|
Hi Reader,
A few years ago I was talking with a cellist friend of mine, Milo, about what we loved about Beethoven (Beethoven is life). Our Jazz instructor friend, Andrew, walked in on the conversation. Eventually he commented "I love that you love this, but how in the world do you both know so much about Beethoven?"
Milo and I looked at each other, baffled. "School?" we said in unison. It was like someone asked us where we learned algebra. Like, where else?
I learned something important this day. See, all 3 of us had "Music" printed on our degrees. But my Milo and I went to a traditional music program, and Andrew went to a program that specialized in Jazz.
We started comparing educational backgrounds, and all 3 of us were shocked at the differences in our education! Milo and I could not believe Andrew's lack of knowledge of what we considered the basics of Western music: Beethoven, Bach, or Mozart barely got a cursory mention in one of his generic music history class. He couldn't name a single work by any of these composers and was completely lost when we brought up Berlioz or Mahler.
However, at least he got those mentions. For his part, Andrew could not believe that neither of us had even one class that mentioned Miles Davis, Thelonious Monk, Charlie Parker, or John Coltrane. I'd sort of heard of Miles Davis through pop culture, in the way he'd encountered the name of Beethoven. But neither Milo nor myself could name a single work by any of them.
|
|
|
In our conversation on Zeitgeist Radio, Dr. Chris Gable made this comment:
[Music is] a very strange field in that respect. It's sort of like, "Oh yes, we're the chemistry department, but we only teach this kind of chemistry, right? For other kinds of chemistry, you have to go to a different school." That doesn't make any sense when you talk about a chemistry department, but in music it's traditionally very focused and very narrow. I think Andrew, Milo and I all left our conversation feeling like our education missed something important. Do I need to be able to name everything by Thelonious Monk? No! Should I at least know who he was? I think so.
In my opinion, there was absolutely time in my studies for that addition: 20th century music history, and Theory 4. You can listen to the podcast for more of my thoughts, but I do feel like a wonderful opportunity was missed to round us all out. I learned about individual soloists singing Verdi, why shouldn't I get a cursory mention of Broadway composers or performers? Why shouldn't I learn why the Beatles were so musically influential, or who the heck John Coltrane was? They make music, and you're getting a music degree.
And even with this little conversation, we're still stuck in the Western tradition. I did have an ethnomusicology class that was pretty good, but neither Milo nor Andrew did. This class at least gave me a cursory familiarity with non-Western music. There are complex and wonderful musical systems everywhere! Our 12-tone system is only one of many.
|
|
|
Here's my personal hot take: By focusing narrowly on certain traditions, we risk not only limiting students' knowledge but also perpetuating a hierarchy where certain types of music are deemed "more important" than others. In a modern, connected world, our understanding of music needs to be just as inclusive.
And like Chris says, "That may mean eliminating some of the Western Art Music."
Drop the mic, Chris, and watch folks clutch their pearls. For me, I think he's right.
|
|
|
Access archives of this newsletter here. |
|
|
