1

Music Education Philosophy

Juli Chiriboga

ME-262-01 Art of Teaching Music II

Dr. Cape & Dr. Vodicka

7 May, 2021
 2

When discussing music education, oftentimes we are only focused on the act of teaching

music rather than the motivations behind it. According to Dr. Abrahams’ (2015) Planning

Instruction in Music, one of the tenets of good teaching is that good teaching is “is the

interrelationship of philosophy, psychology (learning theories), and praxis” (p. 15). A good

teacher allows their lesson planning and teaching to be guided by their experiences, the context

of learning, their students needs, and new research in the field; Therefore, when studying music

education it is important to, in addition to discussing praxis and psychology, develop a thorough

music philosophy. An ideal music philosophy should be evaluated using three criteria;

comprehensiveness, objectivity, and procedure (Elliott, 1995, p. 8). Comprehensiveness is

making sure that your philosophy takes into consideration as wide a range of viewpoints as

possible. You cannot only consider your own opinions, you must be able to provide logic for

your conclusions. For objectivity, we simply must address that no philosophy will ever be

completely objective-- it will always be influenced by our internal biases. And finally, it is

important to understand that no pre-existing method will provide all the answers a music

educator needs. A sound philosophy will always be adjusting over time, as we are always

learning and growing in our field.

There are many philosophies of music education, but some of the more prominent and

influential philosophies include: Praxialism, based on the ideas of David Elliott; Aestheticism,

based on the ideas of Bennett Reimer; Critical Pedagogy, based on the ideas of Paulo Freire; and

Democracy in Music Education, based on the ideas of Paul Woodford. Every teacher will

develop their own unique philosophy, but their philosophy should take into account all other

possibilities.
 3

After thorough study of many different music education philosophies, I have come to the

following conclusion: music is nearly impossible to define without reifying it, or assigning the

concept to some material item or physical action; whether it be a work of music, the act of

performing music, or the act of composing music (Small, 2016, pp. 96-97). This made it very

difficult to locate my starting point when crafting my own philosophy of music. Originally I had

defined music as an art through which people discover and express their emotions and ideas.

This definition is a reification of my personal experiences in performing music in an ensemble.

Really, it’s much simpler than that.

In Music Matters- A New Philosophy of Music Education, David Elliott (1995) states that

“what music is, at root, is a human activity” (p. 39). Music does not imply any sort of emotional

ties-- it really is just a thing that we as humans do. Bennett Reimer would argue otherwise. His

philosophy of Aestheticism holds that music is a reflection of the natural flow of human

emotions. Aestheticism also holds that “music is a tonal analogue of the emotive life,” (Leonhard

& House, 1972, p. 95) and while I do understand the emotional value most music holds, it is very

dependent on the context in which the music listening, making, or writing is taking place and not

just on the notated music, or the product, itself. Therefore, I don’t think it’s fair to restrict music

to such a noble title. Some music is just appreciated for what it is, without any deeper emotional

analysis. Once I redefined “music” for myself, I was then able to begin thinking critically about

the rest of my beliefs regarding music education.

In the grand scheme of general schooling, the importance of music education is often

questioned by the general community-- it’s a battle that arts educators across the board are

constantly fighting. It is important to identify in our personal music philosophies why music

should be studied in schools, so that we can be better prepared to defend our programs. In my
 4

opinion, the main reason music should be studied in schools is because it’s fun. However, this

alone is not so compelling. In Foundations and Principles of Music Education, Charles

Leonhard and Robert House (1972) justify an aesthetic education by stating that humans have

“physical, intellectual, ethical, and aesthetic potentials” and if any of those potentials aren’t

developed, a person will “never attain his true stature as a human being” (p. 114). They believed

that music education was the best means of aesthetic education because humans are “universally

responsive to music” (p. 115). While I do agree that music is a common experience amongst all

humans, I find it to be a bit of an exaggeration to say that without aesthetic experiences you are

not human.

I much prefer the way music is viewed through Praxialism; Music is a universal

experience. Again, it’s just something we do. So, it is important to teach music in schools so that

students can develop the skills to be amateur musicians and apply music skills to contexts

outside the classroom. In short, music is useful.

The philosophy of Democracy in Music Education holds that music education should be

included in schools in order to create socially aware intellectuals; it should serve as a means to

motivate students to become more involved in “the wider musical and social world around them”

(Woodford, 2007, p. 58). This also falls in line with some of David Elliot’s (2016) ideas about

music and artistic citizenship, which state that music can be used as a means of social justice and

for the “betterment of other people’s lives and social well-being” (p. 22). When the general

social climate calls for it, I think it is fully appropriate for music education to be used for this

purpose.

Another purpose, not covered by any of the major philosophies, is that including music in

public education gives students who aren’t geared towards math or linguistics an opportunity to
 5

succeed. According to Howard Gardner’s (2017) Theory of Multiple Intelligences, there are 8

Intelligences: visual/spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal,

verbal/linguistic, logical/mathematical, and naturalistic. The core subjects really only focus on

logical/mathematical and verbal/linguistic intelligences. The MI theory states that all these

intelligences are equally as important; therefore, it’s important that we diversify the school

curriculum with arts programs so that everyone has a place to feel fulfilled during the school day.

Additionally, having music education during the school days allows students who are geared

toward music to explore the possibility of having a career in the field.

In summary; I believe that there are many reasons why music should be studied in

schools. However, it’s important that we don’t hone in too much on any one particular reason and

allow that to be the only thing guiding our instruction. Most importantly, we teach music because

it is an accessible and natural means with many different ends. We must acknowledge the

numerous purposes that music education holds, and allow the context of the learning process to

guide us in our more specific focus.

In addition to the many purposes of music education, we must also identify who should

receive said education. Aestheticism encourages “an educational emphasis on musical

consumption rather than active and artistic music making” (Elliott, 1995, p. 32) because it views

music listening and music performing as two totally separate entities. It holds that most students

are only capable of becoming intelligent musical listeners, meaning that they can listen to music

“aesthetically”. Only a select few are capable of also performing music intelligently because

“music is part of a transcendental world,” (Leonhard & House, 1972, p. 95) implying that

ordinary people aren’t capable of making music. This philosophy is very outdated because, as
 6

I’ve previously stated, music can be defined as an intentional human practice-- something that all

people do. By this logic, all people should be studying music, regardless of age or ability.

Furthermore, David Elliott (1995) states that “authentic music making is a viable

educational end for all students” because no matter in what form music is being studied--

whether through performing, composing, listening, etc.-- it requires the same “multidimensional

form of thinking” (p. 33). Therefore, not only should all students study music, but they should

also all be given the same opportunities to study music. There shouldn’t be any separation for

“talented” students, because everyone has the capacity to make music and music making in itself

is natural and important to the human experience.

Next, we must determine what music should be studied in the music classroom. A

traditional music curriculum tends to include mostly Western classical music. This is likely

because, in the 1970s when Aesthetic music education was popular, many people believed that

only “great” works of music should be studied. What this meant was that the music was only

worth studying if it was “put together with expert craftsmanship,” and “embodied the composer’s

conception of the stress-release form of human experience” (Leonhard & House, 1972, p. 102).

Their criteria for “great” music was very specific to Western classical music, invalidating all

other kinds of music. While this belief is obviously outdated, many music classrooms still aren’t

incorporating other kinds of music.

Dr. Abrahams’ (2015) and Paulo Freire’s (1970) ideas of Critical Pedagogy, specifically

in music education, emphasize the need for a more student-centered education in which the

students have more control of their learning. In a student-centered education, the context of the

students-- their cultural backgrounds, socioeconomic status, learning styles, needs, etc.-- are

taken into account when designing curriculum. A classroom teacher who practices Critical
 7

Pedagogy would incorporate popular music into the classroom, so as to make the lessons more

accessible for students. This concept can be supported by the Praxial philosophy of music

education which holds that “music is a diverse human practice consisting in many different

musical practices” (Elliott, 1995, p. 44) from many different cultures and many different

contexts. Based on this, we can conclude type of music should be neglected and there is no such

thing as “great” music. Teachers should choose music for their students that is relevant to their

lives, and that is chosen with a specific purpose in mind soas to bring students some sort of

societal awareness (Woodford 2007) and a transformational experience (Abrahams 2015). With

the right amount of research and thought, any type of music can be taught in the classroom.

With all these things considered, the final step is to figure out what these things might

look like in practice. A comprehensive school music education program would ideally follow the

constructivist practices of Critical Pedagogy, with some influence from Praxial music

philosophy. There should be many diverse musical opportunities available to students, with

classes that focus on every aspect of the musical experience. I think there’s always a place for

general music classes, varying performance ensembles, music appreciation classes, music theory,

music history etc. However, these classes shouldn’t be separated based on level of musicianship,

rather separated based on interest because music is a multidimensional concept, and no one

aspect of it is more important than another (Elliot, 1995, p. 42). Music education should be

student-centered, with a focus on things that are relevant to the students’ lives and that will

actually be used outside of the classroom. The learning should be “personalized to the students’

unique needs, interests, and aspirations, and designed with their ideas and voices at the table”

and a collaborative process (Kaput, 2018). This means that in a music classroom we should see

popular music, music of other cultures (ideally those that are represented in the classroom),
 8

instruction on accessible instruments (such as the guitar, ukulele, piano, drums etc.), and lots of

student participation. The music education classroom should be student-centered, interactive,

culturally responsive, and engaging.

In conclusion, the foundations for my personal musical philosophy are as follows: First,

music is a thing that people do-- a natural human activity. Next, we teach music mostly because

it is useful, natural, and malleable. It can be used for many different purposes, and serves many

different purposes in the public education system. The purpose music education serves should

depend on the context in which the learning is taking place. Once the purpose is established, we

can understand why it makes sense that music should be taught to all people regardless of their

age or experience. Again, it’s something that all people do. Then, because music is a universal

experience we must also acknowledge that all people like all types of music, and all these types

of music are valid and are worthy of being studied in the classroom--that is, so long as the proper

research and effort is put into planning the lessons. And finally, the ideal music education

program would have the learning centered around the students, and the content of the lessons

would be relevant to students' lives, and applicable to other contexts, soas to assure a meaningful

educational experience for the students.

 9

References

Abrahams, F., & John, R. (2015). Planning instruction in music: writing objectives, assessments,

and lesson plans to engage artistic processes. GIA Publications, Inc.

Elliott, D. J. (1995). Music matters-- a new philosophy of music education. Oxford University

Press.

Elliott, D. J. (2012). Music Education as/for Artistic Citizenship. Music Educators Journal,

99(1), 21–27.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (pp. 71–86). Continuum.

Kaput, K. (2018, January). Evidence for Student-Centered Learning [web log].

https://www.educationevolving.org/.

Leonhard, C., & House, R. W. (1972). Philosophical Foundations of Music Education. In

Foundations and Principles of Music Education (2nd ed., pp. 83-118). New York:

McGraw Hill Publishing.

Project Zero. (2017). Howard Gardner and Ellen Winner on Intelligences and Arts Education.

Youtube.com. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUUtRsMlzbU.

Small, C. (1998) Introduction to musicking: Prelude: Music and musicking. In The Christopher

Small Reader. Wesleyan University Press.

Woodford, P. (2007). Music Education and the Culture Wars. In Democracy and music

education: liberalism, ethics, and the politics of practice. essay, Indiana Univ. Press.