Hey all.
I have recently decided that I want to double major in Jazz Studies and Music Education. I feel like there is so much wrong with the way music education is run in schools these days. I also decided that it'll give me more opportunities down the road for employability because I will be able to teach in a school and play gigs. And, the requirements aren't that much different. Sure I'll graduate a year later than everyone else in my class, but OSU is paying for it, so I don't care.
Anyways, I am going to rant about what I feel is wrong with the music system in schools. First things first, there is not NEARLY enough funding from schools to give the programs what they need, which I find unfair. It is just as academically taxing as a math or science class. I mean, sure they are different, but in the end, they all require skills that not everyone has, and I don't think it's fair that it's just pushed off to the side like that. I mean, there are so many opportunities out there for students, but they just don't feel it is that important. Like, how is it fair that athletes get to miss some class to go warm up for a sport, but a budding musician can't go to an event, because it's during school?
Secondly, there is that stupid saying "Those who can't do, teach (and those who can't teach, teach gym :p)". The way I see it, is if you can't do it, then get out of here, because if you cannot do it, then you are only gonna pass on your deficiencies to your students. That's why I feel that more solid musicians should do Music Ed, and if they do, they should not quit practicing. I mean, of course, you have to take applied methods classes for all of the instruments to be able to help the students out, and you may not always be hired in your area of concentration (teachers are certified to teach band, orchestra, and choir), but this is not a reason to be bad at your primary instrument.
Thirdly (I feel like I made up this word, but I don't care), which kind of goes with the second one, is the fact that high school music programs do not prepare one for college or becoming a professional. Most likely (not saying this is always the case, but I feel that it is like this a lot of the time) because a lot of band directors don't play their instrument(s) in professional settings often. I went to a high school with a college prep curriculum, and I took the extra classes and stuff that kind of helped, but then I put in lots of time outside of what I did in high school to prepare me for college and got a taste of what being a working musician is like. Granted, people have different qualifications of what "professional" means in music (mine obviously being different from my band director's, since he told me he wouldn't hire me for anything [not mad, not every day one can say they played for the governor of Ohio]), but still, schools should do more to make the student interested in music as an option for college, instead of turning them away, making it seem like a lost cause. This is also why I dislike things such as OMEA. They don't do this. And they rate the performers on whether the music sounds "correct"; but who is to tell if music is "correct" or not? That is one of those things that is open to interpretation. As much as one may say otherwise, you get rated on performance. That is enough for me.
This one is kind of more towards what I really want to do, which is direct high school jazz ensembles and big bands, but since schools are cheap and don't put money into their programs, they will only hire a versatile director. There's also another reason behind why I feel schools don't put as much emphasis on jazz music, but that is debatable to some (but I agree with it). But if I ran high school jazz class, I would run it one of two ways, depending on how much time I have:
1st way: (Given I only have time with students one time a day)
2 days: Ensemble rehearsal -obviously important
1 day: Jazz improv skills- I am sick of people saying "oh no, I don't do improv.", and band directors not knowing how to do anything about it. This is why I like college - Everyone can do it without a problem.
1 day: Small groups - this is where people get some performance experience - Students would arrange and rehearse themselves and perform for the class at least once a quarter.
1 day: Listening- This is where EVERYONE (regardless of genre) drops the ball. I feel that everyone needs a sense of sound concept in order to be successful in what they do. I mean, how can you know what you want to sound like if you haven't heard something else? It's like getting dressed with a blindfold.
And for the exam, everyone has to show me what they have learned, so they will prepare a piece for the class and perform it. The performance will be graded.
The second way (if I had an opportunity for 2 classes a day)
I would teach a more in-depth improvisation class that I would encourage members of the jazz ensemble to be in, then there would be more time for rehearsal. I would run the ensemble class similar to the first plan, but the improvisation would be more basic. And the improvisation class would cover higher level material (similar to what colleges teach, but with more time) and require lots of time on the instrument.
This is a plan for teaching in a school, which is strange to have, because I am a freshman in college. So this is kind of my idea of what's wrong with music in our schools. I hope that whoever reads this enjoys it.
