I know the problem.
I am furious.
The words are buzzing in my mouth like a swarm of hornets and I'm terrified of opening my mouth just in case they kill.
The problem is that I've shut my mouth so firmly against the striped assassins nothing is coming out.
So I will have to let them out. This could be a long ranty blog. Be warned.
It started with the news that a school in Saffron Walden in Essex is going to stop providing music lessons for year seven and eight. The hornets multiplied as I read article after article on why arts were important or not important. The debates about access and elitism in music caused a fresh sting in my mouth each time and finally when a friend asked, "What are you going to do when they cut music?" I went into total anaphylaxis.
This is what I think about the whole debate. I'm just going to leave it here and hopefully the hornets will leave without the need to call the exterminators in.
1. Music is a basic human response.
We move and we make music. These things make us human. Even if you think you don't make music you do. You use a sing-song voice to talk to babies. You tap or clap rhythmically when you are distracted and you move to music, responding to the pulse without even noticing. When things are bad we turn to music. Concerts and charity singles are organised for disasters. Think about the singing that happened in the Second World War as people huddled in the underground while bombs fell overhead.
2. Music is therefore available and accessible to everyone.
This might be a controversial statement, as we have gone so far down the road of pretending it's an elite activity that we've forgotten that we all do it. Music could learn so much from sport. The
great Sport for All campaign should be adopted for music. No one would consider cutting sport from the curriculum now. There would be an outcry, "Think of the health of our children." Sport for All managed to turn around public opinion. When I was at school I remember a teacher tilting her head to one side and saying, "Not everyone can run, you should stick to music dear." The idea that I shouldn't try to run because it was only something that the fastest should bother with stuck in my brain. The truth is that everyone can run and most people get some pleasure from it. Very few of the park runners will ever win the Olympics but they are out there enjoying the experience. Why can't it be like that for music?
3. Music is important for mental health.
Sport takes care of our physical health. Music is a workout for the brain. There are many studies that show how music is the only activity that uses both sides of the brain at the same time.
Neuroscientists are beginning to map how the brain responds to music and the results are amazing. Listening to music is good for the brain, playing it (even badly) is better. MRIs of people who play a lot of music show that their brains are more symmetrical, areas of the brain responsible for auditory processing, motor and spatial control are larger, and the corpus collosum (the band of fibres that connects the two hemispheres of the brain) is larger. Just listening to music reduces the amount of cortisol, is more successful than prescription drugs in controlling anxiety and thrilling music causes the release of dopamine. We need to look after everyone's mental health.
4. Music should be taught.
Again, this seems to be a controversial statement. You hear people talking about musicians as if their skills have been magically dropped on them at night while they are sleeping. This is never true. The verb to practise is a favourite of the musician. Musicians know how to work hard at something. Just as some children come to school being able to read, some come being able to sing in pitch or clap the pulse. This is because they have been around music. Children of musicians can do these things not because they have the genes for it but because they've experienced it. If a child came to school being able to read and his parents could read you wouldn't assume that it was a 'God given' or genetically based talent. You would rightly think that it is because they've seen books, words and shared stories. Imagine the outrage if we said, "Oh well, some children just love reading and others don't so we'll do nothing because those who love it will be good at it and those who don't never will." Can we afford to let down those who have not seen a book or experienced music before?
5. Any kind of music could be taught.
There is an awful lot of snobbery in the music world. I'm guilty too. I spent years thinking less of guitarists because they didn't read music but they could look down on me because as a flautist I couldn't read TAB and my knowledge of chords was purely theoretical. The content of a country's school curriculum is political. Politician's decide what children 'should' know. Mr Gove decided that Bach Motets were very important: "an understanding of the tradition of classical music is what a rounded education is about," he said. People think there is a kind of hierarchy of music that makes it more important the older it is. I know musicians with fantastic degrees from Oxford who are certain that music by Thomas Tallis is more musical than song by Adele. This isn't true. They might prefer Tallis just as you might prefer Adele but they both use musical skills. At primary school children need to learn how to sing in tune, keep a pulse, understand rhythm, dynamic, expression, tempo. They need to experiment with sounds. These are the basic skills that a musician will use if they become prinicpal violinist of the LSO, the next Stormzy, a composer of film music or something new and experimental. The books on the set curriculum list are what the government wants everyone to know but everyone knows that they are just a way of developing skills. Good readers will read more. Writers will read everything. It's true for musicians.
6. Any kind of music is valuable.
Sport doesn't fall into this trap. It seems ridiculous that runners would suggest that cycling is a lesser sport because it hasn't been around as long. Sport understands that some people will suit one type of sport over an other. People who do park runs don't look down on me because I prefer to do lengths of the swimming pool but I have seen choir members who sing early choral music look down on those that sing in a rock choir. I know orchestral players who think that people who play in a brass band are lesser musicians.
7. Privilege is responsible for this hierarchy.
Oxford scholars like early church music and because they are Oxford scholars it is considered valuable. Classical orchestral instruments are considered higher than brass instruments because it costs a lot to access these instruments and the training needed to be any good at them. Brass bands used borrowed instruments and players learnt by sitting next to someone who had learnt by sitting next to someone.
"'Just press 1 and 3 and play Ds all the time."
"Like this?"
"Yep, well done, lad."
"'Ey John that one looks different. It sounds wrong."
"Well spotted. It's an E - press 1 and 2."
People wanting to be in a brass band had to pay a small amount of subs and would get a cup of tea and some biscuits in the break.
Folk music is further down the pecking order but higher than pop.(Folk music is older) Anyone who can borrow a guitar and teach themselves a few chords can do pop (providing they have the basic music skills). However, many successful pop musicians have had training of the classical orchestral variety because that is still (in this country) the best way to gain those basic musical skills.
8. Throwing more money at the already privileged won't make more musicians.
Like the campaign to provide more grammar schools it worries me that any money that is around for education it is being spent on the kids who are going to do well anyway. The music hubs provide orchestras and choirs for those who are already proficient. My daughter had grade 5 violin before she could join and I, as a flautist could have only hoped to join at grade 8. It was out of reach for me because of the cost and my daughter's fees certainly made a large dent in our family budget. They hire instruments at a reasonable rate (£15-£60 a term depending upon instrument) and provide teachers to schools, which parents must pay for (£14 for a half hour lesson). I think my music hub gets it. They are attempting brilliant things. They have instrument zoos and professional musicians who can go into schools and play. They have invested in good ICT music schemes that they provide free to schools. They organise conferences for teachers and exciting events like a world record breaking Stomp routine. They are trying.
9. It is going to take more than a few individuals with good ideas.
Government needs to take action. We need campaign groups, like Music for All and for people to campaign against the EBac but this all starts with individuals. It starts with people who care that all children have access to music lessons.
10. Each person who cares about music is important.
Together we can turn ourselves from an annoying sting to an impossible to ignore hornet colony.
Neuroscientists are beginning to map how the brain responds to music and the results are amazing. Listening to music is good for the brain, playing it (even badly) is better. MRIs of people who play a lot of music show that their brains are more symmetrical, areas of the brain responsible for auditory processing, motor and spatial control are larger, and the corpus collosum (the band of fibres that connects the two hemispheres of the brain) is larger. Just listening to music reduces the amount of cortisol, is more successful than prescription drugs in controlling anxiety and thrilling music causes the release of dopamine. We need to look after everyone's mental health.
4. Music should be taught.
Again, this seems to be a controversial statement. You hear people talking about musicians as if their skills have been magically dropped on them at night while they are sleeping. This is never true. The verb to practise is a favourite of the musician. Musicians know how to work hard at something. Just as some children come to school being able to read, some come being able to sing in pitch or clap the pulse. This is because they have been around music. Children of musicians can do these things not because they have the genes for it but because they've experienced it. If a child came to school being able to read and his parents could read you wouldn't assume that it was a 'God given' or genetically based talent. You would rightly think that it is because they've seen books, words and shared stories. Imagine the outrage if we said, "Oh well, some children just love reading and others don't so we'll do nothing because those who love it will be good at it and those who don't never will." Can we afford to let down those who have not seen a book or experienced music before?
5. Any kind of music could be taught.
There is an awful lot of snobbery in the music world. I'm guilty too. I spent years thinking less of guitarists because they didn't read music but they could look down on me because as a flautist I couldn't read TAB and my knowledge of chords was purely theoretical. The content of a country's school curriculum is political. Politician's decide what children 'should' know. Mr Gove decided that Bach Motets were very important: "an understanding of the tradition of classical music is what a rounded education is about," he said. People think there is a kind of hierarchy of music that makes it more important the older it is. I know musicians with fantastic degrees from Oxford who are certain that music by Thomas Tallis is more musical than song by Adele. This isn't true. They might prefer Tallis just as you might prefer Adele but they both use musical skills. At primary school children need to learn how to sing in tune, keep a pulse, understand rhythm, dynamic, expression, tempo. They need to experiment with sounds. These are the basic skills that a musician will use if they become prinicpal violinist of the LSO, the next Stormzy, a composer of film music or something new and experimental. The books on the set curriculum list are what the government wants everyone to know but everyone knows that they are just a way of developing skills. Good readers will read more. Writers will read everything. It's true for musicians.
6. Any kind of music is valuable.
Sport doesn't fall into this trap. It seems ridiculous that runners would suggest that cycling is a lesser sport because it hasn't been around as long. Sport understands that some people will suit one type of sport over an other. People who do park runs don't look down on me because I prefer to do lengths of the swimming pool but I have seen choir members who sing early choral music look down on those that sing in a rock choir. I know orchestral players who think that people who play in a brass band are lesser musicians.
7. Privilege is responsible for this hierarchy.
Oxford scholars like early church music and because they are Oxford scholars it is considered valuable. Classical orchestral instruments are considered higher than brass instruments because it costs a lot to access these instruments and the training needed to be any good at them. Brass bands used borrowed instruments and players learnt by sitting next to someone who had learnt by sitting next to someone.
"'Just press 1 and 3 and play Ds all the time."
"Like this?"
"Yep, well done, lad."
"'Ey John that one looks different. It sounds wrong."
"Well spotted. It's an E - press 1 and 2."
People wanting to be in a brass band had to pay a small amount of subs and would get a cup of tea and some biscuits in the break.
Folk music is further down the pecking order but higher than pop.(Folk music is older) Anyone who can borrow a guitar and teach themselves a few chords can do pop (providing they have the basic music skills). However, many successful pop musicians have had training of the classical orchestral variety because that is still (in this country) the best way to gain those basic musical skills.
8. Throwing more money at the already privileged won't make more musicians.
Like the campaign to provide more grammar schools it worries me that any money that is around for education it is being spent on the kids who are going to do well anyway. The music hubs provide orchestras and choirs for those who are already proficient. My daughter had grade 5 violin before she could join and I, as a flautist could have only hoped to join at grade 8. It was out of reach for me because of the cost and my daughter's fees certainly made a large dent in our family budget. They hire instruments at a reasonable rate (£15-£60 a term depending upon instrument) and provide teachers to schools, which parents must pay for (£14 for a half hour lesson). I think my music hub gets it. They are attempting brilliant things. They have instrument zoos and professional musicians who can go into schools and play. They have invested in good ICT music schemes that they provide free to schools. They organise conferences for teachers and exciting events like a world record breaking Stomp routine. They are trying.
9. It is going to take more than a few individuals with good ideas.
Government needs to take action. We need campaign groups, like Music for All and for people to campaign against the EBac but this all starts with individuals. It starts with people who care that all children have access to music lessons.
10. Each person who cares about music is important.
Together we can turn ourselves from an annoying sting to an impossible to ignore hornet colony.
No comments:
Post a Comment