blog 4/1

Having read Austin's article on competitions, I can definitely observe what he was talking about in my own high school experience. My school generally did well in competitions, but I can definitely see, looking back, the pride that derived from winning. For many students, the concert was about putting out the top product. Some students were even concerned with another very excellent school(both schools almost always got straight Is) and considered this school a rival. They wanted to know who did better.

Although the situation for us was probably better than at a competing school that struggled to earn high ratings, I think there were a lot of educational temptations and challenges that accompanied this culture. It made a lot of things easier for the directors: recruiting, boosters, administrative support, personal prestige. An outside organization was placing its stamp of approval on the program and those involved, which helped make people eager and confident to support the program and make it a point of pride for the school. Students bought in because it was something they took pride in and they wanted to live up the the school's musical legacy.

However, educationally, music as a process is more important than music as a product. Students learn along the way. Maintaining the excellence in terms of competing, however, makes it tempting for the director to promote the product. The most efficient method of producing the product is to spend class time exclusively rehearsing and picking apart mistakes. It is tempting to simply instruct students what to do and not leave time for exploration or attempt deeper understanding of the material. Understanding how to rehearse, practice, and fit into a group, but it isn't everything. I felt that the other things were neglected in my high school band. Fortunately, I had private lessons to make this up for me.

I thought this culture also promoted a sense of stressfulness at performances. Directors were constantly tuning instruments, giving notes, picking at things, and generally dress rehearsing extensively. It always made me feel frantic at the start of the concert. I was bombarded with so much extra information. Even today, I feel that I perform best when I am able to walk out on stage confident in what I had already learned and practiced eager to share and express. If I haven't learned it by the day of the concert, the extra 5 minutes of dress rehearsal are not likely to make a difference.

I also felt that a strong sense of "mistake avoidance" pervaded performing and evaluations of performances. When I had a piccolo solo, I was worried mainly about playing all the correct notes. When the trumpets messed up an entrance at contest, it was thereafter referred to as "the trumpet debacle" by the band. A holistic evaluation was often lacking from students, even if the adjudicators gave such comments.

I highly doubt that, regardless of what my own philosophy might ultimately be, I will be able to just walk away from contest in my actual position. However, I do agree with a lot of what Austin says: competition can be damaging and shape the beliefs of students in negative ways. However, I hope that I, by emphasis and example, can teach my students that music making is a process and that concerts are primarily about expression and sharing, not avoiding screw ups or being better than someone else.

Post 3/18

As I have been rehearsing the various bands at Case for which I am an assistant conductor, I have been improving in awareness of the sound and in technical problems. However, one area in which I have still not found much success is in getting the groups to play more musically in an organic way. I've even noticed this in some of the groups I participate in as an ensemble member. The choir is performing Mozart's Requiem Mass, and most of the "musicality" of the choir seems to come from being spoon fed extensive score markings of dynamics and articulation. To me, it sounds like just that in practice: a bunch of technically competent singers who are following very detailed directions. I miss the natural fluidity of the phrasing and the Latin language.

Great musicians are like great speakers: the constantly shift their tone, turn on a point, carefully phrase, and bring the most out of the words or notes, beyond even what the most extensive score markings can convey. It has a naturally fluidity and strong purpose to it.

Though I have limited time, I don't feel like I've been able to adequately bring this point to the musicians I have been conducting. Sure, you can say it as many times and as many ways as you want, but I don't think it is enough. And besides, there are too many other things to do. We have to fix rhythms, balance, notes, intonation etc. And our system of incentives backs this up. What is the worst thing you can do at an audition? Play a wrong rhythm, note, or be out of tune.

How can we teach students to strive for this natural and personal musicianship? It's really hard, even in private one on one instruction. Some people don't even think it is possible, that is what "musical talent" means and that you are born with it. I care a lot about this issue, and so I thought I might look at my own education and see if I might make some guesses as to why it became so important to me.

First, I had a strong musical background at a young age. I heard lots of music, had musicians in my family, got to go hear concerts by professionals, and had an unusually high amount of general music instruction in elementary school. I also had piano lessons when I was 6. This conforms to our discipline literature: a strong musical background at a young age bodes well for future musical success.

Second and perhaps more nebulously, I mostly had teachers who respected my individual personality as a musician, gave me a good deal of freedom, and made the effort to incorporate my personality as a musician into the instruction when they wanted me to change the things I was doing.

I've found in my education so far that we emphasize connecting with a student's personality in order to learn about how they learn and to make sure we reach them, but there is not as much emphasis on students' personalities as musicians.

I meet in my life today musicians with diverse musical personalities. I know musicians for whom music is primarily a competition in which the goal is to be better than everyone else, others for whom it is a craft to be polished and perfected, still others from whom it is a receivership of the will of transcendent geniuses from ages past. My own personality that I try to live up to is the idea that music is a journey of discovery about both the piece and myself, and that to succeed I must a compelling way to represent both with integrity.

We must be aware of these elements, for we help shape them. If we send our students to contests constantly, they may come to view music as a competition. If we give our students extensive lists of drills and repertory with no input from them, they may believe music is the perfection of this finite universe. If we promote a system of incentives that places the highest priority on technical details, regardless of what we might say in rehearsals, our students will place the highest priority on technical details. If we pay tribute at the feet of the aesthetic work, students may see themselves as recreators of this immutable work.

There isn't one "true" musical personality, and I still think I have a lot to learn about this in general. But I hope that eventually, but getting both myself and students in touch with their musical personalities, that my students can develop personal musicianship that expresses their selves with integrity and that they can bring to all the music they perform.

First Day teaching in the School

After hearing the director speak about the many challenges facing the students in the school, especially from an economic perspective, and seeing some of the classes of the students, I was worried about my first teaching experience. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the enthusiasm and motivation of the students.

The students I taught were all very excited about trumpet and passionate about playing the songs correctly. There could be some chatter or goofing off, but most of the students really wanted to play, and they were eager to correct each other and figure out the correct rhythms. The lesson went smoothly overall, although there are ways in which I can improve. The students, however, were able to play the song as a group with mostly accurate pitch and rhythm.

Obviously I have an advantage due to being a new person in keeping student attention, but I was left wondering if there was more to be done to harness the student energy and excitement on a regular basis. It seems like the regular teacher uses a mostly static routine and tries to settle down the class when they get too rowdy. Might changing up the routine and trying to channel the energy into something positive be a worthwhile endeavor to attempt? The students love testing, where they play individually through a song. Could we find a way to incorporate this into the very necessary but more boring parts of the lesson?

The other Case student in the class with me did a great job commanding the attention of the class. I was impressed by the naturalness of his demeanor and the way in which he was able to fluidly move around the class and from activity to activity, things I need to improve in my own teaching. He also got some of the students excited with a great baseball analogy.