 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
Sunday October 5, 2003
Blowing for Columbine
(From a thread on the Online Trombone Journal)quote:I don't debate that competition exists in the professional world and that it is perhaps necessary. I also agree that competition in school and the real world provides a measure of one's playing, and often can be a motivating factor.
Originally posted by dfrank:
politics exists everywhere. growing up in a small town exposed all the levels of politics to me at an early age, and challenges are a good example of the conductor covering his behind when an over zelous parent cries "favorite".
I happen to disagree that challenges do not help the education aspect of music. Competition is often the motivation that pushes us to try harder. In high school, I had been first chair ever since 5th grade. I had become complacent. I recieved a challenge from an underclassmen and was beaten. That was the BEST thing ever to happen to me musically. I realized that my playing could never be "good enough" again, it always had to be better.
My problem with "challenges" is that they are premised on the idea that "first chair" is the most important chair. It is not.
So I am not against competition, I am just against competition based on artificial distinctions.
As to the issue of band director "politics": if people don't like the idea that band directors choose who plays what parts on the basis of their judgment, then they shouldn't be involved. Tough. It is a bandleader's job to choose who plays what part, just as it is a football coach's job to determine who plays what position and who starts. But it is also the job of the coach/director to get the message across that every single member of the team is vital to the success of the whole.
Challenges send the opposite message.
Parents whine. It's what they do, because THEY have been conditioned in school that winning is everything, and if their kids have to play third trombone they are failures and won't make money and attract a healthy mate and produce offspring that will dominate the Smiths' offspring.
The big punch line of challenges are that they are still won or lost based on the personal judgment of the director or judges!! So what exactly are we teaching here?
One of the big messages of Bowling for Columbine is the intense pressure adults, particularly teachers, put on kids to "get on top!", to "get in honors math!" or to "get that first chair!" by convincing them if they get behind now you'll stay behind your whole life.
These pressures are, at best, factually incorrect, and at worst, deadly.
Now somebody's going to post how they lost challenges and it helped them. Well, goody for you, I'm glad you weren't damaged by it. I'm glad there was something inside that convinced you that failure is a temporary condition. But guess what - lots of people get conditioned very early in life that if you fail early, it's what you are permanently.
Every position in the section is vital. That's the message people should be sending high school students, and it is the reality in the real world. The other thing is artificial. Competition is good when it organic.
Dave,
Based on your response, I think the distinction I am making is much finer than you are giving credit.
quote:
would it be wrong for a coach to change his starting quarterback based on an improvement of his second string QB?
Of course not - this is a great example of competition arising from an organic situation wherein there was a long-term shift in abilities. Not analogous to challenges.
What WOULD be analogous is the coach who:
a) Takes great pain to let all of the players know that the best and smartest player on the team will be quarterback; let me know if you decide you want to be that and we'll set out some tires this afternoon. And/or
b) Changes quarterbacks several times during the season. Football fans know that quarterback controversies usually destroy locker rooms and make teams lose. They also make players play safe.
By the way, isn't it interesting to note how damaging a challenge system would be to a sports team, when most of us think that the level of competition in sports would be inappropriate for music? Think again! Every day, we engage in practices like challenges that any successful football coach knows would be inappropriate for football!
Of course, Dave, I'm only using football to point out how ridiculous it is - football is obviously a poor analogy to music, and yet no football coach would expect to allow competition to destroy stability and hope to win. It's just a lot easier for a coach to quantify wins than it is for a band director to qualitatively assess a band performance.
quote:It SHOULD be done by audition, at the beginning of the term. Auditions are a way to find the right fit for players and parts. They are organic, and are harmonious with the message that what part you play is not important, each part is vital, and we want to fit the right player with the right part.
If this isn't based on a formal challenge/audition process how can this be done more efficiently?
Challenges are different - challenges are premised by the idea that an ensemble based on the absolute need for the "best" player to be "first chair" will sound the best, and benefit the students the most.
quote:Yes, the fearful whiners - you're describing how they think! The ones who are so focused on competition that they make their kids as crazy as they are, and then the cycle repeats.
Joe Wrote:quote:Dave replied:
Parents whine. It's what they do, because THEY have been conditioned in school that winning is everything, and if their kids have to play third trombone they are failures and won't make money and attract a healthy mate and produce offspring that will dominate the Smiths' offspring.
There are some who argue that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. Teachers are now giving too many A's for effort and not instilling in our students the understanding that success is largely dependant on effort and patience. Some parents are too quick to judge the failure of their children on the teacher or school system, rather than on the student. This argument claims that our students aren't being properly prepared for higher education or the real world because they are being insulated from competition.
I tend not to get into conversations with people that think like this, so I don't have much experience with it. Think about it - this attitude is occuring to someone that is fully aware that the United States is the most competitive culture in the world, and simultaneously one of the most distrusting, fearful, self-murdering civilizations on the planet, and their reaction is that more competition will prepare their kids to dominate the Jones kid in pursuit of that juicy sales gig.
As if jobs make people happy!
This is Darwin/parent paranoia, and if the parent doesn't do a good job of repressing it they will surely guarantee the child will be miserable.
I find that mindset so closed to what's going on around us that I can't really engage with it (especially in view of the fact that through the democratic school I founded, I have discovered over and over that absense of artificial competition and pressure early in a young person's life is a profound factor in producing a healthy and happy adult).
The reality is that those who emerge into the adult world seeking to dominate others through competition rise to a level of their own incompetence, but they got there by attacking and defending effectively. The attacking and defending got them the middle management job, so that personality is rewarded and they function that way for life - truly alone. Conversely, those who seek to do what makes them happy and live with integrity and within their means are, well, happy.
quote:I can't understand why people think kids don't understand that mastery takes hard work. They've been mastering things all their life! It's probably the misinterpretation of the reaction most students have to the craziness the adults around them are subjecting them to, which looks a lot like apathy and laziness.
the challenge system can encourage kids to work harder improve enough to attain a higher chair. Like it or not, lots of things in life do go to those who do the best job, and I think that kids need to learn that they will need to work hard to get ahead.
Yet we feel we must create artificial competition because we are so afraid that this "laziness" and "apathy" we see in kids really means they don't understand that it takes hard work. Well, they get it already! And all the freaking out and upping the standards and threatening stories of what failure in school will do to your future are just driving kids crazy!
Yes, I think I said that it is certainly possible that a lot of kids have enough self-esteem already built in to derive a positive action plan from failing to win, win win. So I guess I agree with you there. But challenges, the specter of "you are only as good as you play/act/reason/study today" has no relation to the real world, and often has devestating consequences to many, many students over time.
quote:I think we would all agree that the consequences of feeling like you are destined to fail as an organization are far different than feeling like you are destined to fail as an individual. I mean, someone can still have the prospect of being the #1 loser, right? (For all you competitive types, that was irony right there.)
what about competitions between bands from different schools?
I personally don't see the point of turning music into a sporting event, but I don't think the capacity for negative consequences are remotely as severe.
********************************************************
By the way, I haven't heard anyone really attempt to refute the points I've made. I'll review them in case anyone wants to try:
- The nature of incessant competition that exists in a challenge system sends the underlying message that it is SO important to have the "best" players in the most "important" chairs, we need to have the flexibility to ensure that on an incessant, continual basis vis a vis challenges.
- The possibility that a bad day or a bad week could lose that chair (that the system has conditioned you into thinking is so primo) makes players afraid to make mistakes. Anyone who has led a band knows that a jazz band that is afraid to make mistakes in rehearsals is going to fail on performances, and they are going to do it in a spectacularly dispassionate way. And anyone who has played an instrument (!!) knows that you only get better by making mistakes.
- Challenges has nothing to do with the real music world. In the real world, over time, players develop reputations. A bad day, or a bad week is not going to affect the reputation of those players with anyone except for hack contractors that you shouldn't be working on in the first place. Show me a person that never makes a mistake, and I'll show you someone that has no CAPACITY for emotional expression.
- Challenges reinforce, over and over and over again, the idea that the first part is the most important part. Single auditions, held at the beginning of the term, are easy to harmonize with the consistent message that "we found the right people to fit each part, and each part is equally important". Then, you work to build the security and confidence of each player in their part, you work to build a culture based on cooperation instead of competition. This is Leadership 101. It's the truth of how great bands get that way. And it's the right way to treat people.
A story:
In February, 2003, I travelled to San Antonio, Texas to direct the Texas All-State Jazz Band. On the first day, in the first rehearsal, I walked in and began talking to them. The only thing was, every player in there was so tight, *I* could barely breathe.
The players in that group had made it to the top of the mountain. They were the best in their school, they were the best in their city and their district. Competition had gotten them all the way to the best in the state of Texas. And competition had turned them into machines - can't make any mistakes, can't show weakness. Trouble is, every single one of them was scared to death that the person next to them would find out that they were no good; that they weren't supposed to be there!
What's wrong with this picture?!? You have a bunch of people that are good players, there to have fun playing music that is based on joy, freedom, self-expression, emotion and fire. What I had was a collection of spelling bee winners.
So all of you really talented educators know exactly the first thing I did. I showed them my vulnerability. I laughed, I acted silly, I made mistakes - half on purpose. And then one by one, I found ways to communicate to them what a great job they were doing, and how THEIR performance and THEIR part was vital to the show.
And then the most important thing happened - I found the one or two of them that were strong enough to withstand looking bad, and I put them in a position to fail, and then I PRAISED them, effusively, for failing. I made a HUGE point of telling them in front of the band that if they folded it was because they were going for it, and THAT'S what I want to hear - people going for it, people playing with emotion, playing with the CAPACITY TO MAKE MISTAKES.
So the concert wasn't clean, but it was passionate. We got past the competition and distrust - that's the most important part. And I feel certain that the single four days they had together was more valuable to them than the rest of the school year, in terms of lasting, long term benefit that actually relates to the real music world.
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Frank.
quote:Yes, now here is the distinction (I'm only going to say this one more time, after that I'm going to assume people don't want to hear it): Auditions, occuring at the beginning of the year or term or whatever, represent the initial placement of players with the goal of matching the right player to the part. Following the auditions, the player should feel secure in their position, and feel like they have the opportunity to get worse in order to get better without being afraid that they will be challenged next week.
quote:most auditions are organized about the same way, with the same goals as the challenge system.
It SHOULD be done by audition, at the beginning of the term. Auditions are a way to find the right fit for players and parts. They are organic, and are harmonious with the message that what part you play is not important, each part is vital, and we want to fit the right player with the right part.
That's the environment to foster.
quote:Frank, let me tell you a little secret that it takes most people 40 or 50 years to learn - many consider it the key of life:
quote:I hope so. I love classes. hopefully either teaching or playing, I'll love just as much
As if jobs make people happy!
Jobs don't make people happy. People are happy first, and then they make the job good. Figure out what you love, and go for it. Live within your means and the money will follow.
That's it. It's simple, but universal. And it works.
(And for your bonus kick towards enlightenment for today: Relationships don't make people happy. People are happy first, and then they make the relationship good.)
quote:I'm not talking about jobs, I'm talking about mastery. Everybody knows that mastery takes hard work, and this is part of the reason why many choose jobs that do not require mastery.
quote:a good number of people are lazy, and would much rather prefer a job of sitting in a spot doing nothing all day then a job that gets them moving- atleast from my expirence.
I can't understand why people think kids don't understand that mastery takes hard work. They've been mastering things all their life! It's probably the misinterpretation of the reaction most students have to the craziness the adults around them are subjecting them to, which looks a lot like apathy and laziness.
Most schools seek to condition people, very early on, that only certain types of people are capable of mastery in given areas. They do that by barraging them with constant evaluation, separating the wheat from the chaff. People that fare well in all these tests get the message that there's nothing they can't do, and it repeats and self-proves over and over.
(Unfortunately, what these "successful" people take away from the constant reward of "doing" things well is that if they keep achieving, it will lead to happiness. Some of them have an innate understanding that achievement does not cause happiness, they are the lucky ones. But many of them achieve, achieve and achieve, and find themselves accomplished, alone and unfulfilled. The irony is that they are unfulfilled because the goal is not achievement - the goal is to achieve - so they must keep achieving to beat back the emptiness. I consider their plight sadder than the next case...)
People that don't do quite as well get the message they they are not the "chosen" ones. Some of them buy in to the artificial competition and attempt to "claw their way up", but most just give up and try to find things to make them happy:
"Things make people happy, right? They wouldn't teach us in school that "getting things" makes us happy if it weren't true, would they? Because learning to be happy is the ultimate goal, right? OK, so if my "thing" is not to be a doctor or lawyer, then maybe my "thing" is to have a job I tolerate but a great car that makes me happy, or a job I hate and the thing is a wide-screen TV, or no job at all and the thing is a great buzz."
These responses might look like laziness to you, Frankie.
Well, the reality is that no type of people are capable of mastery, and that young people are works in progress. If they are just given room and the opportunity to "try on" different identities without attempting to "lock in" their identity at age 7 by constant testing, we would all discover that they will form a culture based on cooperation, self-actualization and self-responsibility (I thank you for recognizing that your experiences are limited to conventional schools, which changes the sample profoundly). And in these cultures, we find that most people can figure out the little secret I told you about above within very few years.
If people aren't hit over the head with being sorted into little piles, every minute of evey day, it is shocking the extent to which the little stories in their head telling them they aren't capable of mastery do not develop.
quote:C'mon, Frank, who do you think you're talking to? Until recently, I wrote those charts, and we were mandated by the publisher to keep the 3rd and 4th parts simple and/or optional. This is one of the reasons I quit writing educational charts - because no matter how hard I tried to make things challenging and fun, no matter how hard I tried to write section parts that were easy but significant, I was forced to dumb it down.
quote:have you seen normal highschool band music recently? esp. the trombone part? truth is first is written to specifically be the best, and most involved part, and as you go down the scale from there it just gets incredibly boring.
- The nature of incessant competition that exists in a challenge system sends the underlying message that it is SO important to have the "best" players in the most "important" chairs, we need to have the flexibility to ensure that on an incessant, continual basis vis a vis challenges.
But let's shift here - you write, "first is written to specifically be the best, and most involved part, and as you go down the scale from there it just gets incredibly boring." What you have just described is the condition of being a professional ensemble musician on the planet earth. Now how do professionals deal with this issue?
Well, the fundamental flaw in the outlook here is, once again, that you are relying on the part to make you happy.
The common technique used by the masters in playing easy parts, pads, repetitive parts, is to focus on the experiential joy of buzzing into the horn, the joy of playing a perfect fifth with tbn 4, the joy of backing up the lead player *just* so, and doing your part to make the section punchy.
Again, the golden rule - you bring joy to the job, not the other way around.
(This is precisely the process that Kenny Werner outlined when I asked him about this process in a master class he did with the Airmen of Note a coupld of weeks ago - even though I knew the answer before I asked - I wanted the folks in our band to hear it because, to my incredible shock, people don't always listen to little ole' me...)
quote:Yes, excellent - I think you are seeing the distinction I am making now.
quote:auditions can do a very similar thing, only instead of many chances, you only get one chance. even more pressure for a single point.
- The possibility that a bad day or a bad week could lose that chair (that the system has conditioned you into thinking is so primo) makes players afraid to make mistakes. Anyone who has led a band knows that a jazz band that is afraid to make mistakes in rehearsals is going to fail on performances, and they are going to do it in a spectacularly dispassionate way. And anyone who has played an instrument (!!) knows that you only get better by making mistakes.
quote:What you are talking about does not meet the definition of what I have a problem with, which is programs wherein challenges can happen any time, any week, wherein either another student of the director decides on their own to create competition.
well, already gone into how the music is written and how first pretty much is the most important, [/QUOTE - if you really think that you and I will have to agree to disagree -
[QUOTE] challenges do not happen every day or every other day(atleast in my expirence) you had a couple chances a semester to challenge, but pretty much everyone already knows who is better then who.
Again, for the fourteenth (and last) time: Organic processes resulting from the real need to place different people on different parts, I have no problem with. Artificial pressure resulting from the ever-present possibility of challenges undermine people and bands, and combined with other pressures presented in "sorting schools" do profound damage to the prospects of self-actualization of people and our society.
That's what I have a problem with, not periodic auditions.
©2003, Joe Jackson. All rights reserved.