... resources >> colloquia >> VII

VII Colloquium: April 30 - May 2, 1999:
The University of Washington, Seattle, WA
"Can Music Teachers Influence a Culture's Musical Life?"


...on Teaching Pigs to Sing
Jere T Humphreys
School of Music; Arizona State University; Tempe, Arizona 85287-0405

The MayDay Group's Action Ideal No. 3 deals with formal music education as it affects individual and collective human values. Action Ideal 3d consists of two parts. The first part, "How can the profession undertake a sustained campaign to reenergize musical life in society?", is a "how" question predicated on the assumption that society's musical life needs to be reenergized. I believe that we should examine this assumption before we discuss the "how's."

The second part of the question, "How can the profession . . . expand the contribution of music to life?", is also a "how" question. We should examine one of its underlying premises also. That is, do we music educators really want to expand music's contributions to society, or could it be that what we really want is to change the nature of those contributions?

These two assumptions--that society's musical life needs to be reenergized and that such reenergization would consist of expanding music's contributions to life--are closely linked, so I will address both together in this brief essay. I will leave aside the question of which society, since we could argue that the use of the singular form of the noun "society" probably vastly oversimplifies the "how" aspect of this part of the third Action Ideal--not to mention philosophical differences between societies that would probably arise were different societies to take up such questions.

I would like to challenge the notion that musical life in, say, North America needs to be reenergized. Arguably, a smaller percentage of people actually performs music today than in some earlier periods. Undoubtedly, a smaller proportion of the population makes its living as professional or semi-professional musicians than in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. However, during truly pioneering days, such as in Puritan New England and homesteading times in Oklahoma and Alaska, there were few, if any, professional musicians. Approximately twenty-five percent of Americans claim to perform music today, which is probably a smaller figure than in some, but certainly not all, previous eras.

If we include music listening, the picture changes dramatically. A survey of two hundred Arizona State University non-music major undergraduates revealed an average of more than six hours per day spent listening to music.1 Other researchers have found that teenagers in grades seven through twelve listen to rock music more than thirty hours per week, which amounts to more than 10,000 hours of rock during those years.2 It is improbable that people other than professional musicians of any era before the development and widespread use of playback technological devices spent that much time involved with music.

Just as it is true that relatively few people today perform music, it is also true that most listeners do not concentrate solely on the music while listening; indeed, the reverse is probably true: most people seem to spend relatively little time listening to music while doing nothing else. However, who says that music participation must be an exclusive activity? And who says that it has to occur in a concert hall?

Allen Britton took issue with those who criticized the American Puritans for being unmusical when all evidence suggests that they practiced music frequently and with enthusiasm. Academic musicians have discounted the Puritans' musical lives because of their failure to support opera companies and the like.3 I would add that their very simple music led to such characterizations also. Similarly, I have noted the failure of Edward Bailey Birge, among others, to treat various aspects of the history of American school music that did not conform to his notion of what mattered in the world of serious music.4 We music educators do the same thing when we make the assumption that musical life should be reenergized. There is more music around us than ever before. Paul Haack wrote about the "pervasiveness of music in our culture. [He suggested that] if beings from another galaxy were monitoring our airwaves, they would quickly conclude that we are a species that talks for the first five minutes of each hour, mostly about grizzly [sic] happenings and the weather, and communicates with music much of the rest of the time."5

So, what do we really mean when we say that we want to reenergize music in society? Music is already present in large quantities. Could it be that what we really want is to change people's musical experiences qualitatively--to change the nature of those experiences? If so, I think we should admit it before moving on to try to answer that question--because the "how" answers would be very different if we truly seek to change the "what's" and not the "how much's."

Curricular music education evolved not from well-thought-out plans on the part of educators, music and otherwise, but rather from the perceived needs of society and the models at hand. School bands modeled after military, professional, and town bands; school choirs modeled after church choirs and choral societies; and school orchestras modeled after professional and amateur orchestras. General music teachers, beginning with Lowell Mason, modeled after singing schools. Nineteenth-century general music teachers sought to teach children how to sing at home, in their communities, and in churches.6

Eventually, the Music Teachers National Association, the Music Educators National Conference (MENC), and a few smaller organizations and associations tried to impose some degree of order and control over the K-12 music curriculum, generally to little success. Instead, series textbooks in general music and published compositions and arrangements for school ensemble use constituted the curriculum in many, if not most, school music programs, and they continue to do so today.

In recent times, we have seen the proponents of an aesthetic philosophy of music education seek to prescribe what should be taught and learned. We also have seen proponents of the fifty songs that every American should know and be able to sing, not to mention the standards movement, which the MENC and some individuals have embraced so enthusiastically. I believe that in attempting to prescribe what should be taught, we are, in a sense, "trying to teach pigs to sing" in that singing is not for everyone, and certainly not those particular songs. Similarly, playing in a band is not for everyone either.

Plato wrote The Republic as a critique of the Greek, mainly Athenian, school system.7 His was a time of declining fortunes in the Greek political system, which was called the Hellenic League. Plato sought to influence, or control, the curriculum because he was afraid during those dark times--a time so dangerous that his famous teacher had been forced to drink hemlock. During times of significant change, leaders and would-be leaders emerge to exert control over crucial aspects of society. As such times, people are more willing to accept the control of others because of their own fears. I believe that we are now in such a time of great change in education, especially in the United States. At the least, we now see a large number of people and groups, relative to historic standards, seeking control over the educational system. However, the dangers to society may be more perceived than real, and rank-and-file people do not seem extremely eager to allow the system to be controlled by others. For that matter, we do not really know to what extent, if any, the Athenian schools changed as a result of Plato's critiques. After all, what philosophers advocate and what really happens are not always one and the same, right?

So, what does cause change in education? For one, historians of education have found evidence of business influences on schooling dating from the sixteenth century.8 In the nineteenth century, one-room schools that mirrored the American agrarian economic system were replaced by "common" schools based on Industrial Revolution models. Beginning in the nineteenth century and continuing throughout the twentieth, schools began to resemble factories, and they certainly continue to operate like them. School boards operate like boards of directors, superintendents like chief executive officers (CEO's), principals like managers, and teachers like workers. Student learning is supposed to be the product, and what students are supposed to learn is determined by the boards of directors and implemented by the CEO's, managers, and workers. The entire enterprise is driven largely by the perceived needs of the workplace. Increasingly, curriculum is prescribed for the workers, and school scheduling practices implemented by the managers rival those found in the most regimented factory.

In music education, the ensemble configuration also mirrors the hierarchical, leader-follower model set forth by Industrial Revolution businesses and the military. But the business world is changing. It is fast moving away from hierarchical models and into small think-tanks and other small groups that produce new ideas and processes, as well as more and newer tangible products.

This leaves the music ensemble and its conductor as anachronisms in today's world. Even ship captains and airline pilots wield less power than do conductors. The modern-day conductor--the ultimate phallic symbol, by the way--holds one of the most nearly dictatorial positions of absolute control that remains in our contemporary society. The ensemble players (workers) are told when to work and exactly how to work, including how fast to do their work, how loud to do it, and even when to breathe, the latter of which surely must be a unique phenomenon in today's world.

I see the standards movement as a last-gasp attempt by some to control and maintain that control over the schools. The testing and evaluation movement--of students, teachers, and schools--is simply more of the same. At first glance, the standards movement seems like the ultimate irony, because of the major shifts now occurring in the business model. In addition to small unit-groups, private entrepreneurship is rising rapidly. The irony can be explained when we recognize that what causes such control tactics is fear--fear of change and of the unknown. The rapidly changing economic system, the so-called global economy, generates this fear, which results in more efforts to control. So, at just about the time the old Industrial Revolution model began to crumble in the business world, efforts were redoubled to complete the cycle in education by imposing standards (curriculum) and enforcement of the prescribed outcomes (student learning). I predict that this last-gasp attempt at control over education will fail miserably. Indeed, education must once again try to catch up with the business world and give students and teachers more choices in what they learn and teach.

Social psychologists have discovered correlations between the degree and longevity of stable democratic governments and the reported happiness of the citizens. The same appears to be true for individuals within societies.9

In music, most conductors appear to live long, self-satisfied lives, while orchestral musicians report lower levels of job satisfaction than does the average American worker. Given the disparities in the amount of personal control between conductors and performers, the disparity in job satisfaction is not surprising either. Indeed, sense of personal control is a strong predictor of a positive attitude on life, according to social psychology researchers.10

It should also be self-evident that people tend to perform best when they get to do what they want. If schools were to require only things that are truly necessary--basic, if you will--there would be room in every student's schedule to take other things. This brings me to a few answers to the "how" questions posed in Action Ideal No. 3.

Signs of change in the new direction are evident in education. Paralleling the attempts at control manifested in the guise of the standards movement are such phenomena as the home school and the alternative school movements, which are challenging traditional schools in some locales. Arizona leads the nation in the number of charter schools, with well over two hundred in operation today. The motivations for establishing these schools run the gamut from ideological biases against government-sponsored enterprises to a sincere belief in the value of competition between organizations, including schools. Indeed, it has been said that the main reason for the international success of the American university system is competition between institutions--for money, faculty, and students.

Regardless of the motivations, charter schools are providing alternatives to traditional schools. These schools have their own problems. In Arizona, for example, they can hire uncertified, inexperienced teachers, a practice that flies in the face of extensive educational research evidence on the positive effects of teacher training and experience on student test scores. Nevertheless, the charter schools are creating an environment of competition--with the traditional schools and with each other.

In music, we are blessed with probably the most inherently appealing subject of all. There are two fine arts charter high schools in Phoenix alone. The great fear among arts educators is that the existence of fine arts schools will let traditional schools off the curricular "hook" in the realm of arts education. I suggest that instead of worrying so much about trying to force all schools to adopt "our" arts standards, that we demonstrate music's power to motivate students to do well in music and in life. Some colleagues and I are examining a large nationally representative data set. We are finding higher grades for middle school students enrolled in music ensembles and those not enrolled, even after controlling for socioeconomic status. I predict that we will find other correlations between music participation and academic performance, social behavior, and emotional-psychological well-being. Although we will never be able to prove causality through these research methods, preliminary results seem to point strongly in that direction.

If we would concern ourselves more with things we can do rather than trying to control the curriculum, we would begin to see positive results. I believe that our school ensemble programs have been successful--up to a point. But the success they have achieved did not result from curricular mandates; rather, these ensembles have demonstrated their power to attract and retain literally millions of students. To those who view these programs negatively, I would ask, "What would we have had without them?" The answer, probably, is "Not much, if anything." The strong controller-controllee relationship in school ensembles is not necessarily negative, in that it does provide some sense of community and accomplishment among adolescent participants during some crucial formative years, and the experience lasts only for a few years. By contrast, adult ensembles, such as the New Horizon groups, operate under a much less dictatorial system than do traditional bands, choirs, and orchestras.

Therefore, I see now as the time to move on with our curricular offerings, while not necessarily destroying the only curricular model for music that has worked in the United States: the ensembles, which are program of attraction. Instead of attacking and destroying what has been and remains a very good thing indeed, we should build on what we have learned and expand into other areas of music.

Until the schools abandon the outmoded industrial model, options open to music educators will remain somewhat limited, but not completely so. Music educators must provide numerous alternatives that will attract more students voluntarily. Until the schools change, many of these new programs will have to take place outside of school hours. This is nothing new, in that many school music programs already operate partially or entirely outside the school day. Programs that spill over outside the school day should be viewed with interest, regardless of content or the various ideologies behind them. Simply put, we are not likely to gain significant increases in curriculum time for music or the other arts. We could offer new classes, like composition, especially with the now-available technology that requires no knowledge of notation on the part of students. We could offer a vast array of courses in popular and ethnic musics of all kinds.

Some of these courses and activities could bring the communities into the schools, and visa versa. Some could overlap with other subject areas, like dance, painting, and almost anything else. What we do in and through music education simply does not have to be unique to music education. As a cultural phenomenon, music interacts with other human activities and with people themselves in ways that we cannot begin to fathom. Music is not and never will be primarily a concert-hall activity, with musical works and composers residing on lofty pedestals for us mortals to contemplate, study, and revere.

Rather than trying to force curricular mandates in the guise of standards, we should simply look around and make lists and detailed descriptions of successful alternative approaches now in use, not only in this country, but throughout the world. Approaches that generate the most enthusiasm among students, teachers, parents, and community residents could and should be tried elsewhere.

Rather than giving music educators "tricks that click" in the form of teaching methods and means of implementing the standards, we should offer them videotaped and oral and written evidence of teaching materials and techniques that have been and are being used successfully elsewhere. Music educators could then choose from a wide array of alternatives, depending on the needs and interests of their students and communities and their own personal interests and skill sets.

Some of us can remember when all telephones were black, and some may even remember when the same was true of automobiles. The United States Postal Service is no longer the only postal carrier available. People dress differently from each other now, and even my small hometown in Tennessee boasts several kinds of ethnic restaurant--a far cry from the days when a couple of cafes reigned.

I can think of no other aspect of life today, at least in the so-called first-world countries, that operates in as a monopolistic way as do our public schools. The charter schools attract students because people want change and they want variety. This is happening despite the poor quality of instruction offered in many of those schools. If historical and current trends mean anything at all, it should be abundantly clear that our present monopolistic educational system will change radically in the not-too-distant future.

Alvin Toffler was right about nearly everything in Future Shock,11 but even he did not envision the extent of diversity now available in good and services. Surely, the schools will not escape this avalanche of change. We music educators could position ourselves for these changes--and better ourselves, our students, and our communities now as well--if we would "get out of the box" and try some new and interesting things. Some pigs like to sing, and others would like to sing if they were taught correctly, to be sure. But others never will like to sing and will continue to be annoyed and to waste their teachers' time, so to speak. There are alternatives for those other pigs. It is our job to find them.

There is plenty of musical life in society today, especially listening. If we want to move that energy and those resources to high art music, we are in for tough sledding, I would say. If we want more energy through active participation in music as opposed to listening, or if we want "active listening," whatever that is, we will have to do something that appeals to students and adults, things that somehow engage them and makes them want to take what they learn in school and extend it into their lives outside of school. Regardless, we must further examine our own motives and desires that underlie the questions about reenergizing musical life in society posed in Action Ideal No. 3 before we can even begin to address those "how" questions. Only then will we be able to teach all the pigs to sing, or whatever it is they want to do.

References

1. Unreported data from Dimitrije Buzarovski, Jere T. Humphreys, and Barrie Wells, "College Students' Attitudes Toward Music," PMEA Bulletin of Research in Music Education 21 (Fall 1995/96): 20-42.

2. A study conducted by a committee of the American Medical Association, "Adolescents and Their Music," Journal of the American Medical Association, September 22, 1989; cited in Paul Haack, "Toward a Socio/Functional Music Education," in On the Sociology of Music Education, Roger Rideout, ed. (Norman, OK: School of Music, University of Oklahoma, 1997), 91.

3. Allen P Britton, "Music in Early American Public Education: A Historical Critique," in Basic Concepts in Music Education, Fifty-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, Nelson B. Henry, ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), 199.

4. Jere T Humphreys, "Expanding the Horizons of Music Education History and Sociology," The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning 7 (1996/97): 8-9.

5. Haack, 91. [Emphasis in original]

6. Jere T Humphreys, "Instrumental Music in American Education: In Service of Many Masters," in The Ithaca Conference on American Music Education: Centennial Profiles, Mark Fonder, ed. (Ithaca, NY: Ithaca College, 1992); reprinted in Journal of Band Research 30 (Spring 1995): 39-45. [Page citations are to the reprint version.]

7. Plato, The Republic, Benjamin Jowett, trans. (New York: Limited Editions Club, 1944).

8. R Freeman Butts, A Cultural History of Western Education: Its Social and Intellectual Foundations, 2d ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1955), 199.

9. David G Myers, The Pursuit of Happiness: Who is Happy--and Why (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1992), 115-16.

10. Ibid., 108.

11. Alvin Toffler, Future Shock (New York: Random House, 1970).