4 posts tagged “music teachers”

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.

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.