Reflection on Kodaly and Dalcroze Readings

Kodaly Reading:

p.10 "To use a subject-logic approach in teaching music to young children is to expect them to intellectualize about something that does not exist in their own experience."

Earlier in the chapter, it is stated that "in a subject-logic approach, there is no relationship between the order of presentation and the order in which children learn easily. The subject matter is simply organized in a fashion that seems reasonable in terms of content." It makes perfect sense to want to reorganize the sequence of teaching to reflect the way in which children can most easily learn. It makes far more sense to first give children an experience to introduce them to a concept, then explain that experience in new terminology (which elaborates on or "intellectualizes" the topic), rather than giving children new terminology then trying to create an experience which gives that terminology meaning. It's so counterintuitive when you think about it, yet that's the way we've been educating children for years. It's not how people learn things naturally... Kodaly clearly recognized that this called for a restructuring of the way music education is sequenced.

p. 15 "Kodaly insisted that the materials used for teaching music to young children could come from only three sources: 1) authentic children's games, nursery songs, and chants; 2) authentic folk music; and 3) good composed music, that is, music written by recognized composers."

I can understand why Kodaly did this, but I don't know that I would completely agree... Does Kodaly take into account improvisation and composition? This chapter doesn't specifically refer to that, but does child-composed music fall into his 3 sources (would that be #1)? I think children can learn from what they themselves compose as well as the inventions of their peers, especially if (as the chapter does state) children are likely to use the intervals they are most comfortable with anyways - minor thirds, major seconds, and perfect fourths.

Dalcroze Reading:

p. 46 "There is a general sequence of musical concepts to be developed in the Dalcroze method; however, one cannot say what constitutes a year's curriculum. All students, no matter what age, must travel through the same skills and understandings, and these are continually improved and refined, even in the professional musician."

I really like this idea - I think it's very democratic. Relating to something we've been talking about in Intro to Education (tracking), I think the Dalcroze method goes beyond any need for the idea of tracking: everybody moves at their own pace, regardless of their age and innate abilities. The idea of continuous improvement and refinement emphasizes the idea that learning is a continuous process, and the most basic ideas are always applicable to what is being experienced, even if more advanced concepts have been covered (it's not like experienced musicians don't occasionally struggle with keeping a steady beat). I also think it's very important that Dalcroze's ideas can be applied not only to music, but also to dance, acting, therapy, and education. Who couldn't benefit from "the development of heightened concentration, keen mental discipline, a sharpening of the senses, and the development of the creative self?"

Reflection on "Together in Harmony" (p. 9-39)

p. 13 "Body percussion should be taught sequentially using the Orff process. It should be taught in body order, from top down (snap, clap, pat, stamp) or from the bottom up (stamp pat, clap, snap) to ensure success of the performance."

I would not have guessed that the order in which body percussion is taught (top down or bottom up) would have a significant influence on the success of the performance. I'm a little unclear on what this actually means, though - do you teach children the movements in that order, then use them as necessary in learning/performing music? Or is it that when you are performing music, you include the body movements in that particular order (moving from top to bottom or bottom to top)? The example given in the book (Fig. 2 "Body Percussion for 'Little Miss Muffet'") shows the snapping, clapping, and patting coordinated to specific rhymes. "Muffet" rhymes with "Tuffet" and both words get a snap. "Whey" and "away" rhyme, and each word gets a clap. "Spider" and "beside her" each get a pat. Regardless of the complexities of actually teaching body percussion, I would agree with the book that it's a really effective way of physically performing music before transferring it to instruments or singing.

p. 19 "It is imperative for musical independence that students learn to think in language, or audiate, prior to reading and writing."

I think it's really interesting that Gordon's Music Learning Theory draws such a complete parallel between the language and musical learning. One thing that occurred to me, though, is how oddly we attempt to teach second languages to older students. I took 6 years of Latin and a year of Italian, and (though Latin is not generally a spoken language) we didn't really learn the way a child learns. We memorized hundreds of words, practiced putting them into sentences (written), and studied a tremendous quantity of grammar.* My experience in Italian was much closer, as we conducted class IN Italian as soon as we had enough of a vocabulary to do so (probably a week or so into the semester). Back to music though - like in language, "immersion in a listening, speaking, and thinking environment" really does seem like the most successful introduction for teaching children to read music (which really is just another language).

*Latin grammar is awful. I would rather learn another language with an entirely different alphabet than try to remember them all (like Russian - I would love to learn Russian - I think it's such a gorgeous language). My middle school Latin teacher came up with the "drunken Roman theory" to explain the ludicrous number of exceptions to every single rule there was.

p. 34 "... returning to songs from previous lessons is what facilitates the retention of skills and allows concepts to develop... 'you should never leave a tune.'"

I think this is an idea which is far under-utilized in many musical situations. In all the music classes I had in elementary, middle, and high school, I don't remember ever revisiting a piece for the sake of learning something new about it (or even simply enjoying it for its own sake). However, returning to previously learned pieces is something my piano teacher stressed on a regular basis. I had a practice schedule for previously learned pieces (starting probably about 4 years after I had began piano) so that I would revisit at least one piece I already knew each week. I think this greatly informed my musicianship, as I was able to play the pieces much more easily, fluidly, and with more expression than I was capable of even at the point at which I left the piece previously. It was a very rewarding experience to look back on a piece which had seemed tremendously challenging at the time and discover the ease with which I could play it after several weeks, months, or years had passed. After several more years of playing, I discovered that some pieces required a little more work to get them back to the level at which I had been able to play them before, but that still even provided me for more opportunities for learning - often I would notice things I had not before, or be able to work through difficult sections in a different way, providing me with a deeper understanding of something which had challenged me. As I study music education strategies, I am always impressed with my piano teacher... I really ought to thank her for the wonderful foundation I now see that she provided for me.