Monday, February 23, 2009
Creativity
Creativity is largely defined by what it is not: it is “not a deliberate imitation of something that already exists” (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, p. 172). Several factors define what creativity is, however, which can be connected to musical creativity. Once the traits related to creativity are clear, music educators must then decide the best structure and procedures in which to encourage creativity in all students.
Creativity can be divided into three traits: fluency, flexibility and originality. According to Abeles et al. (1995), who summarize J. P. Guilford’s ideas, “Fluency is the ease with which people can make associations of words or ideas. Flexibility involves changing procedures to solve a problem…. Originality is a trait involving the ability to think in unusual ways, to see relationships that others have not seen, and to think of new and different uses for ideas and objects” (pp. 172-173). Originality is often referred to as divergent thinking, and many psychologists and educators focus more on this factor of creativity than on the other traits. John Gardner describes creativity differently by citing the four traits of openness, independence, flexibility, and “the capacity to find order in experience” (p. 174). Many other psychologists offer overlapping views of the creative process and creative behaviors. Abeles et al. suggest that hard work, an artist’s place in history, and technological or cultural developments are factors that also contribute to perceived creativity.
There are two contrasting views on the best way to foster creativity in schools, and there is evidence to support each view: either imposing strict structures, or not imposing any structure. Proponents of structure/restrictions cite how overwhelming it could be for children to compose with no guidelines and that beginning with limited pitches and rhythms is an effective way to gradually become more creative. Similarly, it is important for improvisers of any genre to stay within a rhythmic and tonal structure that is appropriate for the style of music. However, some studies have shown that encouragement and freedom are the best approach to creativity, as further evidenced by creative “flowerings” within certain societies at specific periods in history in various artistic disciplines (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 179). Looking to the histories of different famous composers doesn’t offer much help in determining the best approach to creativity: some composers were discouraged and restricted by their family members, while others were highly encouraged.
Regardless of the approach music educators take, it is important for all students to make attempts at creative efforts. There are three reasons for this: one, students trying out musical ideas are learning ways of expressing themselves. Two, students are much more motivated by personal creative efforts. And three, students will learn music better through active engagement in the creative process (Abeles et al., 1995, pp. 177-178). Although it is difficult to pinpoint specific procedures that music educators can use to encourage creativity in the classroom, a general rule of thumb is to foster a positive atmosphere through student praise of creative efforts.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Creativity can be divided into three traits: fluency, flexibility and originality. According to Abeles et al. (1995), who summarize J. P. Guilford’s ideas, “Fluency is the ease with which people can make associations of words or ideas. Flexibility involves changing procedures to solve a problem…. Originality is a trait involving the ability to think in unusual ways, to see relationships that others have not seen, and to think of new and different uses for ideas and objects” (pp. 172-173). Originality is often referred to as divergent thinking, and many psychologists and educators focus more on this factor of creativity than on the other traits. John Gardner describes creativity differently by citing the four traits of openness, independence, flexibility, and “the capacity to find order in experience” (p. 174). Many other psychologists offer overlapping views of the creative process and creative behaviors. Abeles et al. suggest that hard work, an artist’s place in history, and technological or cultural developments are factors that also contribute to perceived creativity.
There are two contrasting views on the best way to foster creativity in schools, and there is evidence to support each view: either imposing strict structures, or not imposing any structure. Proponents of structure/restrictions cite how overwhelming it could be for children to compose with no guidelines and that beginning with limited pitches and rhythms is an effective way to gradually become more creative. Similarly, it is important for improvisers of any genre to stay within a rhythmic and tonal structure that is appropriate for the style of music. However, some studies have shown that encouragement and freedom are the best approach to creativity, as further evidenced by creative “flowerings” within certain societies at specific periods in history in various artistic disciplines (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 179). Looking to the histories of different famous composers doesn’t offer much help in determining the best approach to creativity: some composers were discouraged and restricted by their family members, while others were highly encouraged.
Regardless of the approach music educators take, it is important for all students to make attempts at creative efforts. There are three reasons for this: one, students trying out musical ideas are learning ways of expressing themselves. Two, students are much more motivated by personal creative efforts. And three, students will learn music better through active engagement in the creative process (Abeles et al., 1995, pp. 177-178). Although it is difficult to pinpoint specific procedures that music educators can use to encourage creativity in the classroom, a general rule of thumb is to foster a positive atmosphere through student praise of creative efforts.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Pop Music
Social psychologists have repeatedly shown that adolescents need to feel self-confident and competent in their ability to operate in the adult world in order to develop a positive self-image. The implication of teenagers wanting their own music separate from adults can have an impact on the inclusion of “pop” music in music education.
Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1995) offer three guidelines for the treatment of pop music in the music classroom. First, the authors recommend that teachers do not tread on teenagers’ “turf” by using pop music as the main basis for performing or general music classes. Second, the teacher needs to keep his or her role in perspective and understand that he/she probably wouldn’t be able to teach pop music to the students’ standards, not to mention that authentic performances in the school setting seem unlikely. And third, teachers shouldn’t “trash talk” popular music to students: even though it wasn’t created for an aesthetic purpose, students appreciate teacher tolerance to pop as much as teachers appreciate student tolerance to art music (pp. 168-169).
Some teachers have tried to meet halfway with students by analyzing pop music in the classroom in the same way art music would be analyzed. However, Abeles et al. (1995) point out that some students fear this would “ruin” the piece for them. Instead, the authors suggest finding a balance by pointing out features of pop music that compare to elements of art music, thereby making art music more familiar and accessible to students and increasing the chances of preference. Or, teachers can play the role of social psychologist by showing students how pop music has a role in the larger scheme of society.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1995) offer three guidelines for the treatment of pop music in the music classroom. First, the authors recommend that teachers do not tread on teenagers’ “turf” by using pop music as the main basis for performing or general music classes. Second, the teacher needs to keep his or her role in perspective and understand that he/she probably wouldn’t be able to teach pop music to the students’ standards, not to mention that authentic performances in the school setting seem unlikely. And third, teachers shouldn’t “trash talk” popular music to students: even though it wasn’t created for an aesthetic purpose, students appreciate teacher tolerance to pop as much as teachers appreciate student tolerance to art music (pp. 168-169).
Some teachers have tried to meet halfway with students by analyzing pop music in the classroom in the same way art music would be analyzed. However, Abeles et al. (1995) point out that some students fear this would “ruin” the piece for them. Instead, the authors suggest finding a balance by pointing out features of pop music that compare to elements of art music, thereby making art music more familiar and accessible to students and increasing the chances of preference. Or, teachers can play the role of social psychologist by showing students how pop music has a role in the larger scheme of society.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Socio-Economic Status
In American culture, individuals and groups are stratified into social statuses generally based upon wealth, occupation and education. This socio-economic status (SES) is relevant to music educators because it affects the kinds of music people know and like.
Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1995) describe three reasons for differences in musical preferences based upon SES. First, people with higher SES display a “deferred gratification pattern” in their music tastes, whereas peoples with lower social status do not (p. 128). This suggests that upper-SES people would be more interested in art music and that lower-SES people would want music that is “simple and direct.” A second reason cited is cultural reinforcement within the SES group. Regular exposure to certain types of music is positively correlated to musical preference; children grow up hearing music that their parents and friends usually from the same SES prefer, thus perpetuating a preference cycle within a social stratus. Thirdly, the authors point out the “comfort factor,” in which people not only like what they’re familiar with but also feel “more comfortable and confident with it” (pp. 129-130). Folkways associated with musical performances often play a large role in this third factor.
The implications of social stratification affecting musical preferences are immense for music educators. Abeles et al. (1995) cite four considerations. One, music educators should be understanding of differences in SES when schools are made up almost entirely of one SES group. Two, music educators should understand their obligation to include art music in the curriculum since school is the only place many children will ever experience it. Three, music educators can make students comfortable with art music, hopefully negating the SES “comfort factor” musical taste predictor (p. 129). Fourth, music educators should try to teach students to value music that doesn’t supply instant gratification, therefore eliminating another SES factor in influencing musical preferences.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1995) describe three reasons for differences in musical preferences based upon SES. First, people with higher SES display a “deferred gratification pattern” in their music tastes, whereas peoples with lower social status do not (p. 128). This suggests that upper-SES people would be more interested in art music and that lower-SES people would want music that is “simple and direct.” A second reason cited is cultural reinforcement within the SES group. Regular exposure to certain types of music is positively correlated to musical preference; children grow up hearing music that their parents and friends usually from the same SES prefer, thus perpetuating a preference cycle within a social stratus. Thirdly, the authors point out the “comfort factor,” in which people not only like what they’re familiar with but also feel “more comfortable and confident with it” (pp. 129-130). Folkways associated with musical performances often play a large role in this third factor.
The implications of social stratification affecting musical preferences are immense for music educators. Abeles et al. (1995) cite four considerations. One, music educators should be understanding of differences in SES when schools are made up almost entirely of one SES group. Two, music educators should understand their obligation to include art music in the curriculum since school is the only place many children will ever experience it. Three, music educators can make students comfortable with art music, hopefully negating the SES “comfort factor” musical taste predictor (p. 129). Fourth, music educators should try to teach students to value music that doesn’t supply instant gratification, therefore eliminating another SES factor in influencing musical preferences.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Social Functions of Music
Although musicians and music educators are often aware of the aesthetic functions of music, attention should also be paid to social functions. The social functions of music span a wide variety of activities and contexts but are still clearly separated from artistic functions.
Sociologists offer many explanations for the social purposes of music. The anthropologist Allan Merriam lists ten: emotional expression, aesthetic enjoyment, entertainment, communication, symbolic representations, physical response, enforcing conformity to social norms, validation of social institutions and religious rituals, contribution to the continuity and stability of culture, and contribution to the integration of society (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, pp. 123-124). Max Kaplan, a writer on music education and sociology, cites eight social functions: as a form of knowledge, collective possession, personal experience, therapy, moral and symbolic force, incidental commodity, symbolic indicators of change, and as a link with the past (p. 124). Music sociologist Paul Honigsheim names ceremonial, entertainment, accompaniment for work, use in the home, concerts, and oratorios as social functions of music (p. 124). And finally, psychologist E. Thayer Gaston identifies the need for aesthetic experience, the enhancement of religion, communication, emotional response, gratification, and the potency of music in the group situation (p. 124). Abeles et al. (1995) point out that in American society, music is often a “sonic background” for non-musical activities; this trend seems to have grown exponentially since the authors’ 1995 publication with the advent and extreme popularity of personal mp3 players in the early 21st century (p. 124). Although each of these theories presents itself differently, there is much overlap, allowing musicians and music educators to have a general grasp of the social functions of music.
The artistic, aesthetic functions of music differ from the social functions, despite mention by each theorist of the aesthetic purpose. According to Abeles et al. (1995), the aesthetic view of musical purpose is that “art music functions to meet a desire that human beings have to represent certain ideas in sound, or to symbolize states of feeling, or to transcend everyday life…. Any effects on the listener in terms of promoting actions or beliefs are largely incidental and irrelevant to the main purpose of the music” (p. 125). Clearly, this is a much more lofty and philosophical but much more narrow view of musical function, as sociologists, psychologists and social psychologists would be quick to point out.
It is important for music educators to bear in mind these social functions for several reasons. One, the social function of a piece of music should affect the way it is presented to students because of necessarily different pedagogical approaches. Two, students should recognize different social functions of music in order to adjust their listening approaches. Finally, nonmusical associations in music are relevant to understanding the musical context and therefore should be taught to students as well (Abeles et al., 1995).
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Sociologists offer many explanations for the social purposes of music. The anthropologist Allan Merriam lists ten: emotional expression, aesthetic enjoyment, entertainment, communication, symbolic representations, physical response, enforcing conformity to social norms, validation of social institutions and religious rituals, contribution to the continuity and stability of culture, and contribution to the integration of society (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, pp. 123-124). Max Kaplan, a writer on music education and sociology, cites eight social functions: as a form of knowledge, collective possession, personal experience, therapy, moral and symbolic force, incidental commodity, symbolic indicators of change, and as a link with the past (p. 124). Music sociologist Paul Honigsheim names ceremonial, entertainment, accompaniment for work, use in the home, concerts, and oratorios as social functions of music (p. 124). And finally, psychologist E. Thayer Gaston identifies the need for aesthetic experience, the enhancement of religion, communication, emotional response, gratification, and the potency of music in the group situation (p. 124). Abeles et al. (1995) point out that in American society, music is often a “sonic background” for non-musical activities; this trend seems to have grown exponentially since the authors’ 1995 publication with the advent and extreme popularity of personal mp3 players in the early 21st century (p. 124). Although each of these theories presents itself differently, there is much overlap, allowing musicians and music educators to have a general grasp of the social functions of music.
The artistic, aesthetic functions of music differ from the social functions, despite mention by each theorist of the aesthetic purpose. According to Abeles et al. (1995), the aesthetic view of musical purpose is that “art music functions to meet a desire that human beings have to represent certain ideas in sound, or to symbolize states of feeling, or to transcend everyday life…. Any effects on the listener in terms of promoting actions or beliefs are largely incidental and irrelevant to the main purpose of the music” (p. 125). Clearly, this is a much more lofty and philosophical but much more narrow view of musical function, as sociologists, psychologists and social psychologists would be quick to point out.
It is important for music educators to bear in mind these social functions for several reasons. One, the social function of a piece of music should affect the way it is presented to students because of necessarily different pedagogical approaches. Two, students should recognize different social functions of music in order to adjust their listening approaches. Finally, nonmusical associations in music are relevant to understanding the musical context and therefore should be taught to students as well (Abeles et al., 1995).
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Monday, February 16, 2009
John Dewey Presentation
I'm disappointed Google Docs adjusts all the fonts and such.... The original formatting was much prettier :(
Monday, February 9, 2009
Non-Musical Values of Music
Music education in schools is often times justified by nonmusical values. Pragmatic philosophers such as John Dewey tend to embrace the idea of any learning product being worthwhile so long as the process is of a high quality, and just as Dewey’s progressivist educational beliefs still permeate American education, so do beliefs in the benefit nonmusical values. These nonmusical values cover a wide spectrum, and music educators can gain some benefit from these beliefs.
Research has shown that “musical sounds in and of themselves do not cause greater mental powers, improved work habits, or more harmonious interpersonal relationships;” however, music instruction seems to show an improvement in language arts skills due to the similarities between the subjects in processing sound (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 87). Although there is often a correlation between high test scores and music involvement, this does not necessarily imply a causal relationship and could be due to either: 1) “able” students gravitating toward music, or 2) students experiencing success in music realizing they are “able” and beginning a cycle of success (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 88-89). Cross-curricular musical studies, especially with social sciences, can contribute greatly to student understanding of the nonmusical subject matter. Academics aside, music is sometimes associated with improved attitudes toward school, be it because students appreciate a change in activity during the school day or because students find satisfaction in belonging to a group (though that particular argument could be made for any student organization). There is also an avocational value for music once students have completed their formal education.
Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1995) stress that music education can be supported as a subject in and of itself as well as through nonmusical values: “The place of music in the schools does not depend on its nonmusical contributions, but its position may be stronger because of them” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 90). However, music educators should be careful to not divert attention from the fact that music without nonmusical benefits is still worth studying. A strong foundation and understanding of philosophy and aesthetics can help music educators support this view.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Research has shown that “musical sounds in and of themselves do not cause greater mental powers, improved work habits, or more harmonious interpersonal relationships;” however, music instruction seems to show an improvement in language arts skills due to the similarities between the subjects in processing sound (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 87). Although there is often a correlation between high test scores and music involvement, this does not necessarily imply a causal relationship and could be due to either: 1) “able” students gravitating toward music, or 2) students experiencing success in music realizing they are “able” and beginning a cycle of success (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 88-89). Cross-curricular musical studies, especially with social sciences, can contribute greatly to student understanding of the nonmusical subject matter. Academics aside, music is sometimes associated with improved attitudes toward school, be it because students appreciate a change in activity during the school day or because students find satisfaction in belonging to a group (though that particular argument could be made for any student organization). There is also an avocational value for music once students have completed their formal education.
Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1995) stress that music education can be supported as a subject in and of itself as well as through nonmusical values: “The place of music in the schools does not depend on its nonmusical contributions, but its position may be stronger because of them” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 90). However, music educators should be careful to not divert attention from the fact that music without nonmusical benefits is still worth studying. A strong foundation and understanding of philosophy and aesthetics can help music educators support this view.
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Aesthetic Mode of Thinking
Education in the arts differs from other fields of education in the way students are taught to think. Most aspects of education require logical, objective reasoning. Arts education, on the other hand, requires an “aesthetic mode of thinking” (Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman 1995, 77). The delayed gratification of musical expectations in quality music can evoke this kind of thinking.
The aesthetic mode of thinking has to do with considering more than just immediate experiences and particular artistic properties. The aesthetic thinker contemplates the relationships between artistic properties: students of the arts should “acquire an inclination, desire, and ability to consider objects for the qualities they possess and to react with feeling to those qualities. Logic, proof, and correctness are not required to perceive qualities or to react with feeling. What is needed is an imaginative, sensitive, and perceiving way of beholding visual objects and listening to aural objects” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 77). However, all humans should be adept at both rational and aesthetic thinking.
Leonard Meyer believes there are four qualities of music that evoke aesthetic thinking and can be used to evaluate musical works. First, listeners detect syntax and therefore have certain expectations for what they will hear. Second, composers of quality music employ “temporary deviations before fulfilling the syntactical expectations,” which the listener perceives (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 81). Third, these expected tendencies are not fulfilled immediately, and fourth, humans derive enjoyment from this delayed gratification and find the experience more meaningful (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 79-81). Although these four steps are a guideline for determining quality music, the listener must use an aesthetic mode of thinking to determine its relative value.
“The need for a balance between unity and variety” in music and “the requirement for both the predictable and the novel in music” are requirements of music that listeners will only expect if they are engaged in aesthetic thinking, and they must engage in aesthetic thinking to find enjoyment in this tension and release (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 82-83).
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
The aesthetic mode of thinking has to do with considering more than just immediate experiences and particular artistic properties. The aesthetic thinker contemplates the relationships between artistic properties: students of the arts should “acquire an inclination, desire, and ability to consider objects for the qualities they possess and to react with feeling to those qualities. Logic, proof, and correctness are not required to perceive qualities or to react with feeling. What is needed is an imaginative, sensitive, and perceiving way of beholding visual objects and listening to aural objects” (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 77). However, all humans should be adept at both rational and aesthetic thinking.
Leonard Meyer believes there are four qualities of music that evoke aesthetic thinking and can be used to evaluate musical works. First, listeners detect syntax and therefore have certain expectations for what they will hear. Second, composers of quality music employ “temporary deviations before fulfilling the syntactical expectations,” which the listener perceives (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 81). Third, these expected tendencies are not fulfilled immediately, and fourth, humans derive enjoyment from this delayed gratification and find the experience more meaningful (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 79-81). Although these four steps are a guideline for determining quality music, the listener must use an aesthetic mode of thinking to determine its relative value.
“The need for a balance between unity and variety” in music and “the requirement for both the predictable and the novel in music” are requirements of music that listeners will only expect if they are engaged in aesthetic thinking, and they must engage in aesthetic thinking to find enjoyment in this tension and release (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman 1995, 82-83).
Abeles, Harold F., Charles R. Hoffer, and Robert H. Klotman. Foundations of Music Education, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 1995.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
