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.
