|
Post by M57 on Jun 17, 2018 4:34:02 GMT -6
I'm still not sure what you're saying. If you're saying it's "different" now - I would point out that none of the 'inventors' of jazz studied music formally that I can think of. Even the more intellectual/artsy types. Did Duke Ellington study music in college, or in high school for that matter? Coltrane? Blakey? Bird? Monk? Mingus? Bassie? I don't think so. Wait.. Miles Davis (Julliard), but he didn't finish there. In fact, most next generation and current top jazz musicians didn't really study music in college - they were 'discovered' there ..so they may be "affiliated" with the college, but they were great musicians before they walked in the door - and that affiliation is more about PR than a reflection of where they learned their craft. We're not talking about your hoity-toity college level music schools. We're talking about government sponsored public school and community music programs. OK, What quality of music education did the above musicians receive in public schools?
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jun 17, 2018 8:38:55 GMT -6
I can say this much, on my first day of school I was two days past 5 years old. Before anything else happened, every single student walked up the steps of the auditorium stage, the head music teacher sat at a piano, and asked each student to sing a few notes.
There was no pressure, just sing a few notes, and thanks. I was placed in the school chorus. The next week or so, the music teacher wrote to my mother asking special permission for me to join a special group that went to other schools to perform. Students had to be 9 years old to join, but at 6 years old, I was a soloist with my schools All City Chorus, traveling to do gigs! Later on I was the lead in some school play musicals and was taken to a recording studio at 9 years old to sing with the chorus backing me for a PBS style show then. That led me down the path I've been on my entire life, and had the school not had those kinds of music programs, and not had teachers who encouraged young people with talent, who knows what I might have done with my life.
I doubt anything like this exists in NYC public schools now.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jun 17, 2018 9:25:45 GMT -6
My grade school had music in the classroom, there was an upright piano in the first grade class and the class sang songs as part of the school day. There was also a full time music teacher for the upper grades.
In those days education was totally local in funding and curriculum, long before Washington DC had anything to do with it. Since the Dep't of Ed was created during the Carter years, you could look back and decide that getting the Feds involved was a bad idea. It usually is.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 17, 2018 10:05:02 GMT -6
My grade school had music in the classroom, there was an upright piano in the first grade class and the class sang songs as part of the school day. There was also a full time music teacher for the upper grades. In those days education was totally local in funding and curriculum, long before Washington DC had anything to do with it. Since the Dep't of Ed was created during the Carter years, you could look back and decide that getting the Feds involved was a bad idea. It usually is. Indeed. But at least in my area public grade schools still have music classes and teachers, middle and high schools have bands and choirs.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 17, 2018 10:13:52 GMT -6
Actually the "inventors of jazz" virtually all studied music formally in public schools with a good many attending college. Public schools often provided instruments back then. Many of their teachers were descendants of students at a music school for slaves in New Orleans. After emancipation, these musicians spread all over the southeastern U.S. teaching music privately to poor people in addition to obtaining the free two-year degrees that were available allowing them to teach in public schools. During the Jim Crow era, many fled to northern cities where they worked as public school and college music teachers. Prior to the late '60s, teaching and playing music was the highest paying work available to people of African descent unlike comparably gifted Europeans who would become doctors and lawyers.
This idea of "the magical self-taught negro musician descended from the blues" was Jim Crow era racist propaganda that, unfortunately, lives on.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jun 17, 2018 10:54:04 GMT -6
Actually the "inventors of jazz" virtually all studied music formally in public schools with a good many attending college. Public schools often provided instruments back then. Many of their teachers were descendants of students at a music school for slaves in New Orleans. After emancipation, these musicians spread all over the southeastern U.S. teaching music privately to poor people in addition to obtaining the free two-year degrees that were available allowing them to teach in public schools. During the Jim Crow era, many fled to northern cities where they worked as public school and college music teachers. Prior to the late '60s, teaching and playing music was the highest paying work available to people of African descent unlike comparably gifted Europeans who would become doctors and lawyers. This idea of "the magical self-taught negro musician descended from the blues" was Jim Crow era racist propaganda that, unfortunately, lives on. Hmm.. I'm aware that early jazz musicians were well-trained - were excellent readers, etc.. but you're not going to convince me that they received an excellent music education in the public schools. I can't find any evidence of that. I went to a high school with a less than wonderful music program in the late 70's, but then studied at a music college, and I can tell you that I learned way more outside the classroom. There are only a handful of things I learned in the classroom that I may not had learned elsewhere that had an impact on me. It was mostly about the ensemble experiences and hanging out, playing out and listening with other musicians. I.e. experiences that don't require a formal educative experience.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 17, 2018 11:26:35 GMT -6
We're not talking about your hoity-toity college level music schools. We're talking about government sponsored public school and community music programs. OK, What quality of music education did the above musicians receive in public schools? Introduction to musical instruments in school band.It used to be that nearly every junior high and high school had a school band program with public recitals and often a school marching band as well. Grade schools had basic music programs as well. When I was a kid in Oklahoma schools had "music period" starting in first grade with kids issued autoharps and basic percussion instruments. Now many public schools in Oklahoma can't afford basic textbooks and are only open four days a week.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jun 17, 2018 11:45:25 GMT -6
The important factor was exposure to music and musical instruments. Just as with any skill and talent, some will rise, but the connection to music and what it takes to make music was partly made in public schools, and that was a great service to our country. So many careers are related to people's original interest in music. That's not to say music classes in public schools didn't suck most of the time. Buy the atmosphere of music being part of what people did inspired me to look further into my own musical interests.
Why modern music too often sucks is actually simple, it's become excessively formulaic for commercial purposes. Musicians and writers who want lots of money or are just trying to survive keep cranking out this weeks copy of last weeks copy. Fast food chains use the same kind of formulaic procedures. It works, but it sucks 98% of the time. Even the "alternative" genre's like "Americana" falls into the pattern. I listen to Heartland Radio a lot. One out of three songs has a I, flat VII, IV progression.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 17, 2018 11:46:12 GMT -6
Actually the "inventors of jazz" virtually all studied music formally in public schools with a good many attending college. Public schools often provided instruments back then. Many of their teachers were descendants of students at a music school for slaves in New Orleans. After emancipation, these musicians spread all over the southeastern U.S. teaching music privately to poor people in addition to obtaining the free two-year degrees that were available allowing them to teach in public schools. During the Jim Crow era, many fled to northern cities where they worked as public school and college music teachers. Prior to the late '60s, teaching and playing music was the highest paying work available to people of African descent unlike comparably gifted Europeans who would become doctors and lawyers. This idea of "the magical self-taught negro musician descended from the blues" was Jim Crow era racist propaganda that, unfortunately, lives on. Hmm.. I'm aware that early jazz musicians were well-trained - were excellent readers, etc.. but you're not going to convince me that they received an excellent music education in the public schools. I can't find any evidence of that. I went to a high school with a less than wonderful music program in the late 70's, but then studied at a music college, and I can tell you that I learned way more outside the classroom. There are only a handful of things I learned in the classroom that I may not had learned elsewhere that had an impact on me. It was mostly about the ensemble experiences and hanging out, playing out and listening with other musicians. I.e. experiences that don't require a formal educative experience. That merely illustrates how far music education has fallen. Not to mention your inability to use Google and Wikipedia, as I was ble to find references on at least three of the names you listed receiving music instruction in the public school system. And I only looked for about 15 minutes.And nobody said anything about "excellent." The point is the ANY education was available.
The fact that you may have learned more outside the classroom is beside the point. I learned more outside the classroom in nearly every subject I can think of except maybe math. That has nothing to do with the fact that basic instruction was available, especially instrtuction in ensemble playing, and often instruments were made available to kids who otherwise would not have had access to them.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 17, 2018 11:55:14 GMT -6
We're not talking about your hoity-toity college level music schools. We're talking about government sponsored public school and community music programs. OK, What quality of music education did the above musicians receive in public schools? Basic, which is better than none at all. Starting at Jr. High level in most places ensemble playing in the school orchestra and marching band.
Group singing was common in grade schools. Now kids don't even bother trying to sing - they rap or autotune.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jun 17, 2018 12:55:53 GMT -6
OK, What quality of music education did the above musicians receive in public schools? Basic, which is better than none at all. Starting at Jr. High level in most places ensemble playing in the school orchestra and marching band.
Group singing was common in grade schools. Now kids don't even bother trying to sing - they rap or autotune.
Yeah, I googled them - They went to high school - Excellence aside - nothing is mentioned of the music programs at their schools. Go ahead, find me some quotes where one of them mentions a high school teacher or experience as being a critical, much less an influential part of their learning. Oh, and speaking of not being able to use google - Your claim about today's grade schools is specious at best. www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2012/04/06/150133858/music-education-in-public-schools-gets-a-passing-gradeEven minus a music "program," I doubt there is a grade school in the country where kids don't sing "together." You can bet that in the absence of a music teacher/class - most grade school teachers use music as a part of their curriculum.
|
|
|
Post by formatcyes on Jun 17, 2018 15:01:08 GMT -6
I donate my PA and time for a yearly carols in the park local event. In the last 12 years I have noticed a big shift. The music teacher retired about 5years ago and while he was not very good and uninspiring when he was there at least the kids where learning to play an instrument (badly). He was not replaced. Now the kids sing along to canned music with the recorded vocals and clearly very little practice or care from their teachers who have no music affinity anyway. I always had private music lessons growing up but the school programs at least exposed everyone to music and learning to play an instrument, now not so much, very sad. Before the music teacher retired there was always a couple of solo or small group acts from the "talented" kids now none. I do not know any current high school kid who can perform. 5 years ago I would have been able to name at least 5. If my small town is any indication of the state of music its going to get a lot worse.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 17, 2018 17:13:10 GMT -6
Basic, which is better than none at all. Starting at Jr. High level in most places ensemble playing in the school orchestra and marching band.
Group singing was common in grade schools. Now kids don't even bother trying to sing - they rap or autotune.
Yeah, I googled them - They went to high school - Excellence aside - nothing is mentioned of the music programs at their schools. Go ahead, find me some quotes where one of them mentions a high school teacher or experience as being a critical, much less an influential part of their learning. Oh, and speaking of not being able to use google - Your claim about today's grade schools is specious at best. www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2012/04/06/150133858/music-education-in-public-schools-gets-a-passing-gradeEven minus a music "program," I doubt there is a grade school in the country where kids don't sing "together." You can bet that in the absence of a music teacher/class - most grade school teachers use music as a part of their curriculum. Art Blakey "received some piano lessons at school". Charles Mingus was in grade school when he took up trombone and cello. "Much of the cello technique he learned was applicable to double bass when he took up the instrument in high school. John Coltrane "grew up in High Point, North Carolina, attending William Penn High School (now Penn-Griffin School for the Arts)." In June 1943, he moved to Philadelphia.[6] In September of that year, his mother bought him his first saxophone, an alto.[5] Coltrane played the clarinet and the alto horn in a community band before taking up the alto saxophone during high school.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jun 17, 2018 17:37:56 GMT -6
Art Blakey "received some piano lessons at school". Charles Mingus was in grade school when he took up trombone and cello. "Much of the cello technique he learned was applicable to double bass when he took up the instrument in high school. John Coltrane "grew up in High Point, North Carolina, attending William Penn High School (now Penn-Griffin School for the Arts)." In June 1943, he moved to Philadelphia.[6] In September of that year, his mother bought him his first saxophone, an alto.[5] Coltrane played the clarinet and the alto horn in a community band before taking up the alto saxophone during high school.
So JC didn't see music in schools until he was in HS. Was William Penn HS a school for the arts when JC when there? ..or after his name put a face on it? Gimme a break, My mom bought me a guitar when I was 9. I studied classical guitar privately because guess what? my high school didn't have a classical guitar ensemble - shocker - not then, not now. I sang in my high school chorus in the 70's. It wasn't very good. Most HS choruses and ensembles I hear nowadays blow what my HS chorus did out of the water. I didn't need a strong music program to become a musician. Most high schools in the corn/bible whatever you wanna call it belt have excellent band/marching band. programs. Much much better than what was available 40 or 50 years ago. For every argument and ancedote you can come up with, I can find an example that refutes it. (and I'm sure visa-versa). This is such a silly thread. The top 100 (pop) songs in the 60's and 70's were just as bad as the top 100 now. Pop music is and always has been for mass consumption. People my parents age can hold a tune no better than today's teenagers. Ever sit on a bus with 7th and 8th graders for a day trip? I have a number of times over the last few years. They sound great - know all the words (and believe me - with rap and the rapid fire delivery of a lot of today's songs, there's more words). You can complain all you want about the quality of the music, but with iphones and earbuds - today's kids listen to a hell of lot more music than your generation - and as far as I can tell a much wider variety. Why, because it's cheaper and more accessible. Yeah, most of it is crap. But they're adolescents - as stupid as adolescents always were. On the other hand it's a culture of listening. Sometimes in the foreground - sometimes in the background - but they listen. And unlike you (and me), those that decide to discriminate will know where and how to find the music that they come to love once their raging hormones calm.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jun 17, 2018 17:56:31 GMT -6
I donate my PA and time for a yearly carols in the park local event. In the last 12 years I have noticed a big shift. The music teacher retired about 5years ago and while he was not very good and uninspiring when he was there at least the kids where learning to play an instrument (badly). He was not replaced. Now the kids sing along to canned music with the recorded vocals and clearly very little practice or care from their teachers who have no music affinity anyway. I always had private music lessons growing up but the school programs at least exposed everyone to music and learning to play an instrument, now not so much, very sad. Before the music teacher retired there was always a couple of solo or small group acts from the "talented" kids now none. I do not know any current high school kid who can perform. 5 years ago I would have been able to name at least 5. If my small town is any indication of the state of music its going to get a lot worse. I'm sorry about your town, but this is anecdotal evidence at best. It is and always have been true that when times are tough, arts budgets typically take the first round of hits. But if it's anecdotal evidence you want - Our local PBS station has a singing competition show, and I'm constantly hearing fantastic HS choral groups on that show - both as ensemble and soloists. Back in the 70's in my high school of 2000 kids, there was one fantastic singer in the four years I was there - perhaps two if you count me, but I'm much too humble for that. This year, I direct two choirs (grade 6 and grades 7-8) with a total of about 50 kids - 90% of them sing great and and at least two or three of them have phenomenal voices - and that is typical. BTW, the entire matriculation for those three grades is about 150 students. I didn't mean to rant. Sorry if I'm coming across a little harsh - this whole music was better when I was young thing rubs me the wrong way. The music of my youth resonates with me. I don't like most of today's music - but I do hear some very high quality music here and there I just don't buy that the state of music is any worse off. In fact, if I were to guess, I would think the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 17, 2018 19:54:01 GMT -6
Art Blakey "received some piano lessons at school". Charles Mingus was in grade school when he took up trombone and cello. "Much of the cello technique he learned was applicable to double bass when he took up the instrument in high school. John Coltrane "grew up in High Point, North Carolina, attending William Penn High School (now Penn-Griffin School for the Arts)." In June 1943, he moved to Philadelphia.[6] In September of that year, his mother bought him his first saxophone, an alto.[5] Coltrane played the clarinet and the alto horn in a community band before taking up the alto saxophone during high school.
So JC didn't see music in schools until he was in HS. Was William Penn HS a school for the arts when JC when there? ..or after his name put a face on it? Gimme a break, My mom bought me a guitar when I was 9. I studied classical guitar privately because guess what? my high school didn't have a classical guitar ensemble - shocker - not then, not now. I sang in my high school chorus in the 70's. It wasn't very good. Most HS choruses and ensembles I hear nowadays blow what my HS chorus did out of the water. I didn't need a strong music program to become a musician. Most high schools in the corn/bible whatever you wanna call it belt have excellent band/marching band. programs. Much much better than what was available 40 or 50 years ago. For every argument and ancedote you can come up with, I can find an example that refutes it. (and I'm sure visa-versa). This is such a silly thread. The top 100 (pop) songs in the 60's and 70's were just as bad as the top 100 now. Pop music is and always has been for mass consumption. People my parents age can hold a tune no better than today's teenagers. Ever sit on a bus with 7th and 8th graders for a day trip? I have a number of times over the last few years. They sound great - know all the words (and believe me - with rap and the rapid fire delivery of a lot of today's songs, there's more words). You can complain all you want about the quality of the music, but with iphones and earbuds - today's kids listen to a hell of lot more music than your generation - and as far as I can tell a much wider variety. Why, because it's cheaper and more accessible. Yeah, most of it is crap. But they're adolescents - as stupid as adolescents always were. On the other hand it's a culture of listening. Sometimes in the foreground - sometimes in the background - but they listen. And unlike you (and me), those that decide to discriminate will know where and how to find the music that they come to love once their raging hormones calm. Stop playing bullsh!t semantics.
And no, the worst Top 40 songs in the '60s and '70s were NOWHERE NEAR as bad as the vast majority of top 20 songs now. Not even remotely close.
More words does not equate to better content. The majority of rap songs I hear are crap lyrics with little or no real meaning. Basically lyrics constructed out of a rhythming dictionary with no regard to actual meaning or content. Let's see - what rhymes with this - OH, that. OK, let's construct a rythmic "sentence" around that, who cares that it doesn't mean anything, nobody's really listening anyway.
It's garbage.
That's not to say that EVERYTHING is garbage - only 98% of what's commercially promoted.
And it's not saying that Coltrane didn't get music in school until HS - only that Wikipedia - which is not exactly the most complete source - does not document Coltrane's public school music exposure until High School.
And Please don't refer to him as JC - he might be confused with some other JC in Palestine.
The only one being "silly" here is you, with you reactionary attitude towards music education.
|
|
|
Post by yotonic on Jun 17, 2018 21:11:18 GMT -6
This thread has turned into a downer...
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Jun 17, 2018 22:04:11 GMT -6
This thread has turned into a downer... yep
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 17, 2018 22:42:59 GMT -6
there is still music taught in public schools here in Texas. Maybe it’s just California where people no longer care about the arts? California is a special case. We once had the best schools in the USA, now we are at 49th place. Graduation rates are very low, poverty is high here with 20% living below the poverty line, far above the US average.
Unlike other states we don't use local property taxes to fund our schools. We use the general fund. We spend more on schools here than any other state. That avoids "rich schools vs poor schools" but that doesn't mean much when you are at 49th place.
There are very good reasons why most parents here will place their kids in private schools here if they can afford it.
I guess I'm not clear. Are you saying that property taxes are the solution for funding public schools? As a Texas resident, I can tell you that they are not. It just perpetuates the same problems we've always had here. Poor schools in poor areas. And rich schools in rich areas. There's a reason why we have high school football stadiums (which would rival college stadiums) in suburban schools which cost as much as a significant portion of the entire yearly budget of an urban school. Tell me how that makes sense?
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jun 18, 2018 4:19:21 GMT -6
This thread has turned into a downer... yep Starting with the title. It isn't exactly a party starter.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jun 18, 2018 6:24:25 GMT -6
Vance Joy is a decent pop singer. Lumineers. Avett Brothers. Deer Tick. Ray Lamontagne. Cave Singers. Regina Spektor. Ingrid Michaelson. Sarah Bareilles. Feist. Death Can For Cutie. Beirut.
All a bit hipster, but if you can get past the stigma and listen with open ears, you might like some of it.
Plenty of rappers who have something worthwhile to say too. Atmosphere, Joyner Lucas, Macklemore, J Cole, Childish Gambino, Kendrick Lamar, Anderson .Paak, John Legend.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jun 18, 2018 6:37:18 GMT -6
Minus The Bear, At The Drive In, Blitzen Trapper, The War On Drugs, St. Vincent, Dr. Dog, Buke and Gass.
Ton of cool stuff out there and this is all pretty mainstream stuff.
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Jun 18, 2018 10:16:34 GMT -6
California is a special case. We once had the best schools in the USA, now we are at 49th place. Graduation rates are very low, poverty is high here with 20% living below the poverty line, far above the US average.
Unlike other states we don't use local property taxes to fund our schools. We use the general fund. We spend more on schools here than any other state. That avoids "rich schools vs poor schools" but that doesn't mean much when you are at 49th place.
There are very good reasons why most parents here will place their kids in private schools here if they can afford it.
I guess I'm not clear. Are you saying that property taxes are the solution for funding public schools? As a Texas resident, I can tell you that they are not. It just perpetuates the same problems we've always had here. Poor schools in poor areas. And rich schools in rich areas. There's a reason why we have high school football stadiums (which would rival college stadiums) in suburban schools which cost as much as a significant portion of the entire yearly budget of an urban school. Tell me how that makes sense? Re-read carefully. California does not fund the public (government) schools via property taxes. They are funded by the general fund (a 125 billion dollar yearly budget) specifically to avoid the "rich schools vs poor schools" syndrome common in other states.
Growing up in LA back in the 1950/60's we had music teachers in each school. Those were cut back in the 1970/80's. Seems spending up to $20,000 per student per year here just isn't enough to restore the music programs here. You can buy one heck of a private school for $20,000 per year.
Smart parents vote with their feet.
In Texas, football is king. It has far more importance there than here in California. It could be said high school football in Texas is more important than scholarships. The reason? Follow the money trail...
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 18, 2018 12:38:14 GMT -6
California is a special case. We once had the best schools in the USA, now we are at 49th place. Graduation rates are very low, poverty is high here with 20% living below the poverty line, far above the US average.
Unlike other states we don't use local property taxes to fund our schools. We use the general fund. We spend more on schools here than any other state. That avoids "rich schools vs poor schools" but that doesn't mean much when you are at 49th place.
There are very good reasons why most parents here will place their kids in private schools here if they can afford it.
I guess I'm not clear. Are you saying that property taxes are the solution for funding public schools? As a Texas resident, I can tell you that they are not. It just perpetuates the same problems we've always had here. Poor schools in poor areas. And rich schools in rich areas. There's a reason why we have high school football stadiums (which would rival college stadiums) in suburban schools which cost as much as a significant portion of the entire yearly budget of an urban school. Tell me how that makes sense? Therre should be adequate federal funding for public schools everywhere, with safeguards built in to prevent said funding from becoming a political football. Will such funding ever come to pass? I have hope but I'm definitely not holding my breath.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 19, 2018 13:48:50 GMT -6
|
|