Posted by Eric Knechtges on June 26, 2000 at 09:35:21:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Everything I ever needed to know... posted by Steve Dedman on June 24, 2000 at 08:53:59:
As a current participant in a "Philosophy of Music Education" course, I can shed some light on this.
Although we may THINK that the non-musical arguments appeal most to the administration (e.g. "music improves math scores", "music encourages teamwork", etc.), consider this. If we are advocating music for how much it increases math scores -- why not cut music and put that money into the math program? Or sports? Or other avenues which realistically will have much more of an impact in the non-musical areas than music can ever do?
Those are merely ancillary benefits of music. Did ANY of YOU get into music and stay in music because you thought it would improve your math scores? Is that ALL that we want the youth of today to get out of music?
Music is SO much more than that -- we all know this. We stay in music because there is an appeal to the "feeling" side of human nature (I use this term pejoratively, since English doesn't really have an adequate word to express it). We stay in it because it is an entirely unique experience, a WONDERFUL experience, that we can't get through anything else. And while we can DESCRIBE this experience in words, we really can't give a full taste of it in words, because if we could do that, then we wouldn't need music.
If we can make the AESTHETIC and ARTISTIC arguments convincing, and convince the administration that being in music is a unique experience unparalleled by anything else -- THAT will be the most convincing argument to the administration in schools, and THAT will be the argument that will keep them from cutting music programs.
My $.02 -- keep the change.
Eric