Rizz’s blog

The economy is taking its toll and some schools are cutting music programs. Some parents get music lessons for their children. What percentage? Maybe 10%?

Of the remaining 90%, who has children who would have excelled in music, but no longer have a program offered in their school? And many of these children already have disadvantages from being in inadequately funded schools.

Here's where I ask you for your ideas. What would you want from an online music service? Think of the 2-way interaction: forums for your questions; a wiki for collaborating on the content you want; video and audio content; live chat/video; tons of possibilities.

Is this something to consider in the new technological age we're in?

I'd love your thoughts.

My daughter sings better than anyone in the family. I wasn't always confident that she would be musical. She was always expressive, but not always in tune or with the beat. She's always had a lot of style.

It doesn't matter when children start singing in tune. Sometimes it's as early as 3 or 4, but often not until 5 or 6. My daughter was still not consistently singing intune until almost 7 years old.

It does matter that we sang and had fun all these years. The best fun we have is when we improvise together. We made up the "Poopy Blues" a couple years ago. She never forgot it. The second verse is the "Ploopy Bues" or the "Bloopy Poos." It's all the same imagery and we giggle about it.

Sing and have fun. That's the best a family can do.

Around the Seder table makes it just a little more special.

How about 6 years old?
I'm not kidding!

Children as young as 6 hear these harmonic functions, name them, and discriminate among them.
I've done this in minor too.

I've had 4 and 5 year olds hear tonic, dominant and subdominant. We don't call it that, but they can discriminate among them when presented to them in context and WITHOUT the theory.

In fact, I believe that the theoretical approach, in which most of us music teachers were trained in, actually inhibits ear training.

What's that mean when young children can do what some college music majors can't?

This: A national workshop presenter of a major music education approach (in this case, Kodaly) teaches a workshop and incorporates an Irish song. She says the song is in Mixolydian (sounds like it supposed to come to a "rest" on the tone SO of the do-re-mi scale). The song has one sharp in the key signature which makes G “DO” of the do-re-mi scale. Now the song ends on D, which is the last note of the melody. D is “SO” of the do-re-mi scale. With me so far? Now most songs end on the sound (or a special tone) that is the “ending tone” or “resting tone.” Mary Had A Little Lamb, London Bridge, Twinkle Twinkle, etc. all end on a last note of a melody which is also the resting tone—the one that feels like you’ve reached home. It comes to a rest there. Usually, songs do end on the resting tone.

Well, this Irish song ends on SO but the resting tone is easily heard as being DO. It’s not really a subjective matter. If one listens to the melody and the accompaniment that goes with the song, it’s very clear that the song is in major tonality (sound like it “rests” on DO). After two years of instruction, some of the children that I teach (2nd graders) can not only hear the difference between mixolydian and major, but also identify unfamiliar songs as mixolydian or major. What’s this say if our leading music educators can’t do what 2nd grade children can? It says to me that we music educators have been trained to understand music theory, not to understand music. Notation is only supposed to be a reminder of what we already can hear in our minds. It’s incomplete.

I can go on, but can you hear where I’m going?

Tell me I’m not crazy.

Step one:
With most young children, have them learn to use their singing voices by distinguishing it from talking, whisper, and yelling voices. Each child needs to demonstrate his singing voice in solo--not in a group. Otherwise, you really don't know who's using their singing voice well, and worse, you are not able to let each child know whether he/she's using it or not. You're losing an opportunity to teach each individual.

Step two:
Have each child sing in solo a tonal pattern. When you sing a tonal pattern, each child will either sing the same pattern, or not. Then the teacher can say, "That's not your singing voice. Can you try it again in your singing voice?" or "Are those tones different than the ones I sang?" They'll answer. Then you say, "Can you try it again and sing the same tones as me?" or "You sang that exactly right. Good job!" The other children then hear each other and learn to sing in tune very efficiently.

Traditional music education puts note reading high on its list of priorities. Despite the lack of the ability of many children to sing in tune or to move rhythmically and with style, we teach them to decipher the code of musical notation. "F is the first space. A whole note gets four counts. Etc." Furthermore, we complicate the process of music making by teaching executive skills to them at the expense of teaching musicianship. "Push this button down to get this note. Tap your foot. Sit up straight." The last thing the student is being directed to do is to make a musical product.

If you draw an analogy to language learning, it's as if you're asking a toddler who does not have command of his/her language to learn the alphabet as a way to make him literate. Or consider this question: Ever hear a child read every word of a paragraph and then when you ask him to tell you about what he read and he can't tell you? Where's the comprehension? It was in the thinking (or lack thereof) that accompanied the reading. With music, all the necessary skills are for naught if there is no musical "thinking." Understanding music doesn't come as a byproduct of traditional instruction. It's fundamental and must be taught.

Can we learn to focus on this as a priority in our music teaching?

In this blog, among other things, I'm going to discuss how.

Because the popular press and music education proponents have tried to justify music education on the achievement of children in other subjects. What about children whose natural talent is IN music and yet their other propensities are relatively lacking? Don't they deserve to learn music despite their other delays?

Any questions?

At least there's no research to support that yet.

Kindermusik, a very popular early childhood music program (They can stamp out programs—and "certified" teachers—like McDonald's does burgers.), asks potential teachers if they believe that "music is a key to all kinds of learning."

All?

Do they really think that Mozart was socially intelligent? or that musicians are all good at math? or that  was an eloquent speaker? or, conversely, that Einstein or Hawking would have to be good musicians? As if music causes one to have other kinds of intelligence? Forgive the rant, but they've got to get with the current research on neuroscience and cognitive psychology! Really. It's bothers me that they, and many others—so-called leaders in music education—perpetuate a [potential] myth: that music will somehow enhance children's cognitive abilities.

In my experience, there are several children in every school who have exceptional music talent, and yet have very low achievement in all, or almost all, of the traditional school subjects. Does that not ring true to anyone? And so, because these children do not succeed in math, or reading, they are systematically denied the opportunity to participate in the one thing in which they would have success.

It's saddening.