Annotated Bibliographies
Aidan Witvoet
Dr. Cathy Benedict
1800A
25 September 2016
Questioning Normalcy
Serres, Drew. (2013). Think Everything’s “Normal?” Then It’s Time To Reconsider And Promote A New Narrative Of Disability. Organizing Change. Retrieved from http://organizingchange.org/think-everythings-normal-then-its-time-to-reconsider-and-promote-a-new-narrative-of-disability/
Drew Serres discusses the important subject matter of the culture of normalcy, and argues that disability should not be perceived as an abnormality. This was a particularly interesting article to read, as it deals with a very prominent societal issue that often goes unnoticed or is deemed ‘of little importance’. This article points out severe flaws in the education system, as well as the societal system that degrades disabled citizens, and treats disability as something that people are “afflicted with” (Serres, 2013). I was incredibly surprised upon reading the statistics of abuse towards disabled people. Serres quotes the Advancement Project, which states that “youth of colour, LGBTQ students, and students with disabilities are punished more often and more harshly than their peers for the same misbehaviour.” (Serres, 2013). I had also never thought about the fact that when a child is labeled with a certain disability, that label sticks with them for their whole life. These people then tell themselves that they cannot achieve the same things as ‘normal’ people, and feel as though they need to ‘overcome’ their disability. I liked Serres’ emphasis on the importance of changing societal behaviour, and becoming more inclusive, rather than putting more funding into things like ‘spec Ed’ programs, etc. He also briefly discusses the both positive and negative effects of things like telethons and fundraisers for disabilities. Serres quotes Evan Kemp Jr. when talking about how telethons are very successful in raising funds for disability programs, but they often push the public to feel pity, and therefore encourage people to think of disabled people as “nonfunctioning and noncontributing members of society” (Serres, 2013).
I was frustrated when Serres brought up the subject of corporate gain from disability. It is depressing to think about how corporations can be so heartless, and as Serres explains, “Every new “defect” becomes an opportunity for corporate profit.” (Serres, 2013) for many pharmaceutical companies. At one point in the article, I was frustrated with Serres himself as he went on to delve into the subject of the education system for disabled children. He seems to have a very extreme opinion on the current special education programs across North America. Now, I agree that these programs should be updated and modernized, but Serres seems to think that by lessening the workload on disabled students is demeaning. I disagree with this, as putting the same amount of work on these children (not tailoring the curriculum and workload to a manageable pace) would put on too much pressure and have catastrophic effects.
If I could say anything to the author, it would be that he is on the right track, and that his heart is in the right place. I understand his message, and I believe that society does need to change in order to break the culture of normalcy.
Dr. Cathy Benedict
1800A
25 September 2016
Questioning Normalcy
Serres, Drew. (2013). Think Everything’s “Normal?” Then It’s Time To Reconsider And Promote A New Narrative Of Disability. Organizing Change. Retrieved from http://organizingchange.org/think-everythings-normal-then-its-time-to-reconsider-and-promote-a-new-narrative-of-disability/
Drew Serres discusses the important subject matter of the culture of normalcy, and argues that disability should not be perceived as an abnormality. This was a particularly interesting article to read, as it deals with a very prominent societal issue that often goes unnoticed or is deemed ‘of little importance’. This article points out severe flaws in the education system, as well as the societal system that degrades disabled citizens, and treats disability as something that people are “afflicted with” (Serres, 2013). I was incredibly surprised upon reading the statistics of abuse towards disabled people. Serres quotes the Advancement Project, which states that “youth of colour, LGBTQ students, and students with disabilities are punished more often and more harshly than their peers for the same misbehaviour.” (Serres, 2013). I had also never thought about the fact that when a child is labeled with a certain disability, that label sticks with them for their whole life. These people then tell themselves that they cannot achieve the same things as ‘normal’ people, and feel as though they need to ‘overcome’ their disability. I liked Serres’ emphasis on the importance of changing societal behaviour, and becoming more inclusive, rather than putting more funding into things like ‘spec Ed’ programs, etc. He also briefly discusses the both positive and negative effects of things like telethons and fundraisers for disabilities. Serres quotes Evan Kemp Jr. when talking about how telethons are very successful in raising funds for disability programs, but they often push the public to feel pity, and therefore encourage people to think of disabled people as “nonfunctioning and noncontributing members of society” (Serres, 2013).
I was frustrated when Serres brought up the subject of corporate gain from disability. It is depressing to think about how corporations can be so heartless, and as Serres explains, “Every new “defect” becomes an opportunity for corporate profit.” (Serres, 2013) for many pharmaceutical companies. At one point in the article, I was frustrated with Serres himself as he went on to delve into the subject of the education system for disabled children. He seems to have a very extreme opinion on the current special education programs across North America. Now, I agree that these programs should be updated and modernized, but Serres seems to think that by lessening the workload on disabled students is demeaning. I disagree with this, as putting the same amount of work on these children (not tailoring the curriculum and workload to a manageable pace) would put on too much pressure and have catastrophic effects.
If I could say anything to the author, it would be that he is on the right track, and that his heart is in the right place. I understand his message, and I believe that society does need to change in order to break the culture of normalcy.
Aidan Witvoet
Dr. Cathy Benedict
1800A
25 September 2016
The Invisible Student
Hourigan, R. M. (2009). The invisible student: Understanding social identity construction within performing ensembles. Music Educators Journal, 34-38. Print. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30219236?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
In this article, Ryan Hourigan discusses the lessons learned from working with Jason, a student suffering from traumatic brain injury syndrome, and stresses the importance of applying what was learned to better the learning experience for all students. This article was exceptionally interesting to me, because in a way, I saw myself in Jason. The article talks about ‘invisible students’, and how in a band setting, as group-oriented as it may be, it can be very difficult for some students to make friends. As a kid, I found myself being the invisible student on several occasions, so this article really hits home. When talking about Jason, Hourigan says that he actually “found him to be very social. The fact that he did not fit in caused him to be secluded from the group. This contributed to his lack of self-worth within the ensemble.” (Hourigan, Pg. 35). It’s very interesting that Hourigan notes this occurrence isn’t just a concern with special needs children, but any child who doesn’t fit into the social norm can become isolated and struggle with their social identity.
It surprised me to find that Hourigan actually suggested teaching methods to encourage a more inclusive classroom, as I expected the article to focus mainly on the situation at hand and its statistics (like the ‘normalcy’ article). It also surprised me that I recognized some of the methods mentioned in Hourigan’s article. For example, I remember dreading teachers making things such as assigned seating lists for class trips, because it meant sitting beside people you did not know. I do remember that most of the time, these were indeed good exercises, as I got to know my peers better.
Nothing particularly frustrated me about this article, as I thoroughly agree with Hourigan’s message, and his approach to the situation. As Hourigan says near the end of the article, “[one] cannot force students to accept invisible students. However…small gestures, such as the ones mentioned in [the] article, can create the types of interactions that help socially challenged students make lasting relationships.” (Hourigan, Pg. 38). If there were anything I could say to Hourigan, it would be that I love where his focus is throughout the article. I would agree that these methods have the potential to create intimidating and tough situations for socially challenged students (of which I have first-hand experience), but when these methods do work, the results can be beautiful.
Dr. Cathy Benedict
1800A
25 September 2016
The Invisible Student
Hourigan, R. M. (2009). The invisible student: Understanding social identity construction within performing ensembles. Music Educators Journal, 34-38. Print. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30219236?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
In this article, Ryan Hourigan discusses the lessons learned from working with Jason, a student suffering from traumatic brain injury syndrome, and stresses the importance of applying what was learned to better the learning experience for all students. This article was exceptionally interesting to me, because in a way, I saw myself in Jason. The article talks about ‘invisible students’, and how in a band setting, as group-oriented as it may be, it can be very difficult for some students to make friends. As a kid, I found myself being the invisible student on several occasions, so this article really hits home. When talking about Jason, Hourigan says that he actually “found him to be very social. The fact that he did not fit in caused him to be secluded from the group. This contributed to his lack of self-worth within the ensemble.” (Hourigan, Pg. 35). It’s very interesting that Hourigan notes this occurrence isn’t just a concern with special needs children, but any child who doesn’t fit into the social norm can become isolated and struggle with their social identity.
It surprised me to find that Hourigan actually suggested teaching methods to encourage a more inclusive classroom, as I expected the article to focus mainly on the situation at hand and its statistics (like the ‘normalcy’ article). It also surprised me that I recognized some of the methods mentioned in Hourigan’s article. For example, I remember dreading teachers making things such as assigned seating lists for class trips, because it meant sitting beside people you did not know. I do remember that most of the time, these were indeed good exercises, as I got to know my peers better.
Nothing particularly frustrated me about this article, as I thoroughly agree with Hourigan’s message, and his approach to the situation. As Hourigan says near the end of the article, “[one] cannot force students to accept invisible students. However…small gestures, such as the ones mentioned in [the] article, can create the types of interactions that help socially challenged students make lasting relationships.” (Hourigan, Pg. 38). If there were anything I could say to Hourigan, it would be that I love where his focus is throughout the article. I would agree that these methods have the potential to create intimidating and tough situations for socially challenged students (of which I have first-hand experience), but when these methods do work, the results can be beautiful.
Aidan Witvoet
Dr. Cathy Benedict
1800A
30 September 2016
Community Music Making
Veblen, K.K. (2012). Community Music Making: Challenging the Stereotypes of Conventional Music Education.
In this paper, Veblen discusses the concept of Community Music (CM), as well as its many challenges and benefits. I was interested upon reading about the participants in Community Music. I was aware of course that music has many incredible benefits, but I was not aware that there were such a vast array of programs available. I found it interesting that Community Music programs are geared towards everything between therapy, entertainment, or education, for people of all financial situations, ages, and interests. When one sees the vast amount of applications and benefits of MC, it emphasizes how important Community Music really is in our communities.
What surprised me is the apparent lack of funding that these programs have. It was surprising to me that most of these organizations are non-profit and run by volunteers, as Veblen discusses in detail near the end of her article:
Some initiatives may be aided with government grants; however, a critical point is that the federal Canadian and provincial
governments make minimal provisional support for arts programs through grants and awards. Most CM groups are self-
funding, non-profit groups supported by participant fees and the tireless work of volunteers. (Veblen, 2012)
It was also very interesting, surprising, and exciting to read that Veblen believes we are seeing a “return of micro-artistic production” (Veblen, 2012). This means that, for classical music at least, smaller, more private venues for performances are becoming more popular once again. More amateur musicians are being brought up and inspired with the help of CM programs, and becoming passionate / finding joy in playing music, which is very important for our culture.
What is frustrating to me, is once again, the funding issues faced by these organizations. It is very frustrating that the government doesn’t seem to be interested in, or realized the benefits of Community Music programs. Personally, I believe music is incredibly important in peoples lives, and is especially crucial in one’s own individual development, whether it be emotional, intellectual, or physical.
If I had anything to say to the author, it would be that I truly appreciate the attention that is being put on the importance of these types of music programs. As Veblen says throughout her article, and I completely agree, CM programs are entirely different than music education in schools. There is a whole different set of priorities, it’s not simply to ‘teach music’ and follow a curriculum, but to inspire, heal, bond, and help people in all aspects of their lives. The intentions, instruction, and results of the community-run programs are entirely different, and that is what makes them truly essential in our communities.
Dr. Cathy Benedict
1800A
30 September 2016
Community Music Making
Veblen, K.K. (2012). Community Music Making: Challenging the Stereotypes of Conventional Music Education.
In this paper, Veblen discusses the concept of Community Music (CM), as well as its many challenges and benefits. I was interested upon reading about the participants in Community Music. I was aware of course that music has many incredible benefits, but I was not aware that there were such a vast array of programs available. I found it interesting that Community Music programs are geared towards everything between therapy, entertainment, or education, for people of all financial situations, ages, and interests. When one sees the vast amount of applications and benefits of MC, it emphasizes how important Community Music really is in our communities.
What surprised me is the apparent lack of funding that these programs have. It was surprising to me that most of these organizations are non-profit and run by volunteers, as Veblen discusses in detail near the end of her article:
Some initiatives may be aided with government grants; however, a critical point is that the federal Canadian and provincial
governments make minimal provisional support for arts programs through grants and awards. Most CM groups are self-
funding, non-profit groups supported by participant fees and the tireless work of volunteers. (Veblen, 2012)
It was also very interesting, surprising, and exciting to read that Veblen believes we are seeing a “return of micro-artistic production” (Veblen, 2012). This means that, for classical music at least, smaller, more private venues for performances are becoming more popular once again. More amateur musicians are being brought up and inspired with the help of CM programs, and becoming passionate / finding joy in playing music, which is very important for our culture.
What is frustrating to me, is once again, the funding issues faced by these organizations. It is very frustrating that the government doesn’t seem to be interested in, or realized the benefits of Community Music programs. Personally, I believe music is incredibly important in peoples lives, and is especially crucial in one’s own individual development, whether it be emotional, intellectual, or physical.
If I had anything to say to the author, it would be that I truly appreciate the attention that is being put on the importance of these types of music programs. As Veblen says throughout her article, and I completely agree, CM programs are entirely different than music education in schools. There is a whole different set of priorities, it’s not simply to ‘teach music’ and follow a curriculum, but to inspire, heal, bond, and help people in all aspects of their lives. The intentions, instruction, and results of the community-run programs are entirely different, and that is what makes them truly essential in our communities.
Aidan Witvoet
Dr. Cathy Benedict
1800A
23 October 2016
Toward Convergence
Tobias, E. S. (2013). Toward Convergence Adapting Music Education to Contemporary Society and Participatory Culture. Music Educators Journal, 99(4), 29-36.
In this article, Evan Tobias considers the idea of converging new-age ways that people are interacting with music, with the traditional style of music education. This article is very intriguing, as Tobias goes on to delve into the many different methods in which people are interacting with music today. This was fascinating to me, as I had never really thought of using popular music and editing technology in a music class environment. As a musician, I have been told by music educators all throughout my life that, regardless of whether or not a student wants to pursue music, everybody has to start off with 'the basics'. This is why in grade school, we are all taught to read music, play the recorder, and perform together as a group. And of course, there are an innumerable amount of benefits from these kinds of acquired skills, whether they are about interpreting and reading music, or performing as a group and working together. However, my whole idea that we must all begin 'with the basics' was questioned when Tobias asks "What does it mean to be musically educated in the twenty-first century?".
What truly surprised me was the potential that this idea has to actually work in classrooms around the world. The relationship that most people today have with music, consists of listening to music recreationally, as well as listening to remixes of their favourite songs, and perhaps even watching tutorials on how to 'cover' their favourite songs on piano or guitar. Tobias' goal is to present this idea to teachers and encourage them to incorporate or at least experiment with adding this kind of thing to their curriculum. Now, a very important point that Tobias brings up, is that he intends for there to be a convergence "...of different systems, rather than the replacement of one for another.". I completely agree in this respect, because the existing system of music education is already successful in ways and has structure and benefits. However, having a project, and maybe a unit on topics such as remixing, arranging, covering, parodying, multi-tracking music...etc, would be incredibly beneficial in terms of exploring and developing the creativity, and musicality of a student. As Tobias discusses, these sorts of opportunities that are now put in place with the abundance of easily accessible technology, and can showcase the creativity of a student. Getting students to think outside of the box, play around with music, and maybe even experiment with interpreting the music in their own way and altering / changing the entire stylistic interpretation of a song.
I thought this article to be very interesting, and was in agreement for the majority of it. There were only a few points that I had a differentiating opinion or felt frustrated by a concept. I believe that technology is a fantastic asset to the classroom, but at the same time it can be a 'touchy subject'. Especially regarding K-12 classrooms, technology, social media, and the internet can raise issues with parents. For example, at one point, Tobias brings up the idea of having students create a Twitter account and Facebook pages for characters of a movie or play that a student may be doing a project on. This, for me, is frustrating in two ways: firstly, is that this sort of thing is taking the incorporation of social media and technology too far. To create actual accounts just for one project is not only inefficient, but also distracts from the true purpose of a creative assignment. And secondly, and most importantly to me, is an issue of privacy. I know some parents (especially of younger students) will have very varied opinions about their children using social media and the internet. For example, even I, in this Music Education course, felt somewhat uncomfortable being forced to create a website and Youtube video for the class. I am very careful about how I conduct myself on the internet, and besides emails, and Facebook (which I just recently got in order to join friend-groups here at Western), and I prefer not to have my personal information accessible to the public.
All in all, I enjoyed this article, and the many points and ideas it brought forth. I completely agree with the idea that music educators need to alter their curriculum to incorporate more material such as remixing, arranging, covering, parodying, multi-tracking music...etc, as these are how people today are interacting with music. Of course, I believe that there are precautions and limits that need to be in place, but the intention is wonderful. Again, the one question that stuck with me was "What does it mean to be musically educated in the twenty-first century?". Music education has changed from what it used to be, and should continue to adapt to embrace, and reflect the change in the music of today. This keeps students interested, because the material is relevant to them, and it also invokes their creativity which we can all agree is very important in a music classroom.
Dr. Cathy Benedict
1800A
23 October 2016
Toward Convergence
Tobias, E. S. (2013). Toward Convergence Adapting Music Education to Contemporary Society and Participatory Culture. Music Educators Journal, 99(4), 29-36.
In this article, Evan Tobias considers the idea of converging new-age ways that people are interacting with music, with the traditional style of music education. This article is very intriguing, as Tobias goes on to delve into the many different methods in which people are interacting with music today. This was fascinating to me, as I had never really thought of using popular music and editing technology in a music class environment. As a musician, I have been told by music educators all throughout my life that, regardless of whether or not a student wants to pursue music, everybody has to start off with 'the basics'. This is why in grade school, we are all taught to read music, play the recorder, and perform together as a group. And of course, there are an innumerable amount of benefits from these kinds of acquired skills, whether they are about interpreting and reading music, or performing as a group and working together. However, my whole idea that we must all begin 'with the basics' was questioned when Tobias asks "What does it mean to be musically educated in the twenty-first century?".
What truly surprised me was the potential that this idea has to actually work in classrooms around the world. The relationship that most people today have with music, consists of listening to music recreationally, as well as listening to remixes of their favourite songs, and perhaps even watching tutorials on how to 'cover' their favourite songs on piano or guitar. Tobias' goal is to present this idea to teachers and encourage them to incorporate or at least experiment with adding this kind of thing to their curriculum. Now, a very important point that Tobias brings up, is that he intends for there to be a convergence "...of different systems, rather than the replacement of one for another.". I completely agree in this respect, because the existing system of music education is already successful in ways and has structure and benefits. However, having a project, and maybe a unit on topics such as remixing, arranging, covering, parodying, multi-tracking music...etc, would be incredibly beneficial in terms of exploring and developing the creativity, and musicality of a student. As Tobias discusses, these sorts of opportunities that are now put in place with the abundance of easily accessible technology, and can showcase the creativity of a student. Getting students to think outside of the box, play around with music, and maybe even experiment with interpreting the music in their own way and altering / changing the entire stylistic interpretation of a song.
I thought this article to be very interesting, and was in agreement for the majority of it. There were only a few points that I had a differentiating opinion or felt frustrated by a concept. I believe that technology is a fantastic asset to the classroom, but at the same time it can be a 'touchy subject'. Especially regarding K-12 classrooms, technology, social media, and the internet can raise issues with parents. For example, at one point, Tobias brings up the idea of having students create a Twitter account and Facebook pages for characters of a movie or play that a student may be doing a project on. This, for me, is frustrating in two ways: firstly, is that this sort of thing is taking the incorporation of social media and technology too far. To create actual accounts just for one project is not only inefficient, but also distracts from the true purpose of a creative assignment. And secondly, and most importantly to me, is an issue of privacy. I know some parents (especially of younger students) will have very varied opinions about their children using social media and the internet. For example, even I, in this Music Education course, felt somewhat uncomfortable being forced to create a website and Youtube video for the class. I am very careful about how I conduct myself on the internet, and besides emails, and Facebook (which I just recently got in order to join friend-groups here at Western), and I prefer not to have my personal information accessible to the public.
All in all, I enjoyed this article, and the many points and ideas it brought forth. I completely agree with the idea that music educators need to alter their curriculum to incorporate more material such as remixing, arranging, covering, parodying, multi-tracking music...etc, as these are how people today are interacting with music. Of course, I believe that there are precautions and limits that need to be in place, but the intention is wonderful. Again, the one question that stuck with me was "What does it mean to be musically educated in the twenty-first century?". Music education has changed from what it used to be, and should continue to adapt to embrace, and reflect the change in the music of today. This keeps students interested, because the material is relevant to them, and it also invokes their creativity which we can all agree is very important in a music classroom.
Aidan Witvoet
Dr. Cathy Benedict
1800A
14 November 2016
Another Perspective
Williams, D. A. (2014). Another Perspective The iPad Is a REAL Musical Instrument. Music Educators Journal, 101(1), 93-98. Retrieved from: http://mej.sagepub.com/content/101/1/93.full.pdf+html
In this article, David A. Williams talks about the concept that the iPad is an actual instrument. He discusses how he has employed it in a classroom setting, and how he sees the path of music education moving with these devices at the teachers disposal. Williams also compares the iPad to attributes of other instruments, or rather what qualities they both share that makes them the textbook definition of what an "instrument" actually is. This article was a very interesting read, as it brought forth many interesting points about the tradition of music education and introduced many new concepts that can be added to the classroom that has a better overall impact for the students. For me, this article genuinely brought up the question: "What is the purpose of music education? What are we doing? What is our goal?". Williams made me think about what our goal is as music educators: To inspire the next generation of musicians? To give everybody a general, educated understanding about the different aspects of music? Both of these things? Of course each teacher has a different purpose in mind when they teach, however the tools that they use help to guide that outcome. Teachers that focus more on the performance aspects of music are teaching more about the teamwork and aural skills associated with listening to and appreciating music. Whereas teachers that focus more on technical aspects are teaching to make the students better at making the music.
It surprised me when Williams attempted to convince the reader that the iPad was an actually instrument. It had never even crossed my mind that the iPad could be considered an "instrument". He goes on to give the simple dictionary definition of an instrument: "a device used to create music". In my opinion, this is a much too simple breakdown of what an instrument really is, because according to this definition, anything could really be an "instrument". A water bottle or even a toothpick could be considered instruments, because when they are tapped or hit against things, they serve as percussion instruments and are "...used to create music". If someone asked you "what is a water bottle?", one would say something along the lines of "a container that holds water". Its "instrumental" qualities are not what comes to mind first, much is the same with an iPad: it is a computer. This is what frustrates me about the article, David Williams is dead-set on the idea that an iPad is a completely legitimate instrument. He says that it is on the same playing-field as an oboe or piano, for example. I COMPLETELY disagree with this idea of his. An iPad is nowhere NEAR as musical as a woodwind instrument, or a violin. With these instruments, the performer has a connection with the instrument, and has the ability and freedom to show true virtuosity. They breathe into it, they bow with graceful gestures of their arms... with an iPad, the user simply taps the cold, lifeless screen. A musician is severely limited by the iPad in terms of expression, as there is no physical response from the iPad, and the sounds are pre-recorded and limited by the few levels of pressure sensitivity that the iPad can gauge.
I found the applications of the iPad in the classroom however, to be very interesting and worthwhile. When Williams moved on from attempting to cram the idea that the iPad is an instrument down our throats, he focused on the most important use for the musical capabilities of the iPad: as a classroom tool. I completely agree with the idea that the iPad is an incredibly capable and interactive tool for use in a classroom setting. By giving students a device that produces sounds with very little effort, it bypasses many of the complex skills that must be acquired to play an instrument (things like bowing technique, breathing strategies, and correct embouchure). This allows the students to focus solely on refining basic skills such as rhythmic and metric comprehension, understanding harmonic structure, listening to and working together with other musicians, and interpreting notation. When starting off on an actual instrument, one is thrown into a world in which they are expected to develop these skills, AND interact with the instrument at the same time, which is significantly more difficult. Therefore I believe that the iPad is an incredible bridging tool that can help students to establish the basics first, and then when introduced to actual instruments, improve more rapidly and efficiently.
I did enjoy the article, and the David William's message does have some merit. If I had anything to say to the author, it would be that he has discovered an incredible tool for the music classroom. The iPad has a wonderful amount of potential, and I would encourage him to continue to show the benefits of this great tool to music educators associations and help others to understand why the iPad is so great for the beginning stages of music educations. I believe it is quite a stretch to call the iPad an instrument, and that his focus is on the wrong area. For example, the title of his article should have been something along the lines of "Another Perspective, The iPad Is an EFFECTIVE Musical Tool". I do personally think that he needs to focus on the iPad being a useful TOOL, students will outgrow this tool once they have solidified their fundamental musical knowledge. It is then that students can move on to working with an instrument and take their musical understandings to the next level.
Dr. Cathy Benedict
1800A
14 November 2016
Another Perspective
Williams, D. A. (2014). Another Perspective The iPad Is a REAL Musical Instrument. Music Educators Journal, 101(1), 93-98. Retrieved from: http://mej.sagepub.com/content/101/1/93.full.pdf+html
In this article, David A. Williams talks about the concept that the iPad is an actual instrument. He discusses how he has employed it in a classroom setting, and how he sees the path of music education moving with these devices at the teachers disposal. Williams also compares the iPad to attributes of other instruments, or rather what qualities they both share that makes them the textbook definition of what an "instrument" actually is. This article was a very interesting read, as it brought forth many interesting points about the tradition of music education and introduced many new concepts that can be added to the classroom that has a better overall impact for the students. For me, this article genuinely brought up the question: "What is the purpose of music education? What are we doing? What is our goal?". Williams made me think about what our goal is as music educators: To inspire the next generation of musicians? To give everybody a general, educated understanding about the different aspects of music? Both of these things? Of course each teacher has a different purpose in mind when they teach, however the tools that they use help to guide that outcome. Teachers that focus more on the performance aspects of music are teaching more about the teamwork and aural skills associated with listening to and appreciating music. Whereas teachers that focus more on technical aspects are teaching to make the students better at making the music.
It surprised me when Williams attempted to convince the reader that the iPad was an actually instrument. It had never even crossed my mind that the iPad could be considered an "instrument". He goes on to give the simple dictionary definition of an instrument: "a device used to create music". In my opinion, this is a much too simple breakdown of what an instrument really is, because according to this definition, anything could really be an "instrument". A water bottle or even a toothpick could be considered instruments, because when they are tapped or hit against things, they serve as percussion instruments and are "...used to create music". If someone asked you "what is a water bottle?", one would say something along the lines of "a container that holds water". Its "instrumental" qualities are not what comes to mind first, much is the same with an iPad: it is a computer. This is what frustrates me about the article, David Williams is dead-set on the idea that an iPad is a completely legitimate instrument. He says that it is on the same playing-field as an oboe or piano, for example. I COMPLETELY disagree with this idea of his. An iPad is nowhere NEAR as musical as a woodwind instrument, or a violin. With these instruments, the performer has a connection with the instrument, and has the ability and freedom to show true virtuosity. They breathe into it, they bow with graceful gestures of their arms... with an iPad, the user simply taps the cold, lifeless screen. A musician is severely limited by the iPad in terms of expression, as there is no physical response from the iPad, and the sounds are pre-recorded and limited by the few levels of pressure sensitivity that the iPad can gauge.
I found the applications of the iPad in the classroom however, to be very interesting and worthwhile. When Williams moved on from attempting to cram the idea that the iPad is an instrument down our throats, he focused on the most important use for the musical capabilities of the iPad: as a classroom tool. I completely agree with the idea that the iPad is an incredibly capable and interactive tool for use in a classroom setting. By giving students a device that produces sounds with very little effort, it bypasses many of the complex skills that must be acquired to play an instrument (things like bowing technique, breathing strategies, and correct embouchure). This allows the students to focus solely on refining basic skills such as rhythmic and metric comprehension, understanding harmonic structure, listening to and working together with other musicians, and interpreting notation. When starting off on an actual instrument, one is thrown into a world in which they are expected to develop these skills, AND interact with the instrument at the same time, which is significantly more difficult. Therefore I believe that the iPad is an incredible bridging tool that can help students to establish the basics first, and then when introduced to actual instruments, improve more rapidly and efficiently.
I did enjoy the article, and the David William's message does have some merit. If I had anything to say to the author, it would be that he has discovered an incredible tool for the music classroom. The iPad has a wonderful amount of potential, and I would encourage him to continue to show the benefits of this great tool to music educators associations and help others to understand why the iPad is so great for the beginning stages of music educations. I believe it is quite a stretch to call the iPad an instrument, and that his focus is on the wrong area. For example, the title of his article should have been something along the lines of "Another Perspective, The iPad Is an EFFECTIVE Musical Tool". I do personally think that he needs to focus on the iPad being a useful TOOL, students will outgrow this tool once they have solidified their fundamental musical knowledge. It is then that students can move on to working with an instrument and take their musical understandings to the next level.
Aidan Witvoet
Dr. Cathy Benedict
1800A
30 November, 2016
Oliveros, Pauline (2015). The difference between hearing and listening. TEDx Talks. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QHfOuRrJB8
In this TEDx Talks video, Oliveros discusses the important difference between hearing and listening. She uses the example of when she recorded a piece titled "Deep Listening" in an underground cistern with a small group of musicians. I really love her message, as she discusses how "Scientists can measure what happens in the ear, [but] measuring listening is another matter, as it involves subjectivity.". This is a very important concept, as it brings forth the fact that to listen, one needs to be aware, mindful, to be focused, and process the information that they are recieving through their ears. I find it very interesting that most of Oliveros' scores are just text. INSTRUCTIONS on HOW to play, and not WHAT to play. This gives the performer the utmost creative freedom, but there is still the presence of some form of structure that has been given by the composer. This balance between the composer / performer relationship is what really intruiges me and inspires me.
During our Saturday workshop with Carlos Abril, we did a 'sonic meditation' excercise. This 'excercise' was actually a composition by Pauline Oliveros. She gave but four instructions: 1. Pick a random pitch and sing it, 2. Listen to another person's note and match it, 3. Now harmonize with this note, 4. Repeat steps 1 through 4 until everyone is finished. This was an incredible experience, as it forced the performers to LISTEN to eachother and be aware of the sound we were creating as a whole. It was a completely different experience than a traditional performance experience than I had been accustomed to. I thought this, along with the TEDx Talks video, this gave me a whole new perspective on what the definition of music is. I also love how with Oliveros' compositions allow for the musicians to play a significant role in how the piece sounds. They don't just have to follow symbols on the page and recreate what we think the composer wanted to convey. In many ways, her pieces are similar to those from other cultures of which are passed on aurally. They have somewhat of a form, a structure, but they are subject to interpretation, and versions of the piece may vary from place to place.
If there is anything I would have liked to say to Paulin Oliveros, it would have been that I really appreciate what she did for the world of music. She brought forth very abstract, revolutionary thoughts, that invoked thought and discusion in the music community. As well as many other, I have learned from her contributions, and these ideas and concerns will always be a part of who I am as a musician, performer, and music educator.
Dr. Cathy Benedict
1800A
30 November, 2016
Oliveros, Pauline (2015). The difference between hearing and listening. TEDx Talks. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QHfOuRrJB8
In this TEDx Talks video, Oliveros discusses the important difference between hearing and listening. She uses the example of when she recorded a piece titled "Deep Listening" in an underground cistern with a small group of musicians. I really love her message, as she discusses how "Scientists can measure what happens in the ear, [but] measuring listening is another matter, as it involves subjectivity.". This is a very important concept, as it brings forth the fact that to listen, one needs to be aware, mindful, to be focused, and process the information that they are recieving through their ears. I find it very interesting that most of Oliveros' scores are just text. INSTRUCTIONS on HOW to play, and not WHAT to play. This gives the performer the utmost creative freedom, but there is still the presence of some form of structure that has been given by the composer. This balance between the composer / performer relationship is what really intruiges me and inspires me.
During our Saturday workshop with Carlos Abril, we did a 'sonic meditation' excercise. This 'excercise' was actually a composition by Pauline Oliveros. She gave but four instructions: 1. Pick a random pitch and sing it, 2. Listen to another person's note and match it, 3. Now harmonize with this note, 4. Repeat steps 1 through 4 until everyone is finished. This was an incredible experience, as it forced the performers to LISTEN to eachother and be aware of the sound we were creating as a whole. It was a completely different experience than a traditional performance experience than I had been accustomed to. I thought this, along with the TEDx Talks video, this gave me a whole new perspective on what the definition of music is. I also love how with Oliveros' compositions allow for the musicians to play a significant role in how the piece sounds. They don't just have to follow symbols on the page and recreate what we think the composer wanted to convey. In many ways, her pieces are similar to those from other cultures of which are passed on aurally. They have somewhat of a form, a structure, but they are subject to interpretation, and versions of the piece may vary from place to place.
If there is anything I would have liked to say to Paulin Oliveros, it would have been that I really appreciate what she did for the world of music. She brought forth very abstract, revolutionary thoughts, that invoked thought and discusion in the music community. As well as many other, I have learned from her contributions, and these ideas and concerns will always be a part of who I am as a musician, performer, and music educator.