The Future of Bands, Choirs, and Orchestras
My most recent post reminded me of a conversation I once had with a conductor of a college wind ensemble program. This person is very well-known and respected amongst their peers. We got to talking about the progressive ideas that I so often ramble about. And this professor asked whether I thought that ensembles would continue to play a role in school music programs in the future. This baffled me because…of course they will (I thought). But it also made me realize that there was this entire community of music educators that either thought ensembles would not remain a part of school music programs, or questioned their relevance in a society where music making is evolving into something much different than our traditional way of conceptualizing music-making.
So I continue to think about this. Will our school ensembles still exist in 20, 50, 100 years? Should they? Music has always been a part of education in this country. Instrumental ensembles are a phenomenon of the mid-1950’s. Before this, we had great ensembles and instrumentalists who would meet and rehearse on their own. Music was a class like any other. Removing ensembles from schools would allow teachers the flexibility to focus on a student-centered curriculum based on a constructivist ideology – I’m all for that. But I can’t help this feeling that something would be missing if we did not have these ensembles in school. Perhaps it doesn’t seem right because I was raised that way, and the generation who taught me was raised that way.
I often wonder what school music education was like for my grandparents and great-grandparents. Would it be different now that we have technology to make music and music making available almost anywhere? Would ensembles have become as prevalent if teachers were using Garageband, Sibelius, and Audacity back then? At the time, were ensembles considered a better way of teaching music? Is our generation (or a future generation) ready to move on to something else if it is thought to be so? I’m asking because, frankly, I don’t know.
February 9, 2009 at 9:09 pm
You know, I’ve often considered the same thing. I think, in fact, that you and I have talked about it. The more we look into comprehensive musicianship, and what music learning should be or who it should reach, the more it seems that performing ensembles are not going to meet the needs of modern, American education. They’re not very efficient at providing for schools and children, and they’re extremely complicated to measure.
On the other hand, you could say that if music teachers who happen to have ensembles were to embrace modern education in its more progressive forms, then we could be much more effective. This would mean defending that students learn most effectively by doing things and working with people to solve problems. And as Covey would say, “Efficiency is for things. Effectiveness is for people. Suppose we based the standards of the profession on access to instruction and resources rather than on student performance.
Ensemble music adds another element to the comprehensive music curriculum (if that is, in fact, what is being taught) that some may argue is no different from a football team or Amnesty International, and perhaps, realistically, it belongs on the same level. But as long as students and communities value the experience, it will continue to exist, even if its evolution continues only in the ivory tower. Look at literature, theater.
This is going to end mid-thought because I don’t know where it’s going. Ask more questions, and I’ll keep thinking.
February 10, 2009 at 11:38 am
Christi,
I will banish you if you ever quote Covey again!! (kidding)
The comprehensive musicianship model that you refer to, in my opinion, is an excellent way to develop musical skills. When ensemble teachers focus on teaching concepts rather than specific literature, students are much more likely to be able to transfer those concepts. The end result, however, is still a performance which is generally looked upon as valuable in schools and communities. My belief, however, is a little different in that we should be advocating for music as a creative art and not a re-creative one.
Once I see ensemble teachers combining the skill-building of comprehensive musicianship (which very few use) and the creative side of music education that has been ignored in favor of performance-based curricula, I will be able to speak more directly to the place of ensembles in the future. If I had to guess, I would say that there will always be a separate but equal stance on performance and creative-based music classes. Blurring this line will be quite difficult until more models are available for observation.
February 10, 2009 at 5:12 pm
I thought you would appreciate the Covey. I agree with you, that it’s hard to determine how it will work until there are some models. Just look at how long it’s taken the idea of “comprehensive musicianship” to develop and evolve. Lots of people are sitting around waiting for some resources to show up in the mail. Still, many others are just collecting trophies and plaques.
Throughout this process of creating a curriculum that includes both comprehensive (re-creative—there’s nothing wrong with it) and creative aspects, the most important step is communication. Students, Other Teachers, Administrators, and Community Members will scoff at the idea unless its purpose has been communicated effectively and often. Luckily, we know what the benefits of this type of curriculum are to students across the board, and our state organizations are producing materials for this type of advocacy. If this type of advocacy is acted upon with curricula match it, then buy-in is pretty likely.
February 11, 2009 at 9:17 pm
I would disagree that the comprehensive musicianship model has been fully developed. Even to this day, traditionalist teachers take the ‘analyze, diagnose, prescribe’ method in rehearsals. Students learn absolutely nothing this way. Perhaps if more teachers were to buy into the idea that teaching general concepts out of context can improve students’ ability within the repertoire, we would see more opportunity to balance the re-creative (you’re right, there is nothing wrong with it) AND the creative.