I stated the other day in class, that I wasn't a very big fan of classical music. I never really have been and I never actually want to teach it.
But as far as a secondary education, do guys think that you'll teach the music you love the most to your students? For instance, I'm very big on gospel music and want to form a large gospel choir in the high school, I hope to teach at. But, I know for the students that love classical and contemporary I have to nuture to them to. Or do I have to?
Genre is hard to decide picking a program because I know you have to try to please everyone, but yet again...do you have to please the students or is it our choir?
Let me know your stuff, I'm just looking for opinions and thoughts.
My brain is flustered.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Ok, so I'm a gym teacher but I hate sports. So I don't teach sports, I teach square dancing 24/7.
That's what Im hearing,
Still sound legitimate?
Well I'm going to be a music teacher, but I love music?
So it's not that close minded it's more of what you like against what your students like.
justin, at least your thinking NOW that this could be a problem. How did you realize or like the music you do? Because you were exposed to those genres you lke it. Share your passion with your students but realize that everyone is different and maybe doing something painful like classical might be very entertaining to someone else!
Tom, you're comment is worthless and cold. Please do not comment a blog if you have nothing positive to say. I am serious
Tom, I think your analogy is problematic. Perhaps your analogy could be re-framed as 'So I'm a gym teacher, but I really hate volleyball. Is it ok if I don't teach volleyball and instead teach other sports?' The 'square dancing' implication suggests that any other music besides classical music is the equivalent of 'square dancing'...which I assume (perhaps unfairly) that you see as boring, outdated, and without much merit to students in 2007. There are those who may think that classical music is boring, outdated, and without much merit to students in 2007. You may think those people are wrong. Along a similar line, there may be those people who think that square dancing has a tremendous amount of value, if only it would be presented in way that was relevant, meaningful, and useful to students. We are bound in a taste vs. value argument here. Can taste and/or value be expressed through a lens of 'universality'?
The use of the word "legitimate" is also problematic. Having played a lot of jazz in my life, I always found it interesting that other jazz saxophonists often referred to 'classical saxophonists' as "legit" players...suggesting that they played "legitimate" music. Defining 'legitimacy' in music is about as difficult as defining 'legitimacy' in 'appropriate teaching'.
Just some stuff to think on...
So, Dave, if you're (that’s the correct use of you're) going to insult me, I'd prefer you use correct grammar, or at least coherent sentences. And what are you, the 12 year old who takes his ball home when he starts losing the game? You can’t tell me to go away, that’s ridiculous.
Now, back the to the validity of my point. We can all agree (I would hope) that music was born out of traditional folk song. This then, through common practice (note the CPP, common practice period) became standardized into what we now know as “classical music.” Yet that term is deceptive, to the same degree as grouping all “rock” together. So, I’m guessing the use of classical in this blog is referencing all periods pre-dating 1900 or so, i.e. baroque, classical, impressionism—the whole bag. Then to that group we’ll add Vaughan Williams, Schoenberg, the more traditional composers (Not to call Schoenberg a traditionalist, but he’s in the same vein) post-1900. While my first post was a large over-generalization it was intentional. What’s being suggested, or at least the message I’m getting, is that he would like to teach Gospel (Great! Wonderful genre), but at the cost of thousands of years of music.
I will concede too many people nail themselves into the “classical” genre, but neglecting classical music completely (over generalizing again) commits the same crime, just in the opposite direction. The balance of rep should and does shift from teacher to teacher, but to use such broad brush strokes would be disrespectful to music history, the basis of tonality as we know it.
"Please do not comment a blog if you have nothing positive to say. I am serious"
1. The whole point of this blog is so that we can share our opinions and disagree with each other. All of us have posted comments in which nothing positive whatsoever was said, and that's fine and constructive. Haltmeier has even told us in class to be mean and get nasty, and while I think many of us have taken this a little too far and gotten a little bit too personal, there's NOTHING wrong with not being positive, or being critical of something.
2. Your comment in itself is not really a positive thing to say, so you are contradicting your own request by typing it there. Also, everyone should keep in mind that no one of us is the dictator of the blog, and none of us has a say in who writes what. Everybody has their own opinions and their own teaching/learning styles, and just because we may disagree with each other doesn't make anyone's opinions any less valid.
3. I think everybody needs to take a step back for a minute. It's great that everybody is getting so into this blog, but breathe a little bit and remember Rule Number 6.
For the record, I'm trying to get into theoretical fights. I love that kinda stuff.
Gospel music is a passion of mine as well, but teaching it in the classroom I feel might create problems for you with some parents and also with staff members.
Post a Comment