This is directed to my follower and professor, but I'm actually making this a rather general post that regards both Lucy Green's experiment (Music, Informal Learning and the School) and the Paul Hamlyn Foundation's report (Musical Futures).
Even though I embrace the idea as a good one, I feel like one of those "control freak" teachers brought up by Green when more thoroughly thinking through and examining the methods described in both texts. I guess it's the fact that I'm so used to agendas and plans - and, given that I am used to IEPs and the like, I have difficulty branching out from the idea. Not at all saying that such methods are bad, but my reservation stems from Green's "pseudo-plan" (to coin a term, I guess). Musical Futures provides a greater amount of detail in regards to schedules and plans, but it still emphasizes student leadership and peer learning. What makes their methods incredibly different, however, is that the authors of Musical Futures encourage teacher involvement - to quote page 49: "Don’t be afraid of playing yourself – it can help to clarify what you’re
saying, and students like hearing something that impresses them." The second difference is that Green puts students right into the deep end, as she calls it, and has the students free-form, while the authors of Musical Futures want to ease students into the project.
If it were possible for me to formulate enough planning power in this tired noggin of mine, I'd try to find a way of marrying these two extraordinarily different programs - or at least use elements from each that would ultimately help the students stay motivated and creative.
~~~~~
Other news - hopeful job offer received this weekend. Turns out there weren't any openings locally with TakeLesson (best buy program) but there's a few openings in an HISD program related to math.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
A response to the idea of garage bands being the future model of music-making
Let's face it - we have twinks coming in and getting popular through their parents' money and Youtube. We're getting used to the idea, this classic model of the teacher/mentor/parent/hired gun doing everything for the student and the student getting full credit for it, as it were. It's high time that the student be told "Here's a guitar. Here's how you hold it, and this is a strumming motion ... and a picking motion. You're on your own from here."
Granted, that's a bit off topic, but i got minimal help from Mr. M------ for working with Garageband, compared to how much i ultimately learned on my own.
If we are to let students grow in their potential, they need to be given the tools, the basic information, and be told "let's see what you can do within a given amount of time." Essentially, the garage rock band setting is just this - where the players play off of (or for) each other to test sounds, see what they learn, and find what else they can do. If the student needs help, of course it's a good idea to step in and teach, if necessary, new techniques and ways to do things a little bit easier. The idea of a teacher/apprentice relationship in the group is necessary in order to pass on ideas, but this can be accomplished without the direct aid (perhaps, rather, the supervision?) of a music educator. To borrow from Lucy Green, the idea of a teacher/apprentice relationship between peers is possible, no matter if a completely formal or casual practice, in various jam sessions and rehearsals (2002, p. 76). The basic problem in the classroom, when instructing about music, is that we, as educators, restrict the definition of music. To quote Edgard Varese, music is nothing more than "organized sound" and it needs to be truly recognized as such. Even if we don't like a particular genre, the fact is that music is relative. To quote Westerlund's article and summary of Green's research, "popular musicians make apposite descriptions of their classical instrumental lessons, reminding music educators how controlled, progressively proceeding learning can be experienced as alienating" (2006). In other words, sometimes spontaneity is the answer. But that spontaneity needs to generate ideas - otherwise, it won't work.
What if we allowed orchestra members to do a jam session?
What's possible if we let the choir sing what they will and tell them to actively listen to other ideas?
We might have more influences from popular music if that happens, but sometimes it's better to create a fusion of organized sounds. But in order for that to happen, educators need to first CREATE an environment that will allow spontaneity and creativity - perhaps new instruments or tech. More sources to work with. Whatever works!
~~~~~
Far as getting a new computer to make music, i'm still HILARIOUSLY short of that goal. : / Still looking for a ruddy JOB.
And yet i'm listening to more acid (genre) music to find more sounds to work with. The BNR Trax release "Super Acid" has provided some ideas and a lot of them are good. Heck, spoke to a friend recently about trying to do a live version of "Never Stop" by Gonzales (you may have heard of it as "That annoying song you heard so many times on the Apple commercials," but Apple's video/sound editors do major injustice to the song, which is a work in slight phasing and Terry Riley-isms) with the local high school orchestra and our computers. i think it'd be fun. Speaking of looking into things that might work (see above), i find it hilarious that i got that particular riff from "YMCA" stuck in my head as a workable idea. Dammit, it's stuck there now.
Granted, that's a bit off topic, but i got minimal help from Mr. M------ for working with Garageband, compared to how much i ultimately learned on my own.
If we are to let students grow in their potential, they need to be given the tools, the basic information, and be told "let's see what you can do within a given amount of time." Essentially, the garage rock band setting is just this - where the players play off of (or for) each other to test sounds, see what they learn, and find what else they can do. If the student needs help, of course it's a good idea to step in and teach, if necessary, new techniques and ways to do things a little bit easier. The idea of a teacher/apprentice relationship in the group is necessary in order to pass on ideas, but this can be accomplished without the direct aid (perhaps, rather, the supervision?) of a music educator. To borrow from Lucy Green, the idea of a teacher/apprentice relationship between peers is possible, no matter if a completely formal or casual practice, in various jam sessions and rehearsals (2002, p. 76). The basic problem in the classroom, when instructing about music, is that we, as educators, restrict the definition of music. To quote Edgard Varese, music is nothing more than "organized sound" and it needs to be truly recognized as such. Even if we don't like a particular genre, the fact is that music is relative. To quote Westerlund's article and summary of Green's research, "popular musicians make apposite descriptions of their classical instrumental lessons, reminding music educators how controlled, progressively proceeding learning can be experienced as alienating" (2006). In other words, sometimes spontaneity is the answer. But that spontaneity needs to generate ideas - otherwise, it won't work.
What if we allowed orchestra members to do a jam session?
What's possible if we let the choir sing what they will and tell them to actively listen to other ideas?
We might have more influences from popular music if that happens, but sometimes it's better to create a fusion of organized sounds. But in order for that to happen, educators need to first CREATE an environment that will allow spontaneity and creativity - perhaps new instruments or tech. More sources to work with. Whatever works!
~~~~~
Far as getting a new computer to make music, i'm still HILARIOUSLY short of that goal. : / Still looking for a ruddy JOB.
And yet i'm listening to more acid (genre) music to find more sounds to work with. The BNR Trax release "Super Acid" has provided some ideas and a lot of them are good. Heck, spoke to a friend recently about trying to do a live version of "Never Stop" by Gonzales (you may have heard of it as "That annoying song you heard so many times on the Apple commercials," but Apple's video/sound editors do major injustice to the song, which is a work in slight phasing and Terry Riley-isms) with the local high school orchestra and our computers. i think it'd be fun. Speaking of looking into things that might work (see above), i find it hilarious that i got that particular riff from "YMCA" stuck in my head as a workable idea. Dammit, it's stuck there now.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
I find it hilarious, there being so many rhythm games these days.
One of the assigned readings stuck out - dated as it was, bringing up Guitar Hero 2, the newsweek article brought up an excellent question.
DOES playing rhythm games such as Guitar/DJ Hero dumb down the idea of musicianship?
In my opinion, absolutely not, and with good reason.
There's a specific reason i call Guitar Hero a rhythm game. There is essentially no musicianship or musical skill involved. All the original game is (before drums were involved) revolves around 5 colored buttons acting as frets, a strum bar, and a whammy bar (the last of which only helps so much for getting combos). The game is in the timing, not the virtuosity. Only recently has actual musicianship come into play, thanks to rival series Rock Band (which added a drum and, eventually, a keyboard and more realistic frets), but the game does not go very far, itself. Real instruments bring real experience.
Video games are, at their roots, fantasy. Nothing really gets rid of that fantasy aspect, even in educational games, because nothing truly replaces a real teacher or mentor. To continue the idea of why video games aren't good teachers of anything except maybe hand-eye coordination, let's look at the video game Dance Dance Revolution, or DDR (ironically, the game for which the makers of Guitar Hero, RedOctane, made dance pads).
DDR is a dance/rhythm game. It consists of an elaborate arcade set-up of a raised metal platform with 2 pads, 4 directional arrows per pad, either for 2 players or one person with a really big sugar rush to work off. The game really cannot be considered a dance game due to the fact that, though the music is more fit for the dance floor, the actions of the game are mere stomps to a rhythmic cue. DDR doesn't at all give the impression that people will know how to dance after playing the game. The original Guitar hero was holding down one or more buttons while hitting a strumming mechanism. It's still nowhere near how to play a guitar. I will link a VGCats comic regarding this game and, while in a crude manner, the artist states that rhythm games are not a replacement for actual guitar skill and that it is only a video game.
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=230
DOES playing rhythm games such as Guitar/DJ Hero dumb down the idea of musicianship?
In my opinion, absolutely not, and with good reason.
There's a specific reason i call Guitar Hero a rhythm game. There is essentially no musicianship or musical skill involved. All the original game is (before drums were involved) revolves around 5 colored buttons acting as frets, a strum bar, and a whammy bar (the last of which only helps so much for getting combos). The game is in the timing, not the virtuosity. Only recently has actual musicianship come into play, thanks to rival series Rock Band (which added a drum and, eventually, a keyboard and more realistic frets), but the game does not go very far, itself. Real instruments bring real experience.
Video games are, at their roots, fantasy. Nothing really gets rid of that fantasy aspect, even in educational games, because nothing truly replaces a real teacher or mentor. To continue the idea of why video games aren't good teachers of anything except maybe hand-eye coordination, let's look at the video game Dance Dance Revolution, or DDR (ironically, the game for which the makers of Guitar Hero, RedOctane, made dance pads).
DDR is a dance/rhythm game. It consists of an elaborate arcade set-up of a raised metal platform with 2 pads, 4 directional arrows per pad, either for 2 players or one person with a really big sugar rush to work off. The game really cannot be considered a dance game due to the fact that, though the music is more fit for the dance floor, the actions of the game are mere stomps to a rhythmic cue. DDR doesn't at all give the impression that people will know how to dance after playing the game. The original Guitar hero was holding down one or more buttons while hitting a strumming mechanism. It's still nowhere near how to play a guitar. I will link a VGCats comic regarding this game and, while in a crude manner, the artist states that rhythm games are not a replacement for actual guitar skill and that it is only a video game.
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=230
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)