Improvisation in Music

I played an instrument for 9 years in school, and we were never once faced with the opportunity for improvisation. For me, this is probably a good thing because I know that, while I was pretty good at playing my instrument, I would probably freeze up if ever asked to improvise. I've been thinking about why this is. At first, I thought that it was because I was never exposed to the concept of improvisation in music. However, I think it has more to do with the environment I played music in: school. Schools are very focused on performing tasks as close to perfectly as possible, and following rules as closely as possible. In some respects, this is a good thing. But, because of this, music class was like any other class: a place where students strive for perfection. So, how could a music student feel comfortable ignoring the rules and just playing? We are so rarely given the opportunity to just abandon all the rules and let our emotions guide us in this society.
Question: Do you think the environment affect one's ability to improvise?

Improvisation

The article we read for this week's Q&A on improvisation provoked a lot of questions for me. I understand that improvisation can make music (or art, or public speaking, or teaching) better. In fact, I think it may be essential. I remember learning in Philosophy of Music that if a computer plays a song 100% perfectly, it is not pleasing to listen to as humans (I could be remembering this wrong so please correct me if I am mistaken). There is a human element that makes music pleasurable, and that element may be improvisation, even if it is not done consciously. However, I am wondering just how much improvisation is enough, and how much is too much. Deviating from the rules (both explicit and implicit) can make something more interesting, but deviating too much could be confusing and unpleasant. How much improvisation is too much? Is there a fine line or do you simply know it when you hear it?

Response to Mike, "Music and Education"

Should students be required to take music education? Or should it be an elective to those that are interested?


I am inclined to agree with you that, while music education certainly can be beneficial for students, it should not be required, as music is something one should have a passion for if they are going to dedicate their time learning about it. However, you could say the same thing about any school subject. Why should all students have to learn about history if only some are passionate about it? I think that young people should be exposed to a little bit of everything, so they know what is out there and can see for themselves what they are interested in. That is why we teach them a variety of things that may never be beneficial to them in their life. Maybe it would make more sense to expose young students (like elementary school age) to as much of a variety of subjects as possible, and as they get older, they can choose what they want to learn based on their interests. We already technically use this model in our society, but you pretty much have to wait until college to pick your own classes, and even then, there are many required classes. Maybe middle-schoolers should be allowed to start creating their own schedules.
Question: At what age should students be allowed to decide what they want to learn and what they don't want to learn?

Response to Becky, "Why Music Education Is Important"

Becky maintains that teaching music in schools is beneficial to students. While I agree with the arguements made in favor of music (it increases self esteem, encourages teamwork, increases understanding of math, etc), I haven't seen a convincing argument for requiring music education. I definitely think students should have the option to learn music, but I don't see why they should have to, anymore than they should have to play on a sport time, learn to paint, or write a novel. These are all very beneficial things, that can increase self-esteem, teach valuable lessons, and be very intellectually stimulating. But, why should these things be required classes in school? If something is valuable, does that alone mean everyone should learn it?
I think the question of "What makes something worth learning" needs to be addressed first. In this post, I have argued that music education doesn't seem to be something that ought to be required in schools. But then again, why are students required to take Math, Science, English, and Social Studies? Why were these subjects deemed the most worthy of learning?

Radical Constructivism and Multicultural Education

I have been thinking about Radical Constructivism and how it relates to our last topic, multicultural education, and I think they go together quite nicely. Radical Constructivism is concerned with experience. No student/learner comes from the same perspective. No student/learner has experienced the world in the same way. Multicultural education acknowledges and honors differences in students that may shape they way they perceive the world. So, I think a Radical Constructivist would be suited for multicultural education. The article "Re-examining lived experiences: Radical constructivism and gender", by Angela Calabrese Barton*, discusses radical constructivism and teaching science to girls. The article argues that science typically "embraces masculine values and ways of knowing the world". By taking a radical constructivist approach to teaching science, these biases may not be as harmful to students.



*Here is the article: faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/m-osbor/osborne/4.rtf


Question: Do radical constructivism and multiculturalism really go hand in hand, or have I overlooked something?

There have been discussions both in class and on the blogs about certain hypocritical statements, such as "Nothing can be objective", or "it is always wrong to judge others". The hypocrisy of a radical constructivist trying to convince others that their theory is right has been pointed out. While I think these contradictions are worth discussing, I don't think they detract from the actual argument. For example, Ernst Von Glasersfeld may argue that his theory of radical constructivism is true, but if part of the theory is that one cannot know anything outside of his or her experiences, then of course he should be willing to admit that the theory of radical constructivism is based on his experiences. I don't think this is hypocritical of him. Even if it was, I think it is a weak argument to say "this person doesn't always act in accordance to their beliefs; therefore, their beliefs are wrong". By focusing on these possible contradictions, we are skirting around the actual belief we should be evaluating. In other words, I don't think you should judge the merit of an argument by focusing on the person making the argument.

Response to Stephen, Practicality of Constructivism

When would it be prudent for the Radical Constructivist to doubt reality and objective truth in everyday life?


I think that it is probably never necessary to question things like "Is this person I'm talking to actually real?" or "Is this paper that I'm writing actually really due tomorrow, or did I just construct that in my own reality?". For the sake of functioning in society, these kinds of questions are not necessary. However, in the vein of teaching and learning, it is practical to question "objective truths" that one learns in school, or things that are taken for granted as "fact" by the general population. Because we only have our own experiences to make judgments of the world from, we must always be mindful of the fact that everybody assesses "truths" about the world from their own point of view, and therefore there is no way for a human to be objective about anything. However, I don't know if a radical constructivist can pick and choose what he or she is going to question in everyday life. I would think that, especially being radical constructivism, the radical constructivist would want to apply this philosophy to everything in his or her life.

Question: Should a radical constructivist pick and chose what they are going to apply their theory to in everyday life?