We
have all confronted skeptics who claim that musical skill can
be learned without planned, sequential instruction. Furthermore,
most people, early in their lives, develop strong preferences
for a few types of music. We don't need to be "taught what
to like." And if people follow those strong preferences
with action, they gather detailed knowledge about the music
that they invite into their lives, most of it without conventional
instruction. In the face of these beliefs and others, what rationales
support planned programs of music study and how do these programs
benefit our society and our people? What ethical basis is there
for interfering with these natural human processes?
Our
profession rests on the assumption that music study is not only
valuable but necessary. "Why study music?" is a question
that invites professional risk. So, why bring it up?
One reason is that there are so many positive,
enthusiastic, and convincing answers. Music study is defended
in curriculum documents, in appeals for more time or money for
school music, in parent conferences when a good student plans
to drop out of music study, in recruiting presentations, in
advocacy brochures, and more. These defensive arguments have
a special urgency about them that arises from the general belief
that music education programs are at risk and that we need constant
assurances that music study makes sense. Perhaps that is why
there are so many answers. The skeptic asks, "Why do you
work so hard at justifying the worth of your discipline? If
it has always been so hard to justify music study in American
schools, why don't you just give up?"
Another reason to bring up the question
is that there are so many exceptions. We must respond to evidence
that music study is unnecessary: We hear that Irving Berlin
could not write down the music he composed. We hear that most
popular music stars, even a few famous opera singers, "can't
read a note." The skeptic asks, "If these accomplished
musicians didn't need to learn through music study, why should
I bother to study music, or why should I support such a program
for others?"
We are forced to bring up this question
because there is so much music around us. Recorded music is
readily available for purchase, and good playback equipment
is relatively cheap. Whole channels of television and, increasingly,
cable radio products and Internet sites are devoted to music
presentation. Broadcast media companies use music to draw targeted
audiences to advertisers through the music policy decisions
that they make. "Music study seems redundant," says
the skeptic. "In this mediascape, I can find all I need,
so why push me into music I don't need? And, why should I learn
to perform it when there is little reason for me to make my
own music anymore?"
We should address this issue because
it is common for people to say to musicians something like,
"I can't sing a note, but I love music anyway." There
are many explanations for this negative and unnecessary claim,
but it ultimately relieves the speaker of musical responsibility.
Many of these people cite negative events during music study
as the cause of that effect.
Finally, people at a young age tend to
have very stabilized tastes for music they like and eventually
support financially, through media purchases or direct support
individual freedom supports personal choice in matters like
music. The reasoning goes: "To know what I like, and I
like what I know, so what gives you the right to challenge that?
What gives schools the right to select music for me or my child?
Why should other people create a list of music officially supported
by public policy through government agencies such as schools?"
The skeptic's questions are not easy to answer
well. The simplest response to all of them is that virtually
everyone is drawn to music of some kind. Music is complex enough
to reward lifelong study, and people tend to return to behavior
that is reinforced. Music that rewards attention over one's
lifetime requires study, and study improves the range and subtlety
of meanings we can derive from musical experiences. The skeptic
comes back: "But there is much in life that is interesting,
complex, and rewarding; we don't study many of these things
as deliberately as you think people should study music."
Converting a virtue like meaningful music into a necessity in
public policy is as difficult to explain intellectually and
politically as it is agreeable socially and personally. Music
study is easy to defend but hard to rationalize.
Another simple response is that universal,
conscious study of music springs from traditional European-American
values, and the function of public education is to indoctrinate
the young with those values. Proponents of this view often say,
"We should not question such important traditions. They
have served us well, and they continue to produce a healthy
variety and an unending flow of new music to hear, to perform,
and to enhance the events and rituals in which we participate."
Does this leave too little room for the empowerment of the individual?
Do we socialize music study too much, and is this problematic
in a society that values and even depends upon individual creativity?
Now that the arts are part of the education
core, not only in Goals
2000 but also in most states' education policies, we
have some quick work to do. Music education and education in
the other arts are in competition for funds and policymakers'
attention during the rapid development of high-stakes, standards-based
graduation examinations in so-called basic subjects. School
administrators attend workshops on how to motivate teachers
to raise standards, usually understood to mean that test scores
in reading or mathematics, etc., should go up. They are hearing
the policy assertion, "If it isn't among the graduation
tests, it doesn't belong in the school." Alas, many are
listening. Within the current generation of school leaders'
lifetimes, business and industry visionaries have created a
management outlook that favors plans to "focus the organization,"
downsize, outsource optional services, and go to the bottom
line for validation. This is not lost on school managers. People
from business and industry are on school boards. For many of
the school managers who are accountable to these people, the
bottom line is test scores.
We must meet the skeptic's challenges and glib,
obvious responses to them with new, better understandings of
the effects and benefits of music study—psychological,
educational, cultural, social, and (even) economic. We must
also look ahead, to see if we can frame our deliberation of
this challenging question in such a way that new questions can
enter the professional debate and new understandings can contribute
to the answers as they emerge.
The purpose of this document is to meet these
social and cultural conditions with some extended, research-informed
thinking about music study. We will confront some of the thorniest
issues related to the topic and develop reasoned answers to
some of the most difficult questions asked of us. Although oriented
to the learner, this paper will also envision stronger rationales
for planned, sequential music study and better music teaching
practice for the coming generation. At the beginning of each
section below, there are some questions that guided the writing.
At the end of the paper, I've summarized the complex ideas that
form the six-part answer to the question "Why study music?"
