The dimensions of
value explained in the following discussion are
conceived with music in mind. But each claim for
the value of music can be claimed also by other
human endeavors. Is there anything unique to music,
setting it apart as having a distinctive identity?
In her search for
an answer to the question "What is art for?"
(another way to ask the same question would be
"Why do humans value art?"), Ellen
Dissanayake concludes that an essential characteristic
of the arts is that they provide a mechanism for
creating objects or events that “place the
activity or artifact in a 'realm' different from
the everyday."7
(Emphasis in original.) That is, the arts, in
unique ways, "make special." Other ways
of expressing this idea are that the arts exist
to make the seemingly ordinary extraordinary,
or to make the seemingly insignificant significant.
Whatever other values the arts bestow, their distinctiveness
as a valuable human endeavor is their powerful
capacity to accomplish such transformations.
Adopting this idea
as one useful way (among others) to regard the
arts, we can express the distinctiveness, or uniqueness,
of music as being its use of sounds to accomplish
its task of "making special." In music,
sounds, so constant and useful in human contact
with the ordinary world, become "special,"
extraordinary, and significant, transforming the
commonplace into what is remarkable. As philosopher
of the arts Francis Sparshott puts it, "It
is more nearly true of music than it is of anything
else that it offers an alternative reality and
an alternative way of being."8
Sounds created to provide an alternative sense
of meaning, or an alternative sense of significance,
are an essential ingredient if the result is to
be regarded as "music."
This constitutes
both the power of music and its limitations. Music
cannot do what, for example, poetry, or painting,
or dance, or theatre, or film can do, although
it can contribute to them. Similarly, none of
the other arts can do what music can do, although
the other arts can be allied with music in a variety
of ways.9
Whenever sounds, by themselves or as an integral
component, are being used to "make special"—to
achieve significance—music is doing what
it does, offering its values in its unique way.
This foundational idea will be assumed throughout
this paper.
Five dimensions,
or aspects, of music will be identified as a way
to organize the numerous values claimed for music,
and to emphasize that many (but not all) of them
can be considered to be complementary. Each dimension
calls attention to a wide range of musical values
related by similarity of focus. No assumption
is being made that these five exhaust all possibilities,
although they do claim to be important aspects
of music's value. They also serve as an example
for how other dimensions can be identified and
explained by those interested in doing so.
This dimension of
musical value focuses on the question "where
does one go to find whatever is of value about
music?" One location of musical value recognized
throughout history is within music itself—within
the sounds of music as every culture creates and
shares them. In this view, the experience of musical
sounds, whether through composing them, performing
them (in this paper the term performing will refer
to the performance of composed music), improvising
them (which requires a substantially different
set of competencies from performing composed music),
or listening to them, as well as associated involvements
such as conducting, arranging, sound engineering,
moving, and so forth as various cultures provide
them, is taken to be, in and of itself, the end,
or purpose, of music’s existence.
The difficulty with
the "music as an end in itself" view
has always been to explain just why sounds, arranged
in ways cultures deem appropriate, are valuable
for people. That they are indeed valuable—often
supremely valuable—is evident. Cultures
have often, even routinely, regarded their music
as a profoundly important dimension of their identity,
to be protected and treasured, in and of itself,
as among their greatest achievements. But why
are musical sounds, which are, after all, just
sounds, so deeply valued?
As explained in
the Introduction, it is unlikely that any single
reason will adequately account for the high value
humans have always held for musical experience
itself. Yet several reasons have been taken very
seriously over the centuries, and remain convincing,
or at least credible, among those who pursue this
matter professionally. As Wayne Bowman puts it
in his detailed and exhaustive book on the subject,
Just what is music?
And what is its significance or importance? Or,
more concisely yet, What is the nature and value
of music? These seemingly simple questions have
generated, and indeed continue to generate, an
astonishing array of responses. But amidst the
striking diversity there do exist discernible
patterns, convergences of perspective, recurrent
disputes and problems.10
In the discussions
of dimensions of musical value following this
one on music as end and means, an attempt will
be made to explain some of the influential convergences
of beliefs about the values of musical experience.
Enhancing the musical experience has been and
remains a central justification for the need for
both music education and for professional music
educators. Creating musical sounds through composing,
performing, and improvising them, and sharing
their meanings through listening to them, are
among the most challenging and satisfying endeavors
in which humans choose to engage themselves. To
assist with those challenges, and to heighten
those satisfactions, requires high levels of expertise,
both in music itself and in the teaching of it.
Music educators are those professionals whose
expertise has been, is, and no doubt will continue
to be, primarily devoted to those values that
musical experiences themselves characteristically
satisfy.
A different view
about musical value is that it exists as something
separate and distinct from musical experience
itself. Involvements with music serve as a means,
or instrumentality, for achieving a variety of
associated values. Here the focus is not on the
experience of musical sounds themselves, but on
the effects music may be said to have as an enhancement
of or influence on some other activity.
The problem with
the "music as means" view has always
been to explain how it is that musical sounds
can cause the enormous number of effects that
have been claimed for them throughout history.
Many of those effects are claimed entirely out
of faith, with little or no evidence that the
cause-effect relationship actually occurs. Some
effects seem to be substantiated by reliable evidence.
But how do sounds, which are, after all, just
sounds, cause the claimed effects?
An important distinction
must be made here, a distinction seldom given
adequate attention. There is a crucial difference
between the many positive consequences resulting
from involvement with musical experience itself,
and the use of music as a means to secure values
not dependent on musical experience itself. Consequences
of musical experience, in addition to the sheer
pleasure and fulfillment brought about by creating
and sharing musical sounds, include the sense
of deepened individuality it yields, the societal
beliefs it enables to be embodied and shared,
the breadth and depth of feelings it adds to our
inner lives, the awareness we gain of both the
universality and cultural specificity of the human
condition, the dimension of depth (or "specialness")
it adds to our experience of life, the fulfillment
of an inborn capacity to create and share the
meanings expressive sounds afford, and on and
on with the many values attained as a consequence
of being involved with the sounds of music.
Using music as a
means, to the contrary, focuses on producing outcomes
unrelated to the quality and depth of musical
experience itself. For example, the claim has
been strongly made recently that certain involvements
with music enhance spatial-temporal reasoning
abilities. The enhancements are not a consequence
of deeper musical experience as defined here.
They are results of particular opportunities some
music and some involvements with music provide
to manipulate patterns similar in some ways to
the patterns underlying spatial-temporal reasoning
tasks. The high value our society holds for spatial-temporal
reasoning can then become the reason music should
be valued—for its utility as a means to
achieve that particular result. The implications
for music education practice of pursuing this
value would be far-reaching, in transforming its
focus on learnings related to musical experience,
such as the National Standards for music education
define,11
to a focus on only those activities pertinent
to improving spatial-temporal reasoning.12
The example above
yields a criterion for distinguishing among values
for music as an end or as a means. To the degree
a claimed value is dependent upon and a consequence
of involvement in the ways music is experienced
and learned, such as the Standards represent,
it can reasonably be identified as an end of musical
involvement. To the degree the attainment of a
value suggests or requires that musical learnings
and involvements be altered in the direction of
that value, weakening or eliminating musical learning
and experience, it can justifiably be regarded
as focused on music as a means.13
In many if not most
cases, the values claimed for music as a means,
no matter how farfetched they might seem to be,
and as unrelated to musical experience they might
seem to be, are assumed to occur naturally from
musical learnings, musical involvements, and musical
experiences. There is usually no intent that the
musical focus or content of such learnings, involvements,
and experiences be weakened in pursuit of the
claimed value. In such cases the value(s) claimed
may be considered to be complementary to those
of music as an end, adding still other benefits
to those resulting as consequences of musical
experience.
Music educators
are fortunate that the pursuit of musical learnings
seems to enhance a variety of positive complementary
values: this provides additional arguments for
the value of music education. Judgments have to
be made as to the ever-present risk that pursuing
such values would require significant changes
in the focus of the music program. In cases where
no risk is evident, or where accommodation to
these values can be made with little change to
a musically focused program, it is likely to be
to the advantage of music education to be gracious
and positive in embracing them. When music is
forced to serve ends incompatible with the values
of musical learning, professional expertise to
deal with the issue must be brought into play.
Fortunately, such conflicts of values seldom occur.
The remainder of
this paper will be devoted to an explanation of
significant values of musical experiences and
the positive consequences such experiences bring
about.
|
