Frosties* Forum

Just posted this on another forum. I know there are some teachers here so I thought I'd post it up here too:


I'm writing a scheme of works for the music course I teach on

(Kidderminster college National Diploma in Music. Read all about it here> http://andyedwardsmusic.blogspot.com/
plug plug)

and some thoughts have occoured to me.

A few years ago the goverment commissioned a report which suggested the country needs skilled people and looked to education to supply this.
I agree that this is true.

BUT...

What would we define musical skill as?

I've just written a definition but I'll post it up later if this discussion gets spicy.

The question I have is this:

What is musical skill? How valuable is it to society and should a we, the tax payers fund establishments to develop these skills?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

I definitely think that music is a very important part of society. I for one, could not imagine what the world would be like if suddenly all music would disappear. In my hometown, the "government" encourages music festivals. Especially in the summer season, there are some great festivals, with some great music. Best of all, free entrance! The drinks are pretty expensive, but I still think it's great that the government invests money in these events.

As for skills, it's pretty hard to define what's good and what's not. Music is a form of art, and so not everybody will like the same kind. Some players are not very technically skilled. I mean as in, playing expensive chops in 19/16th. But that doesn't mean that they can't play a fantastic beat in 4/4. Groove/swing is very important imo, more than doing a million double strokes in 2 seconds.

[/rant]

Being that music is an artform, there will always be those that question its true value in society. It's very sad to see music programs cut from school programs for budgetary reasons, as is happening more and more these days. Music may not win wars or reduce greenhouse gases, but it does possess tremendous aesthetic power.

I think most would agree that music offers health benefits, with its calming effect. It helps people relax, lulls babies to sleep, soothes the savage beast. It can also alter moods, as a happy tune can lift people out of sadness and a gospel chorus can raise others' spirits.

I suppose I'd say that musical skill covers the spectrum from the non-musical to the virtuous and prodigious, with several levels and different methods of measure. People who can play by ear, for instance. People who can read music, people who can play sheet music on the fly. People who can play different musical styles. People who play more than one instrument. People who play more than one instrument simultaneously. People who can sing like a bird. Obviously, this would be a very long list.

My son can play "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" on his toy xylophone. He has a musical skill.
I can tap the opening of YYZ with my pen. I have a non-useful skill.

Mozart was okay, too.

Should the taxpayers support music programs? Well, when the alien mothership shows up and will destroy us unless someone can play the complete works of Mozart double tempo, backward, blindfolded... get ready for the face palm.

OH, and then there's THIS GUY.

waffle/
I think that there's more to it than just 'skill'. As well as the ability to play all the right notes in the right order, there's the (much rarer) ability to convey feeling. Possibly this is musical 'soul'; which I think is the bit that is very hard (but not impossible) to teach.
My dear wife (who won't read this - thank goodness) has plenty of the musical ability: grade 8 piano and oboe; but precious little musical soul. She only plays from sheet music, and has little ability to extemporise or create her own music. Obviously this is a skill that is useful, because an orchestra doesn't need to be filled with soloists, and session musicians can still (just about) find gainful employment.
If we assume that music (per se) is a 'good thing' and that we wish to enjoy the gifted rather just the workmanlike; then state-based funding is needed, especially in the area of musical encouragement in the early years of school. This encouragement shouldn't just be pushing kids into the usual atonal recorder ensembles, but also about broadening musical experience and allowing experimentation. This may allow the frustrated drummer to escape from out of the violinist, or the talented songwriter to break away from the formulaic arrangement.
Of course, all this requires good, specialist, teaching which is undoubtedly in short supply - a situation that isn't helped by the idea that music is only a luxury in the curriculum.
I think that in an ideal world, music teaching would be undertaken by practising musicians who take regular sabbaticals to write, perform and refresh their own skills (and soul) with other musicians.
(could this be Andy's secret plan )

/waffle

Personal take on the key musical skill - getting from 'a riff' to 'a song'. That process of sifting lots of little pieces to find connections, and building those up into a journey - invaluable for so much else in life.

Then learning 'to kill your babies'. That the ideas that first made you love a song/piece/painting/website, the key that got it all going, is the one piece that needs to be thrown away.

Never being satisfied with what you've already done, but immediately trying to springboard off of it and onto the next new interesting - a sense of continual reinvention, exploration and synthesis.

Learning to say that something is 'finished enough' and it has to make its way out there in the real world.

Finally, being able to take the notes/lyrics/powerpoint and make them resonate with people in some way because of your performance and what you bring to it.

Well that's what music did for me anyway.

(Playing fast, using mellotrons, having taste, looking attractive, being sufficiently of the moment...that's another story)

Well, I'm working from this definition:

My definition of skill

Skill can be seen as the ability to execute methods used to create good music.
The course should develop these skills but also constantly question the meaning of ‘good’ in a musical context. Although the concept of good is somewhat subjective, I argue that it isn’t entirely subjective.

This scheme is designed to develop the following skills:

1) Motor skill on the students chosen instrument
2) Communicate with other musicians through different types of music notation
3) Improvise and Compose (these two being related)
4) Have a knowledge of music theory and use this theory in their work
5) An understanding of music theory that can be used as a positive reference in composing and performingAn ability to articulate what makes a piece of music good.

As a teacher I'm working to the criteria of the course.

If we take Btec National Diploma in Music (which is worth 3 A levels) and take the criteria from one of their units we get this:

40 Working and Developing as a Musical Ensemble

1 Be able to form and develop a musical ensemble
2 Be able to communicate and cooperate effectively as part of a musical team
3 Be able to select and prepare appropriate repertoire in a structured and effective
manner
4 Be able to demonstrate musical competency in an ensemble context.

I have always found these sort of criteria a bit vague and they seem to slightly side step the subject of actual musical skill. The question is if my idea of actual musical skill is wrong.

I can see both sides. But in my gropu this year I had a guitarist with jaw dropping chops, perfect pitch and an innate ability with music. I had another that was a beautiful blues guitarist.
But if you use the criteria above you couldn't give them marks for these things. (except perhaps the last criteria but it still seems very vague)

I'm trying to come up with something that balances these things a bit. I want to develop well organised musicians who have a good idea of creativity and have skills that will be of value in the workplace.

Technical skill isn't everything but is it nothing? anyway, I'm gonna go and listen to Allan Holdsworth and have a ponder on these things....

Students that are well organised however will do well.

I find your definition of skill much better than the 'national standard'. As you said, their guidelines are too vague.

TBE wrote:Technical skill isn't everything but is it nothing?

Of course it is something. If you have a great feeling of groove/rhythm, you'll still need a technical skill to play what's in your head/heart.

I think skills of any sort are tools; they are things in their own right, but their purpose is to facilitate another task.

So a spanner is a tool, and can be a very good chromium vanadium spanner, or a cheap, drop forged one; either way, you use that tool to shift a bolt or nut, and if you have that tool and can use it, you will be in demand when it's needed for a task. Invest in good tools and know how to use them and you will get a lot of work.

A musical skill might be timekeeping, or articulation, or harmonic understanding, or even the ability to play and understand an instrument(s). All individually useful things by themselves, but they come into their own when the task of making music requires them. Invest in your skills and you can make music more easily. Some people are born with these skills, others have to learn them, but everyone can benefit from "working on them".

There are also the skills that apply to any job; integrity, flexibility, sensitivity, professionalism. You can be a fantastic guitarist (or spanner wielder), but if you can't show up on time (or at least be honest that you are going to be late), the less chance there is of getting the job done.

Pajter wrote:

TBE wrote:Technical skill isn't everything but is it nothing?

Of course it is something. If you have a great feeling of groove/rhythm, you'll still need a technical skill to play what's in your head/heart.

Absolutely on the button, Pajter.

I find this myself. As a drummer I can play far better - and think up more interesting grooves - in my head than when sat at the kit.
I know this is down to a lack of developed skill, which is something I really want to correct ASAP.
(And speaking of which: Andy - I emailed your googlemail account last week; did you get it?)

But I digress...

I believe that the role of a teacher, especially in a discipline as creative as music, is not purely to teach a skill but also to nurture talent.
By talent I mean what you're born with as opposed to what can be taught. That "innate ability" you referred to.
So whilst it's useful to define skill, I don't think it encompasses the whole of a music teacher's role.

On the subject of definition though, there's something that the BTec definition hints at ("hinting" is all it does - it seems to be scared of "defining" anything!) is what I thought you were going to say with:

TBE wrote:Communicate with other musicians...

Except I'd have finished it with "...by listening to the other musicians in the group and adjusting their performance to complement the overall result."
Or something like that.

This is something that was woefully lacking at yesterday's drumathon.
During "free time" there were a lot of (mostly young, mostly dressed in black and exclusively male) drummers playing as loud and fast as they could, some very impressively, too. The guy two kits to my left was one of them. But I had to wave my hand in front of his face to get his attention and tell him to stop when they were trying to make an announcement - he hadn't noticed the bloke frantically waving his arms on stage, or the fact that nearly everyone else had stopped playing.
And it's those guys that weren't listening to their neighbours (or watching the conductor) in the attempt itself, and were constantly pushing the speed up. It took a concerted effort (and lots of exaggerated right-arm-to-snare motions!) from those of us who were watching to keep it in time and bring it back whenever it started to drift.

So yes, they were skilled in one way, but only good for playing with themselves (fnarr). They hadn't learned the skills needed to work with other musicians well.

TBE wrote:An ability to articulate what makes a piece of music good.

That's got to be a bugger to define!
What would you say makes a piece of music good? How do you teach that?

RacingHippo wrote:Absolutely on the button, Pajter.

I find this myself. As a drummer I can play far better - and think up more interesting grooves - in my head than when sat at the kit.
I know this is down to a lack of developed skill, which is something I really want to correct ASAP.

I completely know how you feel. Although I have been working on it - and it's been going better lately - I still come up with way more cool things than I can play.

I also think that it has to do with my (too) small drumkit. In my head sits a complete Portnoy-esque kit (not the double one), on which I create my beats.

[/offtopic]