Response to Paul Woodford, "A Liberal Versus Performance-Based Music Education?"

Philosophy of Music Education Review 12 (2):208-210 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Response to Paul Woodford, “A Liberal Versus Performance-Based Music Education?”Peter R. WebsterA study of the history of music teaching and learning in North America will likely reveal very few examples of extended and well-argued professional discourse. By "discourse" I mean a continuous expression or exchange of ideas designed to present contrasting views on important issues in the music teaching profession. Often our annual conventions are filled with presentations that address a single perspective in research, pedagogy, or theory. "Special theme" issues of magazines are rarely devoted to contrasting points of view about music teaching and learning. Conferences are organized to promote single views on a subject, often speaking to a partisan audience that expects to be neither challenged to think in a contrary way nor encouraged to develop alternative perspectives.Of course there are some rare and wonderful exceptions. During my course on measurement and assessment in music, I frequently ask my students to read [End Page 208] the exchange in the pages of the Music Educators Journal during the late 1930s between James Mursell and Carl Seashore as they debated approaches to music aptitude testing.1 I recall the great exchange at the 1994 meeting of the Music Educators National Conference between Bennett Reimer and Edwin Gordon on the subject of music learning.2 In past eras, there have been notable "point-counterpoint" exchanges in the pages of the Bulletin of the Council of Research in Music Education,3 as well as interesting perspectives on completed doctoral dissertations that spawned some debate. More recently, contributions in Philosophy of Music Education Review have been notable, particularly given the recent upturn in published work and interest in music education philosophy that this very Symposium exemplifies. The formation of the MayDay group in recent years is no small example of this trend.4 I am sure that I have missed other examples. However, compare these few instances with the millions of pages that are written in our field and the hours of papers presented and conference sessions held and the examples of real discourse pale in comparison to the body of professional exchange.In his paper, especially in the early pages, Paul Woodford makes this point forcefully and effectively. He challenges us to consider just how few examples there are of real discourse within the profession. I enjoyed enormously the case made for liberal education as not defined by the teaching of a canon of great books or art works as an end but as a thoughtful discussion of ideas in light of con-temporary circumstance. The paper reminds us that the idea of criticism in our field need not be a negative concept in this current age of post-modern thought, but a positive mark of a maturing profession.I was sympathetic to Woodford's example of multiculturalism running the risk of becoming an absolutism to be imposed on children. I feel the same way at times about other trends in our field such as the rise of technology as a kind of end-experience or the encouragement of popular music in classrooms simply because it is such a dominant part of children's lives. Each of these aspects of modern music education is worthy of careful debate by intellectuals in our field in much more sophisticated ways then we see today. Woodford would have us believe that this is a major professional failure, and I tend to agree.Not to belabor this point too much, but what about the National Standards? How often do you see an article published in Music Educators Journal that actually takes issue with any aspect of the standards? Where is the national debate about the content, extension, redefinition, refocusing, and development of these standards? Are they so good that they are not the subject of at least some national debate?At core here, for me, is the notion that discourse involving critical comment leads not to a sense of competition for superiority but real understanding of complex [End Page 209] issues. Very little that is worth discussing is black and white, and nearly always there are levels of complex gray. Many of us learn this from our days on the high...

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The music teaching artist's bible: Becoming a virtuoso educator (review).David Allen - 2011 - Journal of Aesthetic Education 45 (3):118-120.
Response to June Boyce-Tillman, "Towards an Ecology of Music Education".Claudia Gluschankof - 2004 - Philosophy of Music Education Review 12 (2):181-186.
Response to June Boyce-Tillman, "Towards an Ecology of Music Education".Mark Garberich - 2004 - Philosophy of Music Education Review 12 (2):188-193.
Toward Mindful Music Education: A Response to Bennett Reimer.Sandra Lee Stauffer - 2005 - Philosophy of Music Education Review 13 (2):135-138.
A Response to Marja Heimonen, "Justifying the Right to Music Education".Hermann J. Kaiser - 2006 - Philosophy of Music Education Review 14 (2):213-216.
Response to June Boyce-Tillman, "Towards an Ecology of Music Education".Elizabeth Anne Bauer - 2004 - Philosophy of Music Education Review 12 (2):186-188.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-24

Downloads
15 (#809,217)

6 months
2 (#668,348)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Peter Webster
School of Advanced Study, University of London

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references