nature. The flip side was the optional chess class where the instructor sent home a description of the class that made it clear that the class was for those really interested in learning the game and improving their skills.

It may be helpful for you to be involved in the drafting of the course description and maybe coming to the school to talk to interested parents before they sign their kids up. It is a pain in the ass and a lot of extra effort on the front end, but you may find a more focused classed in exchange for your efforts.

If you are already doing that, then maybe you need to announce a "change" in the course for next year or even next semester. "In the past it has been for those interested in music, now it will be for those interested in learning how to play an instrument." Bring the focus back to where you and the principal/school think the focus should be.

Personal Appreciation: I hated music class and was dreading my daughter playing in the band. She had great teachers from day one and is now really loving the band. Thanks to people like you who were dedicated to the kids actually learning something she is very good at her instrument and has made some very close friends. Thank you.

[Drachasor]

The last scientific american had an interesting article (well, more of a blurb) on how adding game mechanics to things in real life would probably improve how people perform. If kids can more tangible and immediate rewards for doing better in say, Music Class, then they'd probably practice and work harder at it.

I think it is probably safe to say schools use way too much delayed gratification.

[themusicteacher]

My biggest issue, I suppose, is the utter debasement of the concept of "fun." It seems that people only think something is fun if it requires nothing of them, especially mental effort, doesn't ask any time of them, is easy to access and be good at right way and is done only at their convenience. I completely understand that when someone joins a music class, they want to make music (that's the "fun" part). However, that doesn't excuse them from working hard to learn how to play their instrument well so they can make music well. However, when asked to work, this is the first fall back for many students (and parents), "This is supposed to be fun." It's an absurd argument, completely without merit. It's an argument designed to absolve the person of any responsibility for learning, improvement or mastery and make ME look like a jerk for expecting those things. It's an obfuscation of the fact that learning to make music (again, well) on an instrument is challenging, requires patience and effort and thought. I am through with "fun."

[themusicteacher]

The last scientific american had an interesting article (well, more of a blurb) on how adding game mechanics to things in real life would probably improve how people perform. If kids can more tangible and immediate rewards for doing better in say, Music Class, then they'd probably practice and work harder at it.

I think it is probably safe to say schools use way too much delayed gratification.

I think it's safe to say we use too much instant gratification. Kids want to be told all the time how well they're doing (they certainly don't want to hear when they aren't cutting it). I hand out praise when it's warranted, when it is apparent that someone has done the work and is doing their best or is working towards getting better. Ultimately, they want to have a good performance and if I'm always telling them how great they are when they aren't, the performance is going to be nerve-wracking, anxiety-inducing, un-enjoyable and disappointing.

Blowing sunshine up kids and their parents backsides has become a full time job for teachers lest junior think someone else has recognized he's lazy or ignorant. It's disgusting how the expectation now is that I be a prop comic for students that hands out "A's" the way a hooker hands out STD's so that kids can get into their dream college more easily (it's that way for every teacher, not just the arts). Whatever happened to hard work, expectations and doing your job regardless of your level of motivation at that particular moment? A job well-done and learning for the sake of knowing is no longer valued. Now I have to "incentivize" not being a lazy, lame-brained, know-nothing jerk? Give me a break.

[schrodingasdawg]

Play Pachelbel's Canon in D Major for your class. Watch your students as they listen. The ones who are enraptured, or who cry, or who close their eyes, or whose hands dance involuntarily -- teach them everything you can. The rest, do your duty and move on. You can lay a groundwork for them to use if they later become interested in music, but you can't do much else.

I don't think falling in love with Pachelbel's canon is a necessity for developing an appreciation for music. I think quite the opposite, in fact.

[DallasDad]

I don't think falling in love with Pachelbel's canon is a necessity for developing an appreciation for music. I think quite the opposite, in fact.

Well, to be fair, I included crying as a reaction. There are multiple reasons to cry over Pachelbel. ;)

I chose it as an example, not intending to claim it as the sole diagnostic piece available.

[MattusMaximus]

Today I had some "fun" with the kids in my physics class. I used physics to debunk the fantasy known as Santa Claus... at least, I showed - with great mathematical precision - that if Santa ever did deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now :D

[Fnord]

Fun? In a classroom?

What a concept!

I've taken a few allegedly 'fun' classes in my time, but the basics of fun - creativity, liberty, and spontaneity - were discouraged. Conformity, discipline, and repetition were the order of the day, and this was a creative writing class, not band, dance or drama where order was necessary. While following the rules of grammar, punctuation and spelling got you a better grade, I was often ridiculed because my stories were different.

Example: When shown a picture of a tiger cub chasing a blue ball, the other students wrote about having a tiger for a pet. I wrote of a tiger-god cub playing with the people and events on Earth as if they were his own private toys. Bad Fnord! Too much religion! Bad, bad Fnord!

Another picture featured a mature woman walking along a wooded path. The others wrote of romantic encounters, unicorns, and other fairy tales. I wrote of a scout from Earth making her final survey of a distant garden-like world before the colonists landed and the planet became just another over-populated and polluted rockball. Bad Fnord! Too many comic books! Bad, bad Fnord!

I learned that conformity counted for more than creativity ("Creativity is fine, class, as long as we all learn to do it the same way"); that there were certain rules to follow ("Don't make it too weird so you can get a good grade"); and that listening to 20 or more versions of the same story makes it easier to judge whose story is best ("Fnord ... let me make sure yours fits in before you read it out loud...").

I felt betrayed. Nothing 'fun' about using your imagination, unless you enjoy being humiliated.

[themusicteacher]

Fun? In a classroom?

What a concept!

I've taken a few allegedly 'fun' classes in my time, but the basics of fun - creativity, liberty, and spontaneity - were discouraged. Conformity, discipline, and repetition were the order of the day, and this was a creative writing class, not band, dance or drama where order was necessary. While following the rules of grammar, punctuation and spelling got you a better grade, I was often ridiculed because my stories were different.

Example: When shown a picture of a tiger cub chasing a blue ball, the other students wrote about having a tiger for a pet. I wrote of a tiger-god cub playing with the people and events on Earth as if they were his own private toys. Bad Fnord! Too much religion! Bad, bad Fnord!

Another picture featured a mature woman walking along a wooded path. The others wrote of romantic encounters, unicorns, and other fairy tales. I wrote of a scout from Earth making her final survey of a distant garden-like world before the colonists landed and the planet became just another over-populated and polluted rockball. Bad Fnord! Too many comic books! Bad, bad Fnord!

I learned that conformity counted for more than creativity ("Creativity is fine, class, as long as we all learn to do it the same way"); that there were certain rules to follow ("Don't make it too weird so you can get a good grade"); and that listening to 20 or more versions of the same story makes it easier to judge whose story is best ("Fnord ... let me make sure yours fits in before you read it out loud...").

I felt betrayed. Nothing 'fun' about using your imagination, unless you enjoy being humiliated.

That's a decent example of when creativity might be squelched although I don't know the specifics of the assignment. Let me give you one, though, where students think creativity means "spontaneous ejaculation of nonsense":

Jazz music is, by any measure, a "creative" genre. Since improvisation is key, the musician gets to compose the music in the moment rather than adhere strictly to the written music on the page even if there is a recognizable "tune". Most kids like this aspect of jazz. The most important thing to remember, though, is that jazz is not free-form, graffiti-style improvisation. You can't just do anything you want and have it sound good. Even the giants of the genre may sound as though they're just throwing down fingers and spouting off absolutely whatever pops into their heads but, in fact, they are not. These people study ad infinitum the framework and language of jazz (mainly expressed as scales, and lots of them, common patterns and licks). They most certainly do not just put the horn to their mouth and blow in the way young, inexperienced musicians think they do. Yet, the first time I tell a kid that knows jack about jazz and definitely doesn't know which tones are appropriate for a given tonal center, "Um, you had some interesting things going on there, some decent ideas, but they didn't really come across," I get blasted for hurting their poor "creativity." Again, this is a term that has become debased or at least completely misunderstood. Nobody busts on Coltrane or Parker or Davis or Mingus or Jarrett or any other jazzer that uses correct scales and tones (or incorrect scales/tones correctly) as being uncreative. When I tell junior that his improv sucks it's not because I'm some mean ole' teacher tryin' to ruin his fun, it's because he hasn't bothered to learn the language and how to function within the given framework that gives shape, direction and meaning to the form. So, in a very real sense, his improv is bad and uncreative.

I'm not saying this is the case with your writing projects but I can't tell you how many people completely misunderstand the nature of "creativity" within the arts. They think that there is no such thing as "the right way" and that whatever comes out of their precious spawn's instrument is good and noble and creative. It's one thing to be supportive, it's another to be delusional and tell your kid they are good at something at which they are demonstrably bad. They would never do this in a math or science class where right and wrong are more clearly defined but it's okay for them to suck at music because there are multiple interpretations (which does not imply that you can do it any old way).

Another rant into the ether...

[calebprime]

Not sure if this will make you feel better, but my 2¢.

I taught a class in electronic music composition at NEC, required for comp majors.

It began to bug me that many of the students did serious work in other areas, but regarded working with synths to be only "fun". Just sort of messing around with gadgets.

Being a conservatory, the mindset was conservative. I even heard the Dean of Students -- a sax player I'd played in a band with, for a little while -- say that synths were something that probably didn't need to be taught, that people could just pick that stuff up on their own. (But he believed in teaching sax.)

I never did work out how to deal with all of it. The huge amount of bad stuff the students created far outweighed the occasionally musical effort.

I never did develop the thick rhinoceros hide required for teaching in that world. I was tough enough to crank out background music for TV and video, (and stay up all night, often, to meet my deadlines) but not tough enough to deal with the politics, silliness, and sheer boredom of teaching the basics about synths. After five years, my attitude soured, and it was probably best that I left when I did. At least I had four good years.

All I'm saying is that I hear ya, and have a lot of respect for what it must take to do your job--I couldn't do what you do.

Jobs are really scarce, though.

[aggle-rithm]

I've always thought it was fun to play volleyball, but it wasn't until about fifteen years ago that I took an actual class and learned how to play it for real. For the next several months, all the rules and tactics were drilled into my head. I learned the importance of being in position, of correct body posture when handling the ball, and all the other dreary aspects of what had once been an unstructured, carefree enterprise.

And, guess what? Once I had learned all this, volleyball became a LOT more fun than it was when I was just batting the ball around haphazardly.

[SumDood]

A couple of ideas to try to sway parents:

The act of getting good at an instrument is a good experience in itself. Working hard at something to get better can be applied to many different skills throughout a lifetime.

The math involved in learning music theory can be beneficial to students.

And in case anyone here hasn't seen this little gem regarding Pachelbel :

Pachelbel Rant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM)

That might even be good for your students, not that any of them would know the songs.

[DallasDad]

I love the rant!

[Garrette]

Stream of consciousness response here, but I think relevant because I come from a musical family, married a musical woman, and have kids we required to learn an instrument.

Bottom line: Family resources, including time, are limited; music is generally a low priority.

Analysis: That's not necessarily bad, though it is understandably frustrating for a music professional to deal with.

My mother is a phenomenal pianist who has taught piano (and other instruments) for far longer than I have been alive. She has provided free piano lessons to all her grandchildren; my two youngest children still take those lessons, though grudgingly, because their mother and I insist on it. In addition to taking piano, they all did something musical in school: my oldest took violin, the next was percussion, and my youngest sings (she voluntarily takes outside voice lessons and is making her mark at state contests).

I wish my children practiced more. I wish I enforced them practicing more. But I wish for a lot of things, and given their goals and what they and I are putting into those goals, music simply doesn't make the cut most of the time.

Despite not taking full advantage of musical opportunities, this is not a poor reflection on us just as doing poorly in ceramics class is not a poor reflection on my son who is doing that.

All my children appreciate music and can speak relatively knowledgeably about it; my oldest has a phenomenal ear for the elements of songs and tunes he hears on the radio or television and can dissect melodies and base lines with ease, yet he despised playing piano and violin and rarely practiced.

All of that being said, if you want to get your students to put in more effort, then be tough with your grades and make the grades mean something toward the GPA and their diploma. If your music class is like the music and art classes my kids have taken and which I took, then getting a C is really the worst to expect, and overall it will do little to detract from the GPA. If that doesn't change, then it's not an issue with the students or parents per se, it's a cultural and educational issue that places less value on music education at that level than on other subjects.

===

As an aside, I am one of those who thinks Pachelbel's Canon is transcendently beautiful when performed well and moderately tolerable when performed otherwise. It is a classic that deserves to be called a classic, though I am not one of those who have had to play it over and over and over again, and especially not one of those whose parts in it are repetitive and repetitive and repetitive.

[TraneWreck]

Play Pachelbel's Canon in D Major for your class. Watch your students as they listen. The ones who are enraptured, or who cry, or who close their eyes, or whose hands dance involuntarily -- teach them everything you can. The rest, do your duty and move on. You can lay a groundwork for them to use if they later become interested in music, but you can't do much else.

I get the spirit of your post, but I disagree.

If someone had tried that with me when I was in 4th, 5th, 6th grade, I would have tried so hard to be dismissive (or just disruptive) and cool that I would have rolled my eyes or worse.

Hell, the first time I heard the music of the gentleman whose photo I appropriated for my avatar, I didn't like it all. Now I there's nothing I would rather hear.

Appreciation of music grows and changes through a lifetime. If we only focus on people with an early affinity, we're missing out on a great deal.

I know just as many people with stories similar to mine as people who loved music when they were young only to tire of it later.

[Fnord]

That's a decent example of when creativity might be squelched although I don't know the specifics of the assignment. Let me give you one, though, where students think creativity means "spontaneous ejaculation of nonsense":

Jazz music is, by any measure, a "creative" genre. Since improvisation is key, the musician gets to compose the music in the moment rather than adhere strictly to the written music on the page

<snip>

Another rant into the ether...
Not really. Jazz is one of my favorite music forms. When done well (Brubek, Coltrane, Davis, et al), it's the best. When done by imitators, it's just another tedious effort of rote repetition. Your point is not wasted on me.

The creative writing assignment for each week was to write a short story about a painting or picture shown to us on Friday. On Monday, we would all read our stories. Most everyone else, it seemed, was raised on fairy tales and Disney movies. I had read Asimov, Kafka, Dickens and other 'classical' writers instead. My stories were always 'weird', while the others' stories were 'nice' -- except for the goth girl's (ever hear of a vampiric unicorn?)

I guess it's the difference between "Calvin & Hobbes" and "Peanuts".

[Garrette]

Not really. Jazz is one of my favorite music forms. When done well (Brubek, Coltrane, Davis, et al), it's the best. When done by imitators, it's just another tedious effort of rote repetition. Your point is not wasted on me.I admit that I only like a small sampling of jazz, but I can objectively appreciate most of it. Still, one of the things I say to my jazz loving friends who will listen to any of it anywhere at anytime and who look down on those who don't do the same is this:

You know, just like anything else, there is such a thing as bad jazz.

It invariably ticks them off.


The creative writing assignment for each week was to write a short story about a painting or picture shown to us on Friday. On Monday, we would all read our stories. Most everyone else, it seemed, was raised on fairy tales and Disney movies. I had read Asimov, Kafka, Dickens and other 'classical' writers instead. My stories were always 'weird', while the others' stories were 'nice' -- except for the goth girl's (ever hear of a vampiric unicorn?)

I guess it's the difference between "Calvin & Hobbes" and "Peanuts".I feel for you, and I understand your point in your last sentence, but I have to jump to the defense of Peanuts. It had a different focus than Calvin & Hobbes and in its hay day was as quietly insightful as anything out there.

ETA: Don't get me wrong. I think Calvin & Hobbes is the only strip to rival Pogo as the greatest comic ever written. Not sure which I'd choose.

[TragicMonkey]

except for the goth girl's (ever hear of a vampiric unicorn?)

No, but I love it! It could feast on blood by goring people with its hollow horn and sucking the blood directly into its brain! OMG, the marketing practically designs itself! This will blast the "Twlight" franchise away. The sales....vampires! Unicorns! The commercial appeal is boundless! We could get the My Little Pony people to put out a special line!

We need to cast this and start filming right away, before someone else steals this girl's idea!

[Piscivore]

My biggest issue, I suppose, is the utter debasement of the concept of "fun." It seems that people only think something is fun if it requires nothing of them, especially mental effort, doesn't ask any time of them, is easy to access and be good at right way and is done only at their convenience.

You got that right.

My son is a drummer in the marching band, and that kid works harder at it than most kids even think about. A couple of days ago he made himself flash cards to improve his sight reading skills. He gets really impatient with some of other kids that don't. And he does it because he loves it- it is what's "fun" to him.

[Fnord]

No, but I love it! It could feast on blood by goring people with its hollow horn and sucking the blood directly into its brain! OMG, the marketing practically designs itself! This will blast the "Twlight" franchise away. The sales....vampires! Unicorns! The commercial appeal is boundless! We could get the My Little Pony people to put out a special line!

We need to cast this and start filming right away, before someone else steals this girl's idea!
I've created a monster ... wait, what's my percentage? :D

[Garrette]

You got that right.

My son is a drummer in the marching band, and that kid works harder at it than most kids even think about. A couple of days ago he made himself flash cards to improve his sight reading skills. He gets really impatient with some of other kids that don't. And he does it because he loves it- it is what's "fun" to him.I think this is the basis of the old adage to "Do what you love" when advising someone what career field to enter.

The point isn't that you will enjoy the career field--though that's a nice benefit--the point is that if you love it you will work at it, and if you work at it you will succeed.

[TraneWreck]

I think the fundamental battle, and themusicteacher is unfortunately on the front lines, is that we have a *********** fat, lazy, and dumb generation brewing.

What would my recommendation be for inspiring kids to play music? Well, the single best remaining system of early childhood musical education is the emphasis on community playing in black churches. Kids get fired up to play with their parents and other adults they look up to. They have positive feedback from an early age, enjoy it, and learn the fundamentals in a setting that doesn't appear to be "work" even though it is.

I'd say, get your students excited in the same way: use popular music of the day and an entry point to more education.

Here's the problem, what popular music of the day are you going to use? What do kids like?

The music people are casually exposed to these days is so childish and simplistic that any music educator is essentially starting with a blank slate. Even when the Beatles were popular, they were melodic and harmonic enough that it could be used as a means to inspire children (and any other age) into learning more.

That initial "fun" factor is what makes sports attractive. It used to make music attractive.

I don't mean to add more fatalism to your stance, but your best hope is to buy a bunch of Guitar Hero gaming sticks and have your band play along to Wayward Son.

[Fnord]

... one of the things I say to my jazz loving friends who will listen to any of it anywhere at anytime and who look down on those who don't do the same is this:

You know, just like anything else, there is such a thing as bad jazz.

It invariably ticks them off.
Maybe because it reminds them of porn?
... boom-chickaboom-bawawawow ...

I feel for you, and I understand your point in your last sentence, but I have to jump to the defense of Peanuts. It had a different focus than Calvin & Hobbes and in its hay day was as quietly insightful as anything out there.
Oh, I'm not slamming Peanuts, it's just that it was safe and predictable, right up to the end. C&H, in the other hand, ended before it got too predictable, and always seemed to take a skewed view of ordinary events and issues.

Sometimes, safe and predictable is good. Sometimes, quirky and unexpected is good, too.

It's when raw creativity is cold-forged into something that has commercial value simply because 'everybody' likes it that way that I think is a travesty.

[Fnord]

... I don't mean to add more fatalism to your stance, but your best hope is to buy a bunch of Guitar Hero gaming sticks and have your band play along to Wayward Son.

Freebird. Gotta be Freebird.

[Garrette]

I think the fundamental battle, and themusicteacher is unfortunately on the front lines, is that we have a *********** fat, lazy, and dumb generation brewing.

What would my recommendation be for inspiring kids to play music? Well, the single best remaining system of early childhood musical education is the emphasis on community playing in black churches. Kids get fired up to play with their parents and other adults they look up to. They have positive feedback from an early age, enjoy it, and learn the fundamentals in a setting that doesn't appear to be "work" even though it is.

I'd say, get your students excited in the same way: use popular music of the day and an entry point to more education.

Here's the problem, what popular music of the day are you going to use? What do kids like?

The music people are casually exposed to these days is so childish and simplistic that any music educator is essentially starting with a blank slate. Even when the Beatles were popular, they were melodic and harmonic enough that it could be used as a means to inspire children (and any other age) into learning more.

That initial "fun" factor is what makes sports attractive. It used to make music attractive.

I don't mean to add more fatalism to your stance, but your best hope is to buy a bunch of Guitar Hero gaming sticks and have your band play along to Wayward Son.I disagree, to a degree, with both highlighted points.

Every generation bemoans the decline of the next generation, yet somehow it never really is worse.

The music kids hear today is no less musical than that which our generation(s) heard; it is just that you are hearing all of this generation's music as opposed to the selected music that survived the test of time from our generation.

If you truly think there is not some remarkable musicality being produced today, then I suggest you haven't paid much attention. And that is true of all genres, including Rap and Country. And I hate Rap.

[Garrette]

Freebird. Gotta be Freebird.It should be illegal to perform some certain songs either as karaoke or on Guitar Hero or Rock Band or as a cover at a wedding. I don't know all the songs that need to be on that list, but Freebird is one of them.

[TraneWreck]

I disagree, to a degree, with both highlighted points.

Every generation bemoans the decline of the next generation, yet somehow it never really is worse.

The music kids hear today is no less musical than that which our generation(s) heard; it is just that you are hearing all of this generation's music as opposed to the selected music that survived the test of time from our generation.

If you truly think there is not some remarkable musicality being produced today, then I suggest you haven't paid much attention. And that is true of all genres, including Rap and Country. And I hate Rap.

Let us not forget that Duke Ellington was once considered popular music. Yes, there has been a decline. I'm not going to take up this point on an aesthetic level, but just analyzing contemporary popular music from its pure constituent musical parts, it is infantile. There's no other way to define it.

If you look at this from the perspective of an educator, consider a population that grew up with Duke Ellington on the radio vs. whatever you want to choose from today. Even if they don't study the music, they're going to be casually familiar with chord progressions, melodies, and rhythms that will create a common lexicon between teacher and student.

We basically need to start teaching "music as a second language" classes. Trying to explain basic harmonies to students in a world where first the sixth, seventh and ninth disapeared and now chords don't even have thirds more often than not, is about like trying to teach in English to a class full of Spanish speakers.

There has been a slow, steady decline in casual acquaintance with music. I fear it's irreversable. There are just too many easy entertainment options. The culture of dilettantism has completely disapeared and been replaced by video games, social networking, and other gadgets that don't require, say, learning how to play something in tune.

Talk to any musician that tries to make their living by playing in public. Live music is simply not an artform that has much appeal and it's getting worse. I don't see it turning around anytime soon.

[Garrette]

Still can't say I agree. The fact that Duke Ellington was considered popular music supports my point instead of detracting from it.

I am obviously not on a par with you regarding musical knowledge, so I can't quote specifics, but I do know that you can pick up any number of songs from current artists and show that they have those things you say are long gone. It is merely in different form now, and because it is so much more accessible, you hear not only the good stuff but all the bad stuff and mediocre stuff. Doesn't mean the good stuff isn't there.

In twenty years, the bad stuff will have fallen by the wayside, and the good stuff will still be played.

[DallasDad]

Colbie Marie Caillat is reasonably modern (although she doesn't have as broad a base of appeal as some), but her music often demonstrates considerable complexity, nuance, and interesting transitions. Some of the tunes are even quite catchy.

With my own kids, I try to find artists they like that aren't all wall-of-sound, powerchords, screaming or chanting on one note, or horribly repetitive. It's not easy, but it is possible to find things we all believe to be music. I've found that child artists sometimes bridge the gap, too. For example, Declan Galbraith. He has the production values of the 70's, sings songs ranging from hymns to crap, and (until his voice changed) was occasionally enchanting. Now when my boys hear the Beatles, or an old hymn, they think someone's covering Declan -- but they know the songs!

[TraneWreck]

Still can't say I agree. The fact that Duke Ellington was considered popular music supports my point instead of detracting from it.

I can't imagine how that supports your argument. Beethoven and Mozart were the popular music of their day.


I am obviously not on a par with you regarding musical knowledge, so I can't quote specifics, but I do know that you can pick up any number of songs from current artists and show that they have those things you say are long gone. It is merely in different form now, and because it is so much more accessible, you hear not only the good stuff but all the bad stuff and mediocre stuff. Doesn't mean the good stuff isn't there.

I would love to hear just one. I'm curious to see how far the word "popular" will have to be stretched.


In twenty years, the bad stuff will have fallen by the wayside, and the good stuff will still be played.

As I said, I think we should avoid the aesthetic claims. Taste is what it is, so I'm not doing to delve into "good." I'm merely discussing the mechanics of music.

Imagine it this way: the only vocabulary kids were exposed to was basic, basic stuff. In this world Harry Potter is considered to be equivalent to how we would view, say, Lawrence Durrell. Imagine trying to teach those kids about Shakespeare, or hell, even share more advanced novels with them. They so totally lack a grasp of vocabulary and grammar that you would spend all your time defining words and explaining what each paragraph meant.

Hell, try to explain the theory of evolution to kids who don't even understand basic reasoning. It's the same issue.

There is a lot of simple music that's "good," but producing simple works of necessity, rather than aesthetic choice, is not particularly good. Miles Davis chose to play the way he did and Hemmingway wrote the way he did by choice, they weren't forced by incompetence.

[TraneWreck]

Colbie Marie Caillat is reasonably modern (although she doesn't have as broad a base of appeal as some), but her music often demonstrates considerable complexity, nuance, and interesting transitions. Some of the tunes are even quite catchy.

My argument is not that there is no good contemporary music. That's just not true, there's plenty.

My argument is that kids aren't casually exposed to such music as they were in the past. Parents who go out of their way to find quality productions and introduce their kids to that music are obviously stepping outside of the trend. That's a great thing. The same is true of reading good books to your kids or getting them excited about science and math.

I'm speaking in terms of a broad cultural trend that will be experienced by people, like themusicteacher, who are exposed to large numbers of children.


With my own kids, I try to find artists they like that aren't all wall-of-sound, powerchords, screaming or chanting on one note, or horribly repetitive. It's not easy, but it is possible to find things we all believe to be music. I've found that child artists sometimes bridge the gap, too. For example, Declan Galbraith. He has the production values of the 70's, sings songs ranging from hymns to crap, and (until his voice changed) was occasionally enchanting. Now when my boys hear the Beatles, or an old hymn, they think someone's covering Declan -- but they know the songs!

And just like reading and everything else, this is the way to get kids interested in music.

So many of our culture's problems (and music appreciation is an admittedly minor one) go back to basic family issues. On the one hand it's sad that something so simple and so ancient would be causing us trouble, on the other, good parents can make all the difference.

[Garrette]

I can't imagine how that supports your argument. Beethoven and Mozart were the popular music of their day.It supports my point because they weren't the only popular music of their day. Salieri was also popular, no? Who else wrote music at the time but did not have their music survive to be widely known today because it wasn't as good.


I would love to hear just one. I'm curious to see how far the word "popular" will have to be stretched.Hallelujah.
Much of Sting's post-Police work. I'm not really a fan, but try the band Clutch, though this is from my son who now says a lot of their complexity is more lyrical than musical. Some of the early Black-Eyed Peas portfolio, too.


As I said, I think we should avoid the aesthetic claims. Taste is what it is, so I'm not doing to delve into "good." I'm merely discussing the mechanics of music.That's what I've been doing; you'll note that I mentioned Rap earlier and that I personally dislike Rap.


Imagine it this way: the only vocabulary kids were exposed to was basic, basic stuff. In this world Harry Potter is considered to be equivalent to how we would view, say, Lawrence Durrell. Imagine trying to teach those kids about Shakespeare, or hell, even share more advanced novels with them. They so totally lack a grasp of vocabulary and grammar that you would spend all your time defining words and explaining what each paragraph meant.

Hell, try to explain the theory of evolution to kids who don't even understand basic reasoning. It's the same issue.

There is a lot of simple music that's "good," but producing simple works of necessity, rather than aesthetic choice, is not particularly good. Miles Davis chose to play the way he did and Hemmingway wrote the way he did by choice, they weren't forced by incompetence.I agree with your sentiment that it would be a travesty to have complex musicality fade away. My argument is that this is not what is happening; it only appears that way because it always appears that way because the good stuff (meaning musically good, not just aesthetically good) doesn't fully stand out until years later.

[Pure Argent]

I'm not really a fan, but try the band Clutch, though this is from my son who now says a lot of their complexity is more lyrical than musical. Some of the early Black-Eyed Peas portfolio, too.

Jumping in here for a minute. I probably won't stick around, as I usually don't check the Education forums, and this thread will probably disappear from my internal list.

Clutch isn't exactly what would be considered a mainstream band, but they do have a large, dedicated cult following. For particularly good examples of their music, try "Mice and Gods (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u29RCnsIZqY)", "(Notes from the Trial of) La Curandera (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-QLikWM2aE)", "The Incomparable Mister Flannery (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh7pqoO9NLU)", or "Gravel Road (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpvDZu-GFSY)". Their song "Electric Worry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx6FV2qR2TY)" was used as the theme for Left 4 Dead 2's TV spot, and "The Incomparable Mister Flannery" plays during one of the sports station's highlight reel.

Another band to check out would be Primus. Again, like Clutch, they're not mainstream, but they are extremely popular all the same. They're the band who recorded the original South Park theme song, but they're also famous for their songs "John the Fisherman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkFMJ4-ai1I)", "Wynona's Big Brown Beaver (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYDfwUJzYQg)", and "Jerry Was a Race Car Driver (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBQ2305fLeA)".

[SumDood]

Let us not forget that Duke Ellington was once considered popular music. Yes, there has been a decline. I'm not going to take up this point on an aesthetic level, but just analyzing contemporary popular music from its pure constituent musical parts, it is infantile. There's no other way to define it.

Nonsense. Look at the 'constituent musical parts' of Gregorian chant. Does that make it infantile? How about delta blues? Does its simple chords and progressions make it infantile compared to Duke Ellington? I had a music teacher with the same attitude. He said because current popular music was pretty much I IV V progressions and didn't use suspended fifths and complex chord progressions that it was inferior to the popular music of his time. I say its infantile to judge music based upon how complicated it is.

Much of Sting's post-Police work. I'm not really a fan, but try the band Clutch, though this is from my son who now says a lot of their complexity is more lyrical than musical. Some of the early Black-Eyed Peas portfolio, too.

Wow. Love me some Clutch, but they are one of the last bands I would expect to see in this conversation. I bet he likes Mastodon as well. If you want musical complexity, try some Mars Volta.

My beef with todays music isn't that good stuff isn't out there, but it doesn't seem to be as popular. For me, in the 80's, Prince was god. Great songs, great vocals, great musicianship. I don't see someone of that caliber working in pop music today.

[Garrette]

Nonsense. Look at the 'constituent musical parts' of Gregorian chant. Does that make it infantile? How about delta blues? Does its simple chords and progressions make it infantile compared to Duke Ellington? I had a music teacher with the same attitude. He said because current popular music was pretty much I IV V progressions and didn't use suspended fifths and complex chord progressions that it was inferior to the popular music of his time. I say its infantile to judge music based upon how complicated it is.Seconded.


My beef with todays music isn't that good stuff isn't out there, but it doesn't seem to be as popular. For me, in the 80's, Prince was god. Great songs, great vocals, great musicianship. I don't see someone of that caliber working in pop music today.Agreed with Prince. I remember in 1989 or 1990 at work in the military when a musical discussion began amongst the younger folk in the office. They were talking about who was the greatest musician at the time and flinging around names I no longer remember. I told them that in 50 years, one of the few names that would be recalled from the 80s/90s as having a lasting impact on music would be Prince. I don't know yet if I was right, but I don't see evidence that I'm wrong. Of course, in 50 years, he may be mostly remembered among musicians and not the public. Sort of a musician's musician, with an impact that is far-reaching but realized only by the knowledgeable.

[TraneWreck]

It supports my point because they weren't the only popular music of their day. Salieri was also popular, no? Who else wrote music at the time but did not have their music survive to be widely known today because it wasn't as good.

I don't think I've been doing a good job of expressing my point.

Certainly every era has good and bad music. Some amount of each become "popular," meaning a sizeable percentage of the population is exposed to it.

In the past, more sophisticated music (from a purely mechanical perspective) was exposed to a large population. In fact, because there were comparatively limited forms of entertainment, a large number of people learned to sing and play those songs.

Thus, a larger percentage of the population both heard sophisticated music in settings where they actually paid attention to it and was interested in learning how to play purely for entertainment.

When it came time to educate such a population about the specifics of music, their vocabulary was larger. They understood the basic idea of producing sound at what was pleasureable to hear.

Certainly the also heard and played a lot of crap.

Fast forward to today. Unless a parent specifically intends to expose their children to music and convince them to play, they rarely, if ever, will listen to sophisticated music attentively. They hear simple rhythms with even simpler harmonies and austere melodies.

Thus, when it comes time to teach these children, they've never experienced the playing of music as entertainment and they're essentially blank slates. Again, it's as though the job of a music teacher is to teach english to foreign speakers.

So a teacher now not only has the job of explaining foreign vocabulary to the kids, they have the added obligation of trying to convince them that, hey, this can be fun. Well, fun is a video game that is instantly enjoyable. No time wasted learning how not to sound like a dying duck.

Again, unless a parent specifically decides to make music an important part of the kid's life, it's incredibly unlikely to happen casually. Hell, it's not even cool to play guitar anymore. Today's musical heroes participate in a glorified karaoke contest.


Hallelujah.
Much of Sting's post-Police work. I'm not really a fan, but try the band Clutch, though this is from my son who now says a lot of their complexity is more lyrical than musical. Some of the early Black-Eyed Peas portfolio, too.

This is the music kids are listening to these days?

Again, I'm not commenting on taste, but I have not heard a Black-eyed peas song that I would even remotely describe as sophisticated. It's the simplest of stuff.


That's what I've been doing; you'll note that I mentioned Rap earlier and that I personally dislike Rap.

I apologize for reiterating, I'm not accusing you of anything. I just don't want this thread to be derailed into a "Are you kidding_____ sucks, and ______ is great."


I agree with your sentiment that it would be a travesty to have complex musicality fade away. My argument is that this is not what is happening; it only appears that way because it always appears that way because the good stuff (meaning musically good, not just aesthetically good) doesn't fully stand out until years later.

There will always be a population of people keeping music alive. I'm discussing the broad cultural trend that frustrates themusicteacher.

As a musician I'm also saddened by the slow death of live music of all kinds. Because people are viewing music itself as entertainment less and less, the opportunities to play are rapidly dwindling.

[Garrette]

TW, I don't think we disagree as much as it might have seemed, and since any disagreement there may be would likely hinge on semantics and vague philosophy, I'll bow out. Thanks for your last post, though; it did help clarify.

[TraneWreck]

Nonsense. Look at the 'constituent musical parts' of Gregorian chant. Does that make it infantile? How about delta blues? Does its simple chords and progressions make it infantile compared to Duke Ellington? I had a music teacher with the same attitude. He said because current popular music was pretty much I IV V progressions and didn't use suspended fifths and complex chord progressions that it was inferior to the popular music of his time. I say its infantile to judge music based upon how complicated it is.

As I've said, I'm not making aesthetic judgments. I'm discussing it from a mechanical perspective.

Yes, Gregorian chants and Delta blues are very, very simple. That doesn't mean they're "bad."

It should be pointed out, however, that the voice leading in those chants is very impressive. It's not the sort of thing one hears on the radio these days. It is also a very old form of music that was built upon and generated much more sophisticated forms.

Incidentally, this is roughly the relationship between blues and jazz.

I'm also not entirely sure how you suspend a fifth. Do you mean a sharp five, an augmented chord, or do you mean a suspended forth on a V chord?


My beef with todays music isn't that good stuff isn't out there, but it doesn't seem to be as popular. For me, in the 80's, Prince was god. Great songs, great vocals, great musicianship. I don't see someone of that caliber working in pop music today.

WHAT?!?! HOW DARE YOU?!?! Are you judging music based on its musicianship?

I enjoy when people agressively disagree with points I don't make then conclude by essentially making the same argument as me.

[SumDood]

Thus, when it comes time to teach these children, they've never experienced the playing of music as entertainment and they're essentially blank slates.

I'm not understanding your meaning here. What do you mean 'playing music as entertainment' and how does the complexity of the music relate to it?

As I've said, I'm not making aesthetic judgments. I'm discussing it from a mechanical perspective.

Yes, Gregorian chants and Delta blues are very, very simple. That doesn't mean they're "bad."
But the simplicity of today's pop music makes it infantile? :D

I'm also not entirely sure how you suspend a fifth. Do you mean a sharp five, an augmented chord, or do you mean a suspended forth on a V chord?
I'd have to google it. Its been 16 years since i had theory and i was phoning it in at the time. Too bad, I really wished i had applied myself more.

WHAT?!?! HOW DARE YOU?!?! Are you judging music based on its musicianship?
Touche.

I enjoy when people agressively disagree with points I don't make then conclude by essentially making the same argument as me.
The musicianship is only one aspect of his music that I enjoy. I know it covers many different areas, but with Prince, I use "musicianship" as shorthand for he plays many different instruments on his albums.

[TraneWreck]

But the simplicity of today's pop music makes it infantile? :D

The simplicity is but one of the characteristics that make it infantile.

I probably shouldn't have used that word from the beginning, as it hints at aesthetic judgment, but tune into any radio station and find me a 1) deep thought or 2) bit of sophisticated music (not good, just something with more than a two or three note chord).



Touche.

The musicianship is only one aspect of his music that I enjoy. I know it covers many different areas, but with Prince, I use "musicianship" as shorthand for he plays many different instruments on his albums.

I love Prince as well.

Your point about there being plenty of good music and it just not being popular is exactly the point. Unless you look for it, you won't stumble on it today.

[themusicteacher]

I think the fact that my kids never, EVER listen to band wind band music (whether before they begin or once they pick up their instrument) plays a big role in determining their success. How can you know if you're making music effectively in the style you're performing if you've never heard it done by outstanding groups? It's like asking a kid to play good, sound, fundamental basketball without ever having seen the game played. In that way, music and sports are alike: they seem so simple on their surface (play this line musically=shoot the ball in the hoop) but only if you're familiar with them and you put in the effort to learn the fundamentals. I post a lot of recordings of top groups on my website as resources for the kids so they can become more familiar with the wind band genre. If we were learning rock music, I'd do the exact same thing. The biggest issue is getting them to listen and then getting them to follow my instructions for good practice. I'm trying to devise ways to get them to listen more outside of class but it's tough.

I thoroughly believe that if they listened even a little, sprinkling some wind music into their copious daily listening of pop/rock/rap etc, they'd get better simply by being familiar with the styles and sounds of the groups they play in and I think they'd find themselves actually enjoying and getting into our music more. I'm not a musical snob - there is good music everywhere - and if they could see that our music is just as legitimate - maybe not something you'd put on at a party, but legitimate nonetheless - they'd get the picture that it's about music of substance no matter what the genre. I feel as though young people get caught up in style and the delivery media (guitars and synthesizers=new and fun, wind and acoustic string instruments=old and lame) not to mention lyrics - most people are VERY uncomfortable listening to music that does not have lyrics. These are artificial barriers that are created to A) sell records to targeted audiences and, B) make MY music seem cool and hip while YOUR music is stodgy and/or boring. It's all very interesting and I'm enjoying the conversation. I'm hoping I can use some of it to use in the classroom.

[rwguinn]

I think the fact that my kids never, EVER listen to band wind band music (whether before they begin or once they pick up their instrument) plays a big role in determining their success. How can you know if you're making music effectively in the style you're performing if you've never heard it done by outstanding groups? It's like asking a kid to play good, sound, fundamental basketball without ever having seen the game played. In that way, music and sports are alike: they seem so simple on their surface (play this line musically=shoot the ball in the hoop) but only if you're familiar with them and you put in the effort to learn the fundamentals. I post a lot of recordings of top groups on my website as resources for the kids so they can become more familiar with the wind band genre. If we were learning rock music, I'd do the exact same thing. The biggest issue is getting them to listen and then getting them to follow my instructions for good practice. I'm trying to devise ways to get them to listen more outside of class but it's tough.

I thoroughly believe that if they listened even a little, sprinkling some wind music into their copious daily listening of pop/rock/rap etc, they'd get better simply by being familiar with the styles and sounds of the groups they play in and I think they'd find themselves actually enjoying and getting into our music more. I'm not a musical snob - there is good music everywhere - and if they could see that our music is just as legitimate - maybe not something you'd put on at a party, but legitimate nonetheless - they'd get the picture that it's about music of substance no matter what the genre. I feel as though young people get caught up in style and the delivery media (guitars and synthesizers=new and fun, wind and acoustic string instruments=old and lame) not to mention lyrics - most people are VERY uncomfortable listening to music that does not have lyrics. These are artificial barriers that are created to A) sell records to targeted audiences and, B) make MY music seem cool and hip while YOUR music is stodgy and/or boring. It's all very interesting and I'm enjoying the conversation. I'm hoping I can use some of it to use in the classroom.
Point is well taken.
I was very active in the Band Boosters when the kid was in High school and we got a report from the director on a conference we sent him to. he played a recording made of a very good band--every note was absolutely perfectly played, the technical performance was perfect--and it sounded like crap. No emotion at all.
On the other hand, I saw a kid playing guitar at a store--he missed many of the notes, but the performance was riveting-he put himself in it.
So perfection in note and rhythm is not everything...
(And btw-I play Acoustic guitar. Which is stringed...:p)

[JSFolk]

You want a modern band with some wind in it? Not exactly hugely popular, but CAKE has had a trumpet player from day one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5KmB8Laemg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbzt1HnVzIQ

Interview with the trumpeter (trumpeteer?) http://www.popculturemadness.com/interview/Cake.html

[Just thinking]

Here's where the problem comes in. The pushback I always get from parents (and kids, to a certain extent) is that music classes are supposed to be fun and that, somehow, by asking them to practice and improve, I've just made it "work" and, therefore, no fun.

OK ... I know I'm coming late to this one, and I certainly haven't read all the posts, but if no one yet has addressed this issue, let me be the first. The statement above, especially the bolded part, is perhaps at the root of the problem --- or at least in part. I can't think of anything that I consider to be fun that doesn't require my continued practice and improvement in order for it to continue being fun. The better I am at something I enjoy, the more fun it becomes. Use sports as an example ... or chess ... or computer games ... or, yes, even the S-word. (For shame! ;)) That argument simply falls flat, and anyone using that as an excuse (yes ... excuse) needs to think a bit more of just what they are saying.

I try to make the point that, usually, when we're good at something, we tend to enjoy it more, that becoming good at something usually takes work and, let's face it, working at something that is difficult and makes you feel a bit inferior and humbled is not always "fun." However, working through it and becoming better can be "fun" (fulfilling or meaningful probably are more appropriate terms).

Just let them try and give you an example of "fun" that won't be more enjoyable as one gets better at doing it.

[TraneWreck]

or, yes, even the S-word. (For shame! ;))

How do you practice that? Vary your diet? Lot's of Chipotle, prune juice, and metamucil?

On a more serious note, I do agree with your post. I can't think of anything that's truly fun that doesn't take some kind of investment.

There are some kinds of passive entertainment that are enjoyable, for certain, but there's no sense of accomplishment for, say, watching your favorite comedian.

[quixotecoyote]

I'm going to chime in on the pro-fun side, if only because the teachers I've seen give the lecture that themusicteacher gave tend to jump from "you think fun is instant gratification and instant gratification doesn't get you good" to "since improvement isn't instant gratification and instant gratification is fun, improvement can't be fun and must therefore be drudgery."

Story time.

Back when I was in highschool our band was an underfunded, de-prioritized joke. The track coach taught band, there were all of a dozen people in it, and for a few years, it didn't even have it's own period. It was just a place you could go instead of lunch. That teacher didn't teach theory, keys, or chords, or most anything else. He was a nice guy, and actually a fairly talented musician in his own right, but he didn't teach well. We just played the book the music company sold with the instruments.

That's the setup to show that we we're talking about a largely unmotivated, ignorant group of band-members who weren't putting in any work because there wasn't any point. If it's just playing the scales in the workbook in order to play more scales in the workbook next class, who's going to really do that if that's the entirety of the payoff?

That teacher retired and they had a hard time finding a replacement. Eventually a local airport manager/jazz musician signed on to do it part time largely for his own amusement. He had an informal 'real' grading system that went "I wouldn't mind having you with me at my next gig; you don't suck completely; why are you here?" (we had one student who took private lessons that made the first category before she transferred).

He inherited a real mess, but he made improvements. He ditched the company books and what we did was practice pieces of music that we performed in concerts and competitions. He tried to give a little pride in a system that had no respect in our area. All the towns in our region gave up on band completely except for ours, so he managed to have our band do the memorial day parades for all the other towns. The first year we tried it was a mess and an embarrassment. I mangled taps, the base drummer's harness broke and the drum rolled off, and the junior high band we pressed into service truly sucked.

The second year we did that, it was much improved. People actually had been practicing their instruments because he had made it fun and rewarding and it showed. He had the attitude that we were there because we wanted to be there, but he was going to give us a reason to keep being there. We went from a skronky embarrassment to the town that couldn't play a march or handle taps, to something you'd expect to see in a bush league high school that was marginally funded.

Granted, I still don't know a lick of music theory and I was laughed out of my college performance audition*, but taking a non-priority program and improving it from completely worthless to below average impressed on me that you have to make working for a goal rewarding and fun if you want people to do it.

*That's another time I should have listened to him. He told most of us when we graduated we weren't good enough to do anything at the level were at. He came in the next day and said his wife told him to retract the statement because she didn't want him crushing our dreams, but "if your dreams are to pursue music based on the education you got here........." At the same time, he did give me the John Phillips Sousa award, which I think is the only reason I got to the auditions stage, so hey, mixed messages.

[CDFingers]

Teaching that does not promote fun in the k-12 classroom is a waste of time. Students not having fun will just sit there and not learn.

CDFingers

[ZirconBlue]

You got that right.

My son is a drummer in the marching band, and that kid works harder at it than most kids even think about. A couple of days ago he made himself flash cards to improve his sight reading skills. He gets really impatient with some of other kids that don't. And he does it because he loves it- it is what's "fun" to him.

I quit my second year of college marching band because I couldn't stand being around the other slackers that put in minimal effort. I had marched a summer of Drum & Bugle Corps in-between, and had gotten used to being around people giving it their all, all day, everyday.

Certainly every era has good and bad music. Some amount of each become "popular," meaning a sizeable percentage of the population is exposed to it.

<snip>

So a teacher now not only has the job of explaining foreign vocabulary to the kids, they have the added obligation of trying to convince them that, hey, this can be fun. Well, fun is a video game that is instantly enjoyable. No time wasted learning how not to sound like a dying duck.



Don't the popularity of games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero indicate that many kids are being exposed to less simple music?

[TraneWreck]

Don't the popularity of games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero indicate that many kids are being exposed to less simple music?

Possibly, although even the most basic middle school arrangements of Sousa or Granger compositions involve more voices, harmonies, and more sophisticated cadences than you're going to be exposed to by the vast majority of popular music since basically the 40's. I guess if they have the Beatles one they'll be introduced to a chord that includes the 6 and 9, so that can't be bad, and the best hope would be that they just start liking music, associating it with fun, and become interested listeners. That would be a major improvement.

As an aside, have any of you folks that play music spent time with Guitar Hero or any of the similar products? I find it insanely frustrating. For the life of me I don't understand why the little dots I'm looking at don't express a time value. Instead of knowing the beat and how each dot fits, you have to sort of time it as it scrolls by.

It's basically the same skill as sight-reading, except retardified. Setting aside the fact that you're training stimulus-response mechanisms on a useless fake guitar, even if the game were exactly the same but included timing symbols, we'd probably be training a generation of damn fine sight readers.

It's as though they went out of their way to make the game as frivolous as possible and completely inapplicable to the wider world.

[ZirconBlue]

Possibly, although even the most basic middle school arrangements of Sousa or Granger compositions involve more voices, harmonies, and more sophisticated cadences than you're going to be exposed to by the vast majority of popular music since basically the 40's. I guess if they have the Beatles one they'll be introduced to a chord that includes the 6 and 9, so that can't be bad, and the best hope would be that they just start liking music, associating it with fun, and become interested listeners. That would be a major improvement.

I don't play any of those games, myself, but I know they include songs by people like Dream Theater and Rush, which are pretty complex.

[rwguinn]

I quit my second year of college marching band because I couldn't stand being around the other slackers that put in minimal effort. I had marched a summer of Drum & Bugle Corps in-between, and had gotten used to being around people giving it their all, all day, everyday.



Don't the popularity of games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero indicate that many kids are being exposed to less simple music?
Yeah, and a bunch of 'em think they can play guitar, since they have reached level umpteen...
Remember "Achmed the Dead Terrorist" bragging to "Guitar Guy" about how good he was on Guitar Hero, and was going to "kick Guitar Guy's ass"?

[stilicho]

My argument is that kids aren't casually exposed to such music as they were in the past. Parents who go out of their way to find quality productions and introduce their kids to that music are obviously stepping outside of the trend. That's a great thing. The same is true of reading good books to your kids or getting them excited about science and math.

Different issue.

Science, math, and literature aren't usually marketed at schools as entertainment or "fun". Music, drama, gym, and shop class are. Likewise, parents urging their kids to do their homework are more likely to ask them to buckle down on the first group.

I don't think shop class even has homework.

[TraneWreck]

Different issue.

Science, math, and literature aren't usually marketed at schools as entertainment or "fun". Music, drama, gym, and shop class are. Likewise, parents urging their kids to do their homework are more likely to ask them to buckle down on the first group.

I don't think shop class even has homework.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. What's the different issue?

Music is an optional class, for certain, meaning that if it isn't entertaining and easy, students will stop taking it. They can't do that with core classes. I understand that.

There's also a fairly substantial problem in the US with math and science, and the general lack of enthusiasm for those subjects is a significant part of that.

Parents who read to their kids are likely to have better readers for children. Parents who teach their kids about science and math creating some affinity for the subject will likely have better math and science students as children. The same is true of music.

Certainly, a science or math teacher may be upset with his students for different reasons that a music teacher, but the sorts of lives children are exposed to in the home will have a substantial effect on all subjects.

[Seanette]

In my classroom experience (as student), I found that the "teachers" who were focused on meeting the slacker "students"' demands that the class be "fun" pretty much abandoned actually teaching, since they were too busy being entertainers.

[Fnord]

"Fun time" should be earned. Get all of your homework assignments done ahead of time with a passing grade, and you can spend the remainder of the term "playing".

[piojunbabia]

I like teachers who are fun and makes jokes every now and then especially if the class or subject is boring... There are teachers who are so serious and yet the subject are boring. It makes the class more boring..

[stilicho]

I'm not sure what you're arguing. What's the different issue?

Music is an optional class, for certain, meaning that if it isn't entertaining and easy, students will stop taking it. They can't do that with core classes. I understand that.

There's also a fairly substantial problem in the US with math and science, and the general lack of enthusiasm for those subjects is a significant part of that.

Parents who read to their kids are likely to have better readers for children. Parents who teach their kids about science and math creating some affinity for the subject will likely have better math and science students as children. The same is true of music.

Certainly, a science or math teacher may be upset with his students for different reasons that a music teacher, but the sorts of lives children are exposed to in the home will have a substantial effect on all subjects.

Unless the parents have some sort of grounding in science and math, they can do an awful lot of damage to their kids' learning experiences in those two subjects. But parents are more likely to demand the kid sit down and do the homework to make sure he understands it (at least enough to pass the exams).

The OP was wondering why his students don't take the music homework as seriously as the science, math or English homework. I explain why that's the case. It's the nature of the course and whether passing it may or may not affect their ability to pursue a good career.

I know. I have three close relatives who are professional musicians. Each of them spent their grade school years working hard at school on subjects other than music. You can't get into the institution of your choice if you have bad grades in English, math, and science. It doesn't matter how much you practice your scales.

[TraneWreck]

Unless the parents have some sort of grounding in science and math, they can do an awful lot of damage to their kids' learning experiences in those two subjects. But parents are more likely to demand the kid sit down and do the homework to make sure he understands it (at least enough to pass the exams).

The OP was wondering why his students don't take the music homework as seriously as the science, math or English homework. I explain why that's the case. It's the nature of the course and whether passing it may or may not affect their ability to pursue a good career.

I know. I have three close relatives who are professional musicians. Each of them spent their grade school years working hard at school on subjects other than music. You can't get into the institution of your choice if you have bad grades in English, math, and science. It doesn't matter how much you practice your scales.

I don't disagree with anything you've said.

I think Berkeley School of Music is the only place talented musicians with low grades can find a home.

[hodgy]

This is an interesting thread - not least because I can agree in parallel with many of what are superficially contradictory opinions. That's the Arts for you I suppose...

For example, I can understand MusicTeacher's frustration (and agree with much of his / her analysis) but at the same time, I have 2 musical learning experiences to draw on which give me another perspective.

On the one hand, I was 'volunteered' by my parents to learn the violin. It was me and the violin teacher (plus at times 1 or 2 other students) for an arbitrary hour during the school week. It sometimes got me off objectionable lessons but once I got over the novelty of preparing the bow etc... I found it extremely boring - I failed to practice and after a couple of painful (for me and the teacher probably) years, I got 'sacked'. I enjoyed maybe the first 3 lessons, thereafter, I hated it but persisted because 'maybe I will enjoy it once I am good at it'. The violin teacher was completely right to expel me from the class - better for him, better for me.

On the other hand, I was also volunteered to a choir (traditional Church of England) - I was in it for a couple of years and it was great. The Vicar had a massive St Bernhard dog (this is impressive when you are ten) and a putting green in the rectory. After choir practice we played 5-a-side [soccer] for an hour or so in the Church Hall. I assume there were some poor voices and some good (and some in-between) but nobody was picked out in that respect - it was a team game, the choir practised and the choir got better. I thoroughly enjoyed the very repetious practice in this case - I always wanted to do better and better.

What I infer from this is that, for me, there was a major social aspect in wanting (or not) to learn musical skills. I suspect that is the case for a lot of people. Whilst I sympathise with the OP's lament, I would suggest that there are many kids that just are not suited to 'learning the violin' (or whatever) and it is not their fault that they are placed in the position where they are expected to do so.

[themusicteacher]

Some thoughtful points posted here and I appreciate them, especially those about your own musical experiences in school. It's not that I'm "too serious," in fact I make it a point to keep the mood light and don't mind joking around so long as it's appropriate and we know when it's time to buckle down and make things happen. I want them to enjoy themselves but I also want them to take something with them outside the classroom. I don't try to push them too hard, giving them manageable goals we can achieve over time. The problem is that they don't want to give anything of themselves outside of class and that's where I suppose the dilemma is for me:

It becomes a chicken/egg scenario. Do I work harder at making things "fun," giving out lots of praise and rewards at the front end then add in higher expectations once they feel a loyalty and closeness to me and understand our goals or vice versa? I don't like the idea of coddling them but maybe it's me not being able to measure out an increase in expectations.

Maybe it's a cultural thing that we've developed over the years, that work can be fun but we should disguise the work and highlight the fun. Honestly, I have a problem with putting out an inferior musical product and I'm afraid my students are too happy with themselves for a poor performance. Maybe I just need to get over that and try to be more focused on long-term goals and take up a more "the effort was good, let's be proud and move on to the next challenge."

I guess I'm still stuck on the debasement of "fun." I don't want to be the person solely responsible for making things fun, I want them to give something rather than having to hand-hold and drag them to the water and force them to drink. For my sanity and their development, I think there needs to be at least a little more effort given from their end. Of course nobody wants to be forced to do something but asking for improvement is not unreasonable or unfair.

[themusicteacher]

I know. I have three close relatives who are professional musicians. Each of them spent their grade school years working hard at school on subjects other than music. You can't get into the institution of your choice if you have bad grades in English, math, and science. It doesn't matter how much you practice your scales.

Your point being? Too many people want to make it into an either-or proposition, that you have to spend either all of your time practicing or all of your time doing pencil and paper work in "academic" subjects. I don't even make a suggestion of that and I have several students who are good at both so I don't buy the "I don't have time to practice" arguments.

Maybe I expect too much but it's not that they can't do it, they won't do it in most instances because it takes too much effort and thought. They then proceed to pawn that off as "it's not fun." No, struggling is not always fun but the payoff often is.

[elipse]

In my opinion, and with the exception of those few kids who have a real, dedicated passion early in life for making music, elementary school is too young to focus on repetitive, context-less learning, in any subject.

Obviously one cannot get better without practice, but learning should be, in elementary school, synonymous with exploration.

Come at from another angle, I wonder if the focus/style/content of your teaching is developmentally appropriate. Just because they are capable of doing it does not make it DAP. What age are the kids we're talking about?

Anecdote:
My mother took piano lessons from elementary school through high school, at her mother's insistence. Her mother was really enthusiastic about it. She loved my mother's gift, and my mother, who was very dutiful, and who knew her mother would not let her quit, practiced constantly. She was, apparently, pretty darned good. She won competitions, played the piano and organ for churches, etc. For her high school graduation, my grandmother bought her a really, really nice upright piano. She expected my mother to get a music scholarship and to study music in college and go places with her music.
My mother moved out and never touched that damned piano again, except when we asked her to play when were were little. When we moved out she gave it away immediately. She told me that it was a gift my grandmother gave to herself, and that she had always resented it.

In fifth grade I tried playing the clarinet. I missed a few days of class because I was sick, and fell what felt like hopelessly behind. Going to class started to feel like an enormous burden, and I quit. My mother said not one word. I always felt a little bit like I copped out, but seriously, I hated it. In middle school I joined a choir. I loved it. I started auditioning for musicals in high school, took private voice lessons, and considered a career in music until I realized that, frankly, I was good but not THAT good. If my mother had insisted I keep playing the clarinet, against my will, would I have had the same relationship with music? Or would my mother have deadened my desire to express myself musically, the way my grandmother did to her?

I say, give them the fundamentals: rhythm and musical literacy, and let them choose the rest. Make it exploratory, make it physical, and make it relevant to them. Those who have a passion for it can then ask you for more. Who cares if they can play a particular instrument?

I have a much longer post, ranting about the problems in the ways we impart knowledge to the next generation, but I think I'd better find out what age we're talking about, first. :)

[Lolly]

I've only been a student (well I tutored a girl in French and she didn't practise either....) so my ideas might not be useful.

I was forced to learn the piano when I was a kid, because my mother had bought the piano for my older sister to learn and she'd given it up.... I didn't want to learn it, I didn't want to practise. Practice consisted of playing scales and songs out of the beginner's piano book. I never wanted to hear scales being klunked out and I never wanted to hear those pieces from the beginner's book. When I was finally allowed to give it up, I didn't go near the piano for years.

Fast-forward. As an adult, I decided that I'd like to learn the piano. My friend's father (a professional musician) became my teacher. He gave me adult pieces and never made me practise those klunky children's pieces. He made me practise these Hanon exercises instead of scales. I liked doing them because I found them interesting, unlike scales. I wanted to try to play the pieces he'd picked out in a way that I'd never wanted to play "Baa Baa Black Sheep" so I was motivated to practise.

What practice are your students meant to be doing? Is it "boring"? Is there a way to make what your students are supposed to be practising more interesting so that they'll actually want to do it? Could you give them some bars of a popular song that they'd want to be able to do? Or different practice pieces?

Would it be possible to allocate a "challenge" to a volunteer couple of students a week that they'd come and perform for the class? (Everyone else could get the music to practise as well). Something like "duelling banjos" or something that could tap into their competitive streak/where they'd have to practise their part so that it would work? Something that might motivate at least a couple of kids a week to practise something?

As for your point about telling the kids when they are no good. Instead of actually telling them they sucked, you could maybe just focus on the bit that was ok and then tell them what to do next to continue being good. Just don't mention how they did, just grab something positive and try to build on it.

[aries]

As a teacher myself, I would let the children look at the instruments, try to make them play with them, the instruments, that is. And maybe ask the elementary kids what they think music is. And show that music can be made with your feet, your hands, your mouths, yes, even glasses can be used to make music. You can also show that music can be made by drumming on furniture. These are sounds, then you get rhytm, and then you get bars..

I'm from Denmark, as some of you might know. In Denmark, we have a lot of traditional -ahem - song games i.e. you sing something and then make some moves to the song. One of the songs is 'here we go round the mulberry bush' - a very nice song game, I find.
For elementary school kids these song games are very nice, I find, to learn about music and rhytm.

For kids in elementary school, I find it is much more usefull to instill a feeling of joy (not fun) of music in them. This means that this joyous feeling in them will follow them all their lives, and they will have good memories of their music education. And yes, jazz is improvisation after rules, but the real question is this: Does it matter that much if these kids don't get it the first time - they're are, after all, supposed to learn how to play jazz...

And like riding a bike, learning how to play an instrument is trial and error....

[themusicteacher]

I've still seen nobody comment on what the responsibilities of the child are. Do they not owe their effort and attention to someone willing to teach them something? Why has the expectation become "You're the teacher, you engage them." I can understand that when you make something completely dry, maybe you're going to lose them but there are plenty of kids out there who give zero effort and think, "I"m not really interested in that and the teacher didn't make it interesting," is a valid excuse to not learn something. If an effort was made to actually do something, to engage themselves in the material being presented, they might find they're more interested than they thought. Real learning and engagement is HARD and too many kids (and their parents) are quick to excuse lack of effort by blaming the teacher for not making it entertaining enough. Unless you're doing your part by not being passive, you have little room to complain.

[rwguinn]

I've still seen nobody comment on what the responsibilities of the child are. Do they not owe their effort and attention to someone willing to teach them something? Absolutely. but children, by definition, are not mature yet. They are just beginning to learn that. Why has the expectation become "You're the teacher, you engage them." I can understand that when you make something completely dry, maybe you're going to lose them but there are plenty of kids out there who give zero effort and think, "I"m not really interested in that and the teacher didn't make it interesting," is a valid excuse to not learn something. Unfortunately, self-discipline must come from within, and you are probably one of the very few people they have contact with who knows that. You get them an hour a day, 5 days a week. Parents have them 18 hours a day. Who is going to exert a bigger influence? All you can do is the best you can If an effort was made to actually do something, to engage themselves in the material being presented, they might find they're more interested than they thought. Real learning and engagement is HARD and too many kids (and their parents) are quick to excuse lack of effort by blaming the teacher for not making it entertaining enough. Unless you're doing your part by not being passive, you have little room to complain.
look at the kids with ear buds in all the time. What are they listening to? For the most part, today's music* tells them that you are "dissing" them, and they don't have to put up with that.
I love music. I play at the acoustic guitar, and spend on average 2 hours a day playing/noodling around. Because of arthritis in my fingers, as well as a lack of coordination, I will never be a Red Shea or Terry Clements-and certainly not a Chet Atkins. A poor practice ethic probably plays into that as well. But until I was in my 30's, I never realized how much fun it really is, especially playing with a group.



*They got rhythm, a definite beat, but no melody line, certainly no harmony, performed by low-talent flash-in-the-pan "artists" who apparently, by the stuff they hear, spend their time trashing hotel rooms, partying, and tweeting. They don't need to practice/rehearse, so why should the kids?

[KingMerv00]

*They got rhythm, a definite beat, but no melody line, certainly no harmony, performed by low-talent flash-in-the-pan "artists" who apparently, by the stuff they hear, spend their time trashing hotel rooms, partying, and tweeting. They don't need to practice/rehearse, so why should the kids?

Kids still listen to rock and roll?

[aries]

Let me start by adding something I forgot in my latest post.

In the video (dvd actually) just released after Michael Jackson's death, he is shown rehearsing his dance moves. And he is also shown, I believe, rehearsing his vocal and his music. Try to show this to the kids. That way, they'll learn that even a big star like Michael Jackson had to rehearse to get that big. And to stay on that big and great musical level. I bet this will be an eye opener for many of these kids. The problem, I find, is that they don't see anyone rehearsing; they just think that you can be good at singing or playing an instrument instantly. And this is certainly not true...


As I understand it, you only have them for what, ½ hour or so, every day? during lunch or maybe 1 hour during lunch? This is not much. And to me, the children should make an effort. But, again, as a teacher, I know that my teaching children (and adults, too) are going to fail if I don't in exact detail tell them what I intend for them to learn, how they're going to do it and what the purpose of this -ahem- training or exercise or learning is. That's the basis of my suggestion on how to get their interest. Or try to make a sound involving the armpits; hey, this is making music, too.

I agree, though, that way too many parents, (and hence the children) views the creative suubjects such as music, drama and painting (arts and crafts) as something less valuable than say English or German. Many people, including most parents, I believe, will think that these creative classes are more easy than other subjects. In truth, they are not. But people seem to think they are. And this is, in reality, your problem or challenge, if you will.

Today's parents see it as the teachers' responsibility to learn the children something. And in many way, it is I find. However, as I see it, teaching and learning needs to happen in co-operation with the students. All teaching depends on what the students understands of the subject beforehand; it is the teachers job to show that there's more to the subject than their pre-knowledge or pre-understanding of the subject, be it geography, history, math or music.

Truth be told much students, adults and young, are not that interested into learning something new. That's been my experience at least during the 10 years, I've taught. And kids and adults will understand it, if you tell them that there's no way to learn this except by heart.

And of course those who want to learn something "owe their effort and attention to someone willing to teach them something?" However, most kids, in my experience, have a way shorter attention span than most adults, so maybe dividing the 60 hour lesson up in smaller modules of 15-20 minutes of learning might help. Then there's also the fact? that most your students probably have taken your class as some sort of 'negative way out' of taking an alternative that to them seemed much worse. Or just because they're bored or because their parents told to do so.

That's why I'm stressing that it is our job, as teachers to engage and motivate the kids. Even if it means to try and convey what English, German, drama - and music - means to us personally....

[Lolly]

I've still seen nobody comment on what the responsibilities of the child are. To turn up to school, not to disrupt the class and to complete any assignments (if you want to pass the subject). You really can't impose anything else - you can have a captive audience, but you can't force them to be interested in what is being said.

Have you considered teaching adults instead of kids?

[jharyn]

I've still seen nobody comment on what the responsibilities of the child are. Do they not owe their effort and attention to someone willing to teach them something? Why has the expectation become "You're the teacher, you engage them." I can understand that when you make something completely dry, maybe you're going to lose them but there are plenty of kids out there who give zero effort and think, "I"m not really interested in that and the teacher didn't make it interesting," is a valid excuse to not learn something. If an effort was made to actually do something, to engage themselves in the material being presented, they might find they're more interested than they thought. Real learning and engagement is HARD and too many kids (and their parents) are quick to excuse lack of effort by blaming the teacher for not making it entertaining enough. Unless you're doing your part by not being passive, you have little room to complain.

The attitude here is your problem. The fact that you are for the most part correct is irrelevant.

They're kids. They will not for the most part be interested in Mozart or any of the so called "greats". It will not happen.

I have been playing guitar since I was nine. I had a music teacher when I was 10 until I was 12 in school. I was so bored in the class at first that she was amazed that I was interested in playing anything. The she took me aside and taught me a twelve bar blues riff. Played a Clapton song in the same key. I recognized the song. It wasn't the classical crap that didn't interest me in any way. She wasn't trying to ram it down my throat. She didn't put it down in any way. AND I COULD PLAY IT!

The next week she showed me that the chords were actually a dominant 7th and she showed me multiple ways to play them. That was it for that week. The following week she started to explain why it was that type of chord. All using a song that I recognized ans was popular at the time.

After a month or so, she told me to bring in a song that I wanted to learn. I started going to her classroom every chance I could.

Very few kids today care about marching band, classical music, jazz, so what? Teach them the music they like. Allow them a little slack to choose the first piece of music that you teach them. (Just a little <wink>) But if you are so set on doing it completely 100% your way with the chip you obviously have on your shoulder, you will only create more frustration in yourself. You will never get all of them to care. Period. Not gonna happen.

Work your way up the complexity scale. Very few of them will ever care. It's just the way it is. But if you allow them to learn to play something that they currently enjoy, slowly explaining the theory, they will not even know they're learning.

It IS the teachers job to make it interesting. They have a lot of room to complain if it isn't interesting. The fact that you have so many different types of music to choose from that WILL interest them, falls squarely on your shoulders. Start with your own accountability. Kids will follow. They really can't help it.

Your frustration is justified. I've taught music and refuse to anymore. Most kids were in the class because mom and dad insisted on it. That is what you are up against. They do not want to be there. Plain and simple. By allowing, for lack of a better term, "their music" to be a part of the class, they at least be learning something. Ease in to the more complex and you will find a few, from time to time, that motivate you.

Hang in there. I'm rooting for you.

[Alareth]

I had a science teacher that did several memorable fun things.

Making things explode always kept the classes rapt attention.

The highlight of the school year involved a 2ft by 2ft board with nails though it he would place nail point down on his stomach and selected students would break cinder blocks with a sledgehammer on it.

[themusicteacher]

The attitude here is your problem. The fact that you are for the most part correct is irrelevant.

They're kids. They will not for the most part be interested in Mozart or any of the so called "greats". It will not happen.

I have been playing guitar since I was nine. I had a music teacher when I was 10 until I was 12 in school. I was so bored in the class at first that she was amazed that I was interested in playing anything. The she took me aside and taught me a twelve bar blues riff. Played a Clapton song in the same key. I recognized the song. It wasn't the classical crap that didn't interest me in any way. She wasn't trying to ram it down my throat. She didn't put it down in any way. AND I COULD PLAY IT!

The next week she showed me that the chords were actually a dominant 7th and she showed me multiple ways to play them. That was it for that week. The following week she started to explain why it was that type of chord. All using a song that I recognized ans was popular at the time.

After a month or so, she told me to bring in a song that I wanted to learn. I started going to her classroom every chance I could.

Very few kids today care about marching band, classical music, jazz, so what? Teach them the music they like. Allow them a little slack to choose the first piece of music that you teach them. (Just a little <wink>) But if you are so set on doing it completely 100% your way with the chip you obviously have on your shoulder, you will only create more frustration in yourself. You will never get all of them to care. Period. Not gonna happen.

Work your way up the complexity scale. Very few of them will ever care. It's just the way it is. But if you allow them to learn to play something that they currently enjoy, slowly explaining the theory, they will not even know they're learning.

It IS the teachers job to make it interesting. They have a lot of room to complain if it isn't interesting. The fact that you have so many different types of music to choose from that WILL interest them, falls squarely on your shoulders. Start with your own accountability. Kids will follow. They really can't help it.

Your frustration is justified. I've taught music and refuse to anymore. Most kids were in the class because mom and dad insisted on it. That is what you are up against. They do not want to be there. Plain and simple. By allowing, for lack of a better term, "their music" to be a part of the class, they at least be learning something. Ease in to the more complex and you will find a few, from time to time, that motivate you.

Hang in there. I'm rooting for you.

This is the classic "I don't know anything about music but I know what I like" argument. The inverse is true, though, "I like what I know." I may be
a classically trained musician but I enjoy good pop and jazz as much as the next guy. The biggest problem with trying to bring pop into the classroom is the structure of the class itself. Secondary music classrooms are not, by and large, general music classrooms or ones where pop music is being played. We do some pop music during marching band season but I'm not sure they necessarily enjoy all of that, either.

You're right in saying you'll never please everyone all the time and I don't even try. You're wrong in saying they won't or can't enjoy "Mozart" or classical music. If they listen a few times to good music, they tend to like it. If you're in a band or choir or orchestra, there is music written for those groups and sounds best for those groups. Pop/rock/rap, what-have-you tends not to translate very well and often comes off sounding lame. If I were teaching guitar, I'd probably do more pop but bands play band music, period.

I never said they had to have fun every minute and that's the point: they think it should be "fun" 100% of the time. I'm not saying things get boring, but they do get challenging and that's when some of the kids shut down. They are willing to give no more of themselves if it takes more work than can be done in a few minutes. This is my complaint: they won't work to achieve something that seems difficult. What I've found is that when they feel confident and competent and the music is good and they're playing well, they tend to enjoy it more. It's the getting over the humps that trips them up; they plateau in their development and get all down on themselves or think that's all they've got to learn or work at. Plus, many of them didn't get the fundamentals down early and now they're really not comfortable. It's a snowball effect.

I still contend that it's my job to put good music in front of them, teach them the right skills (in an engaging manner), give them experience with more of our kind of music so they have references and to afford opportunities to perform while asking them to improve. If they can't do that, if they can't bring something to the table, why are they there? Don't be deceived: this happens in "basic" classes like math and science. Teachers should not have to do backflips to get kids to work and learn. It should be a familial and societal expectation that each child works to become a learned and responsible citizen and community member. I have no problem looking in the mirror at my own teaching methods but learning is a two-way street that requires effort from both parties. Excuses about "well, kids are kids and they won't give you the time of day unless you're entertaining them" are nonsense. Why do kids get to dictate the terms by which they will learn?