Posted by js - rethought on December 20, 2003 at 01:13:46:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Teaching and reality posted by js on December 19, 2003 at 18:47:25:
Over the years, it has occurred to me that it is a bit odd that we - as a society - have decided that 18-year-olds are old enough to take bullets in their skulls and have their guts and appendages blown off but...
...not old enough to decide exactly what they want to "be"...(??)
Sure, it's OK at any point in ones' life to change one's goals and re-direct, but I also believe that there should be a point (and fairly early on) at which one has to stand up and say, "Right now, I'm going to work to become a __________________".
The whole studio teacher/education major thing has always seemed strange to me.
1/ Band directors don't go out into the world and teach students one-on-one (at least not very much - not in 50 minutes with 50 - 100 in the "classroom"), yet an extremely large part of the band directors' own musical training is being taught one-on-one.
2/ I believe that anyone who states "performance" as their preferred profession/major should demonstrate extreme aptitude towards this profession particularly if they are to pursue this profession/major in a government school.
3/ Those who declare "music education" as their major should clearly not be allowed to take this course of study as a "just in case I don't get a symphony gig" type of pursuit. Music education should be a strenuous and highly-respected pursuit (not a "backup" pursuit), and just as strenous as a performance pursuit.
4/ Instrumental music education majors should not have a declared "major instrument" (What for???) and should not be taught one-on-one in studios. Rather than (as the way it typically is done now) instrumental music education students being taught one semester each of "woodwinds", "brass", "percussion", and "strings", these students should be required to take a one semester (EACH) class in "flute", "clarinet", "saxophone", "bassoon", "oboe", "trumpet", "horn", "trombone-baritone" (sorry), "tuba", "untuned percussion", "tuned percussion", "violin-viola", "cello-bass", and four semesters of "piano" should be required with acceptable proficiency and a written exam on all individual instrument semesters. These classes could and should be taught by the studio teachers, but as classes, not one-on-one. Yes, I absolutely believe that band directors should also be teachers who "can". Further, "Departments of Education" should be done away with, and more practical instruction geared (truly) towards controlling, disciplining, and teaching teenagers - along with how to deal with disappointments that come with being a young band director, how to effectively run a rehearsal, etc., etc. - should be instated in curricula. Further, at least two half-day semesters and one full-day semesters of student teaching should be required. ...' take too long to graduate in four years? That isn't my problem. "My" problem is the high percentage of deplorable high school band directors (particularly) in urban school bands across the country. Perhaps if more high school band directors were like some of the "lucky" amongst us (who have/had outstanding band directors teaching us), more symphony orchestras today would be prospering - due to INTEREST AND ENTHUSIASM IN THE ARTS, rather than folding.
As to "getting personal" and hurting folks feelings...Again, I think I made it clear that the person individually mentioned is a shining example, and that there are far too few like him. Every studio teacher should be one who "can" (like, obviously Mr. Zerkel), and not just one who sits and teaches. Every studio teacher should be one whose services are in such demand that they must determine ways to eliminate applicants for their studios, rather than "recruit" applicants for their studios.
Yes, I believe there are far too many government schools of music with far too low levels of standards for entry (and exit), and I believe there are far too many studio teachers in these far too many government schools of music. The government should serve the needs of those whose toils fund the pursuits of the government. Each government school performance major (as, again, funding comes from the taxpayers) should have a place to go and be a taxpaying performer, once these students complete their training.
I don't believe it is the place of government to - at the expense of taxpayers - jam "art" down the throats of its constituents anymore that it is the place of government to jam "basketball arenas" and "football stadiums" down the throats of its constituents. It is the right of the people to "pursue happiness", and it is clearly not the duty of the government to decide which happinesses we are to pursue at others' expense.
Finally, taxing and taxing and taxing to create more and more and more folks who will not find jobs in their trained profession (classical music performance) takes away more and more and more money from the very wealthy. It is simply not at all debatable that the very wealthy pay the vast majority of all taxes. Again, if we are going to further and further tax the very wealthy (those most likely to attend classical music concerts and endow symphony orchestras) we are feeding symphony orchestras more and more potential employees (government schools studio-taught performance majors) while at the same time seriously cutting off potential funding for symphony orchestras by reducing the buying power of their potential constituencies through heavy taxation....It just doesn't work that way.
As to private studies, as far as I am concerned, if students or their parents wish to pursue their dreams at their own expense (as opposed to at the unwitting or begrudged expense of others), all power to them. They have the absolute right to do so.