Professional Documents
Culture Documents
On The Purpose of Music Education
On The Purpose of Music Education
BY LUKAS STANLEY
Abstract
Music
education
is
a
subject
which
has
been
often
contested
in
the
public
school
system
in
recent
years.
Its
value
and
purpose
have
many
times
been
called
into
question,
especially
in
the
face
of
economic
recession
and
dwindling
resources.
Musics
purpose
in
society
is
strongly
tied
to
the
question
of
why
it
should
be
taught
in
our
school
systems:
if
it
has
humanitarian
value,
it
should
therefore
be
transferred
to
the
next
generation.
On the Purpose of Music Education
Music has been a staple in education globally for many years, and has stood the test of
time in Western cultures for the past few centuries. However, as its role in the educational
system is questioned, a careful look must be taken at why it is deserving of our time and
attention. Discussed here will be the importance of music as a temporal art, the way in which this
lends itself to education, and then a brief dialogue on the intrinsic philosophies of the methods of
instructional delivery.
The discussion on music education and its role in our academic structures first warrants
an argument for the importance of music as an entity. If music itself is deemed unimportant, it
seems unlikely that an argument in favor of music education would hold any water. Many
academics and philosophers have discussed the nature and importance of music, justifying it
through its historic significance, its benefits in cognitive development, and its societal functions
among others. However, these discourses will likely never prove music to be something which is
absolutely necessary to humanity. This is because in order for something to be accepted as truth,
a hypothesis must be tested against a control variable, and conclusions be drawn which support
the hypothesis. From a broad, sociological standpoint, this would require an entire society to
exist without ever experiencing music, and another identical society to experience the same exact
reality with every variable controlled, the sole exception being the inclusion of music. In this
gedankenexperiment, the purpose would be to draw a conclusion as to whether the society with
music was better off than that which was without, based upon criteria which were agreed upon to
define the quality of societal living. The test results could not evaluated from testimonial data
because each society would have only its own limited reality from which to present information.
The conclusion would have to be based on impartial external assessment and concrete
physiological data.
Proponents of music in our society today would likely argue that in this thought-
experiment, the society with music would be the better off of the two. Perhaps it would have
greater cognitive capabilities as a whole. Perhaps it would have a lower crime rate. Perhaps the
children in the society would be happier, more well-rounded individuals. These are all very
plausible effects of music, ones which are argued by many as its benefits. But does the
systematized compression and rarefaction of air, vibrating our eardrums and sending electrical
signals to our brain, really do all of this for a society? If the answer is yes, then the need for
musical education is clear, in the same way that teaching children to brush their teeth or to eat
vegetables is necessary. Not for basic, biological survival, but in order to enhance their quality of
life. However, this persuasion proves difficult because music, unlike many things, cannot be
seen, felt, tasted, or touched. As Roger Scruton points out in in The Aesthetics of Music,
something like the way that colours are objects of sight, and they are missing from the world of
deaf people just as colours are missing from the world of the blind (Scruton 1). Something
which cannot be seen or held in the hand will create an ambiguous, difficult-to-grasp concept for
some, especially those who have limited experience listening to or studying music. Such people
are likely to be the ones who first oppose music as a necessity, particularly when it is threatening
resources.
In the interest of stating my own opinion, as opposed to trying to uncover absolute truth, I
would argue that musics importance is derived from meaning that it holds in it. Not necessarily
programmatic or semiotic meaning, although that could certainly be part of it. It is in the way
that art grabs and holds our attention, demands our focus, which gives it importance to me. In the
book On the Nature of the Musical Experience, edited by Bennett Reimer, philosopher Monroe
Curtis Beardsley is quoted as saying, I propose to say that a person is having an aesthetic
experience during a particular stretch of time if and only if the greater part of his mental activity
during that time is united and made pleasurable by being tied to the form and qualities of a
concentrated (Reimer xii). While his notion of pleasure could easily be contested in this
statement, his emphasis on the individuals experience is key to what makes music important.
Even if this is something which is taught rather than biologically innate, aesthetic response to
music has stood the test of time and become part of what defines humanity. It might be of a
recursive nature: music has value because we value it. I also disagree with his single-mindedness
with regard to the form and qualities of the work being the sole criteria by which they should be
judged. Social context can often bring another important layer of meaning to music.
The previous paragraphs do not herein reach a definitive conclusion. Rather, they bring to
the forefront the fact that there are more revealing questions that need to be asked about the
necessity of music (and art as a whole) which supersede more diminutive details such as what the
best pedagogical method might be to teach an instrument. For the sake of argument, let it be
assumed from here that music is a societal necessity. Therefore, though perhaps enthymematic,
music education is also necessary. The premise which I omitted from this syllogism is that the
older generation as a whole has an innate desire to transfer knowledge it deems valuable to the
younger generation as an act of preservation. Again, for the sake of argument, this premise will
be accepted as an a priori truth so as not to deviate too much from the topic at hand.
Once it is accepted that music and therefore music education is valuable, a more detailed
discussion as to how (and the associated why) music should be taught. Music is a tree with many
branches. An educators job should be to look at this tree as a whole and discern which branches
are most important. To clarify this metaphor, a branch could be a genre of music, a mode of
sound production, an era in musical history any facet of music as an entity in space-time. It
would be impossible to teach a student or a class of students every aspect of music, because such
comprehension is beyond the scope of human capability. In my opinion, one should strive to
teach music within the realm of progressive social constructs, while remaining grounded in
historical context. Music, like language, has evolved syntactically throughout history. Todays
music uses different instruments than were used in the 1400s, especially with the advent of
electronically produced music. The way that sounds are arranged texturally and linearly is also
much more diverse now, in comparison to the monophonic chants of medieval times. In this
regard, the point is that music education should also reflect advancements and changes in this
musical landscape.
important aspect of music education the apprenticeship model which is fairly universal in its
use to transmit musical knowledge through generations. This concept of music education moves
away from the broad philosophical debate of why music and music education are important for
society to why music education is important to the musician himself. This particular angle on
music education places particular emphasis on historical context and enculturation (Jorgenson
58). Our current model of music education in the United States makes use the apprenticeship
model, though not exclusively. Many students who are serious about the pursuit of music study
the craft in a one-on-one setting with a mentor who critiques, evaluates, and passes along
knowledge and experience. However, we also have a model in which this same experience is
attempted with a much larger student to teacher ratio in a classroom setting. This model
sacrifices, in many ways, quality for quantity. The teacher cannot possibly tend to each students
need for correction with the same level of detail and personalization when their agenda is larger
than the individual student. For this reason, it is much more beneficial if classroom teaching, or
Disseminating music widely throughout the public school system has its benefits as well.
It is sort of a see what sticks mentality, because many people begin playing music, but only a
small percentage of those who start in a program as a child will actually become a professionally
practicing musician; however, for the time that students are enrolled in music classes, it can still
have and leave a profound impact on a students life. In Music in the Schools, by Janet Mill, she
references a time when she was asked to answer the question of why we should teach music in
We teach music in school primarily because we want children all children to grow as
musicians. But music, also, improves the mind. While it is hard to catch the results of this in a
scientific experiment, or to plan music teaching so that this will necessarily happen, no-one who
has had the privilege of observing really good music teaching, and as watched children grow
intellectually in front of them, can doubt that this is the case. It may be the raising of childrens
self-esteem through success in music making that helps them towards achievement more
generally. It may be that enjoying music helps children to enjoy school more. It may be that
chemical changes induced in the brain by music facilitate learning more generally. Or perhaps
the thought experiments that musicians must carry out to improve their performing and
composing help children to extend their thinking more generally. I dont much mind what the
Such testimonies and speculation as to the benefits of this music education for everyone
mentality certainly cannot replace concrete evidence; however, Mill acknowledges this fact. She
places a lot of stock in the testimonial evidence that music is something that makes life better,
and that should be a good enough justification to invest time and resources into it. I am in
agreement with her that stories of how music enhanced someones life will certainly make for
good supplements in discourse supporting music education. Personal stories often provide an
easier way for a non-scientific community to connect to a cause. I am even in agreement that
music does do all of the things which she stated, and that it does justify a place in our educational
system.
Once the question of the importance of music education has been settled, there is then the
entirety of creating a personal philosophy of how music should be taught. I have already touched
learning, but there are many more decisions an educator must deliberately make between or on a
spectrum between binary pairs; for example, the debate between Bennett Reimer and David
Elliot about Praxial versus Aesthetic education. This disagreement is described in the article
Gradually Adaptive Frameworks, by Stanley Haskins. In the article, he focuses mostly on the
idea of peer disagreement, and a little bit on the specifics of their differing ideologies. For
example a primary instance of divergence between the praxial and aesthetic philosophies is an
emphasis on performance versus listening, respectively (Haskins, 202). The article by Haskins to
me illuminates an important point: there isnt one right way to teach. Some might be more
ineffectiveness. A teacher who begins to teach with a single-minded, ridged approach will likely
Largely through testimonial data and thought experiment it can be thought of as having cognitive
and social benefits which enrich the human experience. There are many models and methods by
which music can be taught, and while one is not intrinsically better than another, teachers must
be flexible in their approach and be continually evaluating whether the students are excelling in
the areas of music that are being emphasized by the given method. Music is a universal art which
has stood the tests of culture and time for all of recorded history, and in my opinion, this is proof
in itself that it has value enough to warrant careful teaching and transfer to all future generations.
Works Cited
Education Review 21.2 (2013): 197-212. RILM Abstracts of Music Literature (1967 to
Jorgenson, Estelle. Pictures of Music Education. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2011. Print.
Mills, Janet. Music in the School. New York: Oxford, 2005. Print.
Reimer, Bennett, and Jeffrey E. Wright. On the Nature of Musical Experience. Niwot, CO: U of