| |
|
Why is art more self-evidently important than music? Don't really follow that one...
I think that teaching music is only worth doing if it's done well. It's not going to be productive splitting your class into small groups and asking them to write, rehearse and produce an ensemble piece if half of them don't know about keys, harmonic intervals, rhythm, etc. (and this did happen in a class at my (private) secondary school). Similarly, plonking children down in front of electronic keyboards and telling them to produce a composition is not really going to be helpful for those who don't have either (a) innate talent, or (b) existing knowledge from external lessons. There's no reason why practical and theoretical music can't be taught well to all students up to a certain point. There would of course be differences in students' aptitude, as with all subjects, so you wouldn't want it to be compulsory after a certain stage; and it would be just as mean to force someone with no aptitude to perform in class, as it is to make someone with a stammer read in front of the class.
However, music involving instruments is going to be costly, because (e.g.) even a pretty duff cello is going to cost several hundred pounds, plus case, bow, etc.; and when the player starts to become good, you could be looking at well over a thousand pounds. There are cheaper instruments, but good instruments of any sort are going to cost money. I think that's the real barrier; learning music is seen as the same thing as learning an instrument, and it sort of is, but they're not precisely the same thing (I can play two classical instruments quite well, can sight-read, etc.; don't know my scales, can't compose to save my life, can sight-read tenor and alto clef but don't actually know what the notes are). Ideally all schools would have instruments to lend to pupils, or would support pupils hiring instruments from instrument shops; and ideally some (perhaps basic) instrumental tuition would be available freely. But that isn't the case, and I think it never will be; it's just too expensive to be justifiable.
Music tuition at my schools: we sang in class at my (state) primary school, and could learn the recorder at lunchtimes. The sound of twenty seven-year-olds playing away on Aulos descant recorders (which as anyone who had a similar experience will know, are impossible to get in tune with each other) is not to be recommended. You could learn violin, clarinet or flute from a peripatetic teacher, but had to buy your own instrument, and I think pay for lessons (though this was subsidised, I don't think it is now). Secondary school (private) - for the first three years (11-14) we had class music and singing lessons which were AWFUL, truly hated by all. Quite a lot of us had lessons with peripatetic teachers, for which we were taken out of games or class music lessons; we paid separately for these. You could do music GCSE and A-level, but the people who did so were those who were learning instruments privately, and who therefore had acquired the necessary theoretical knowledge out of class; I don't think anyone could have gained it in the classes. The best thing about the whole school music experience was being able to play in chamber ensembles, much the best and most enjoyable thing about playing music all told. |
|
|
