Music Education Apologist, Part II

I think I've been hearing a lot from some younger players as to the value of unfettered creativity and eclecticism in the professional world. And I think I'm having a typical old guy reaction to it.

Is there absolute aesthetic value in complete creative freedom? Well, yes. Of course there is.

Is there value in complete creative freedom in the music world outside of schools? I think there can be, just that it does not pay.

I think a good many in the post-college music world are good enough and persistent enough to eke out a following for their craft as an amateur or part-timer. I repeat, a following - not a living.

But when we talk about music conservatories, we're not really talking about amateur or part-time players here, and professional musicians who make a living playing the music they choose runs about, oh, 1 in 1,000.

So what is the responsibility of the undergraduate professor when it comes to establishing and maintaining some sort of curriculum for music students in a professional conservatory program?

We've heard the emotional extremes: Should it be the absolute, universal aesthetic value of the performer? Should it be the pure technical ability of the player to execute material?

Well, if I am in that position of responsibility, based on my experience as a veteran professional in the music biz, I would have to try to guide curriculum so it does quite a bit of both, while nudging the artificial (that's right, school is an artificial environment!) musical environment so it has actual relevance to the actual, real-world paid positions in the music world.

That is, to try and give the player the chance to a) be spontaneous and creative whilst b) interpreting music they wouldn't necessarily choose.

'Cause that's what 999 out of 1,000 full-time professional musicians do every single day.

Sorry, if I am asked to provide educational services that have anything whatsoever to do with the real world, I cannot simply have youngsters get up there on stage and indulge themselves, and be able to look at myself in the mirror in the morning knowing that I provided them an experience with any relevance to the post-academic world.

Educators have responsibilities. That's their real world. And the bottom line is, the many eclectic performers use eclecticism to hide shortcomings in their playing (I'm not referring to anyone here, of course). So it is not surprising that a good and experienced collegiate teacher would be wary of letting young performers get up in a recital with dance costumes, trash cans and splatter paint and watching them howl at the moon.

Now, these facts of life have a side effect, which is they make professors look like stodgy and stuffy adherents to dogmatic and outdated curricula who are only interested in stifling creativity. When in fact, they may very well be going home each day, donning headdresses and Rolfing to the grooves of Sun Ra.

But during the day they are professionals. And while it is easy to rant and rave over what the term "professional" should mean, what it all comes down to is that professional educators have a responsibility to the craft of creating and maintaining a certain specific standard of professional music, and to the collegial process of defining those standards based on the professional knowledge and experience of faculty.

And for better or worse, the ability to evaluate whether students meet those standards can be completely corrupted by the scope of the music happening within the laboratory.

So the next logical question is, why should music schools structure their programs to future professional musicians, since the commercial realities of the professional world are the very personification of the really super-evil squelching of creativity?

(I don't particularly relish the role of appearing to be on the wrong side of the argument from art and pure aesthetic here, by the way. Because I'm a fan, and I have spent a good part of my life fighting for recognition of jazz as a free-standing art form, on par with legit music.)

But the reality of the education biz is that if I am running a music school or studio that is not clearly attempting to bridge players to the professional level, then I am by classical definition not a full-fledged conservatory-level studio, and I cannot recruit. And therefore I cannot produce top players and therefore I cannot recruit, etc. etc. etc.

The questions are simple and beautiful; the answers are complicated and covered with ear wax.

Here's my simple and beautiful comment: anyone who is disgruntled with a school music program (or music education in general) is free to steer clear of it. In fact, it is far easier to avoid college music programs than it is to wake up and find one's self in one. I'm perfectly serious! If everyone did what they wanted to do and then were totally committed to what they decided to do, it would fix a lot of ****!

- Joe Jackson, N.D.

Back To Rants

©2003, Joe Jackson. All rights reserved.