Ok, folks. Let's get the dialogue started. Post any thoughts that have come to mind following our discussions in class today. Opinions, arguments, confusion, questions, answers? Feel free to post thoughtfully, and to challenge (respectfully, of course) the thinking of your colleagues.
To spur on the thinking:
Yellow Card/Blue Card
Celine Dion - Musical Genius?
Sesame Street vs. Teletubbies
Screaming - Bad for music?
Seating arrangement in class: OK how it is, should be different, up to me, up to you?
Reality: Media, community, parents, education, friends
Ani DiFranco
Ok...game on!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Yellow card/blue card
Interesting. The goal of teaching your kid colors was achieved. He can tell which color is which without a problem, and clearly understands the difference between yellow and blue, even if he learned of them under different names. You could have easily said that (what we have come to accept as) blue is called 'ishblughah' and yellow is 'bleedoogle' and the result would still be the same. He would undoubtedly understand what these word meant, even if to the rest of society, the words are nonsense.
Nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and words in general are just the result of a general acceptance of 'truth.' Centuries ago, the 'truth' was that the Earth was the center of the universe. Everyone believed it, and anyone who questioned it in the slightest was wrong. In the present day, we 'know' that the Earth is actually NOT the center of the universe. But how do we know this? Because we read it in a book? Because we had to write that on a test or we would lose 2 points?
Has anyone BEEN into outer space? Have we seen for our own eyes the proof of that? If we haven't, how can we say that one thing is right or is not?
The word for dog in one language is 'inu,' 'chien,' in another one, 'sobaka' and 'Canis lupus familiaris' in others. If anyone were to refer to them in any language by these names, would they be wrong? They all mean 'fuzzy generally friendly animal with sharp teeth that belong to the canine family.'
If an argument to that would be 'well, yeah, but they all mean the same thing, yellow and blue are totally different, its just wrong to use one in place of the other,' then consider this.
The word 'formidable' in English refers to something 'causing fear, dread, or apprehension' It's safe to assume that this word has generally negative connotations. This word apparently comes from the latin 'formidare,' or, 'to fear.'
The word 'formidable' in French however, is generally taken to mean 'great' or 'terrific,' generally a positive word.
This word means two completely different things, but is someone wrong when they use them in the generally 'incorrect' situations?
I find this to closely parallel what happens when religion interferes with schools. I remember once in my freshman biology class we were discussing the theory of evolution, and one girl raised her hand and said 'So... is there any way for both, like, the bible and, like, evolution to be true?
Things got real awkward for a bit, and you could tell that the teacher had NO idea how to answer this, and the girl seemed rather perplexed and determined to believe what she'd been told from a very young age, very similar to the yellow card/blue card... issue/debate/thing.
(Here's where the encoring wrath comes in) If we tell our children from birth that there is this large man in the sky that made the earth and the water and all the animals and humans pretty much in the span of a week, and they were created exactly as they are now, and then they go to school and learn about evolution and outer space and stuff, how is that any different from raising your kid to think that blue is yellow?
(btw, apparently 12 Florida schools banned the teaching of evolution somewhat recently. wtf? Didn't we go through this already with the Scopes Monkey Trial?)
Celine Dion
eughhhh
Sesame Street vs. Teletubbies
I'll be honest, I hardly remember anything about Sesame Street. I know the basic characters, sorta, but i never heard of Snuffleoffogus or whatever it was called, so I can't really provide a good argument for or against it.
All I know is this.
Teletubbies scare the freaking CRAP outta me...... *shudder*
Screaming-Bad for music?
Ehhh.... Things in music evolve in different ways. The first time someone gave a performance or started writing music for equal temperment as opposed to pure tuning, people must have said 'What IS this crap? This isn't music! Ugh!' and... yeah. Here we are now with lots and lots of equal temperment and not a lot of pure tuning being used.
Whenever anyone is introduced to something new in.. anything, theres bound to be people who disagree and sing the praises of the way things once were.
I personally find myself unsure about my stance on screaming in music. In some cases, it adds a new texture/color to the music that can sometimes be interesting and unique. Other times, it just stinks and the people need to go get off the heroin.
Seating arrangement
Even if we mess with the chairs, some other teacher may like the setup and we'll walk into class after setting everything up the way WE want it, and everything will be back to the way it was before.
Or not.
idk.
Reality
Reality is subjective. Theres no way to accurately define what is real. Our own realities are shaped by our experiences, and as no two people share identical experiences, no two people share the same reality.
It's actually a pretty useless word, if you think about it.
"Language is, in general, a tool for concealing the truth" - George Carlin.
Although I agree with Lilli concerning her point on the ineptness and subjectivity of language as a whole, it is a necessary standard for us "intelligent" life forms to depict the abstract which surrounds us. In this instance, something abstract, the idea of color, which is only perceived through reflection of light and varies within our own species never mind the rest of the animal kingdom, is given an identity we can come to terms with,, a constant label to cover our ineptness of communicating an abstract idea. Is Robert wrong that the abstraction he has grown to love and cherish is "blue"? In a sense no, because he is simply follow what humane nature has led us to do all along; be curious and try to understand the abstract. However, Robert IS incorrect because he does not comply to a label which has been set in the larger "reality" than that of his childhood, the standard that yellow is yellow. Let me illustrate through two other examples:
Two animals, let's take a gator, and , I don't know, a platypus, just to make it entertaining. The gator has it's own means of communication - different grunts, different sounds mean different things to the gator as it was raised in a completely differently reality then say, a badger or an emu or our dear goofy friend the platypus. Now, say for instance the platypus is near the gator, near enough to be in possible danger. The platypus makes a noise to which him means "Wanna play?" or "Hey look at me, I'm mad awkward!"But to the gator, this sound has always met its diner time. Was the platypus wrong in his animalistic sounds? No, he was absolutely correct in his labelling of the abstract idea of communication and socializing. But the idea that he was correct makes no difference now that he's currently being digested with Captain Hook.
Or take religion (please! - sorry, couldn't resist the Youngman reference). The higher being or lack of a higher being is probably one of the biggest abstract concepts of them all; The Catholics believe these things to be true; the Jehovah's Witnesses believe these other things; the Muslims hold these things to be self evident; the Buddhist, atheists, Lutherans, Satanists, Rasifarians, agnostics, Scientologists and Gonzo-the-Whatevers believe something completely different. Yet what if say, I don't know, Barrack Obama or Paul McCartney or Dr. Abrahams came out with a national announcement, stating, "Ya know guys, I've been thinking a lot, and I really think the Greeks had it right with the whole polytheistic Zeus thing." Immediately, poll numbers would drop, record sale would go up on shock value, and much respected people would be labled as loons. But would they be wrong? Sure science and religion can tell us so much, but what is science or religion but a construct of language, which, as we've stated, is an all to clever cheat code to the abstract level? No language, science or man made thing could tell us a definite answer to the "God" question due to the immense abstract qualities of the idea we are dealing with. So technically, Obama/McCartney?Abrahams would be correct - their label (their belief in Greco-Roman mythology, or "blue") of the existence of a higher being (the abstract thought, or color) is correct due to the abstract nature of the idea of God (or language). Yet, the trio would be wrong in the eyes of the larger predator, society, because we "know" that mythology is false because of the standards our other abstract decoders (science, mathematics, language) have taught us.
Moral of the story is, yes, the individual interpretation of any abstract such as color is correct, but it is essential for the survival of the curious society to a have a standard "decoder" to follow.
The real crime is deliberately feeding our platypi directly to the gator, which is the heavy task of parents, teachers, and the like.
Concerning Kid's TV:
I find this stuff really interesting. My friend and I did a research report senior year of high school for psychology on how children's TV shows teach kid's strange things we don't notice at first - i.e., Thomas the Tank, a.k.a. The Mussolini Machine. Watch it, one of the key rules of the show is that if you are not a useful, obedient, money-making car, the Fascist conductor will put you in the "repair shop" (not the real name, I forgot that), not to be seen for episodes at a time.
Or going back to the yellow v blue debate, what about Dora the Explorer? No matter what you answer to her questions during an episode, you'r "Bieno!"
Well it's 2:40 AM now, so perhaps I'll get to screaming tomorrow, and maybe reality as well.
Speaking of Dora the Explorer, this is kinda dumb, but there is this cartoon that they had on SNL last year that makes fun of that show. It's called Maraka. Here's the link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=2J_FYdVnZWo
Just like in Dora, she asks questions , first that are like Dora's questions, and then things like random moral/ethics questions. Each time, she waits for an answer and then answers "Bueno!", just like Dora. It's hilarious and definitely worth watching, but makes the point that the real Dora has no idea what the kids outside of the TV are saying, but still commends them for whatever they've said.
Just thought that was interesting!
Words:The failure of humanity.
I believe words fail to define things ( yeah I am going to sound like a pessimist but hear me out)and I think we as humans need word to see things as fact. Here's the problem: we are humans and only react to what is in our surroundings so our moralic statures and beliefs are therefore, different. We all can attest that our opinions are different but we must also think that what we precieve as fact is very well maybe a matter of opinion... even laws are in these gray catagory. Example US 21 to drink, Europe 16 to drink wine, 18 to drink. Again, it is our surroundings. This goes through to our childhood shows to yellow / blue card. and what is or is not good music. Unfortunately we live in a world of instant gratification and searching for some type of extreme and absolute fact by usung words for only the tangible...what ever happen to just thinking? The possiblities of different "answers" and lives are endless. So as educators we must think and consider the worlds of others instead of going with the " absolute fact and dealing with society chaotic atmosphere of trying to define the tangible.
Who is to say what real music is? How do we define it? Is it something that we can learn from or are there other characteristics tell us what music is? Is it a matter of opinion or the way someone raised or the environment they were raised in?
Being raised in diffferent environments creates different opinions. But that's my opinion;). Again music is in the intangible category and it is something you should feel.
What bothers me the most about all of this is that no matter how long we discuss this, we aren't going to have the same answer, same ideas, etc. So, why bother?
Maybe I am close minded, but I am probably not going to teach popular music in my class. Sue me. Musical theater, yes. I am constantly puzzled by why we are taught about the pertinence of teaching popular music in the classroom, but really we aren't taught popular music here. And this is supposed to be one of the finest music institutions in the world? Why doesn't that add up?
Well as Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living". So that's why we should attempt to figure out abstract things such as this out. Eric's right, we'll never have the same answers. However, if never coming to a solid, unified conclusion qualifies something as useless, then other philosophical queries (i.e. religion, ethics, morality, abnormal psychology, astronomy, etc) are also useless. We'll probably never actually come to a concretely conclusion about the condition of an afterlife, or what creed is correct, or what system of government was the best or worse, or explore the opposite side of a blackhole; yet these exploits are still discussed everyday by the masses. Why? Maybe because we're silly, or maybe we've just got way too much time on our hands. Or maybe because we're living, and that, as Socrates said, is what living is; examining.
On your point concerning the pop music contradiction, I agree with you, although we do have Dr. Schmidt's hip-hop class, and last semester's Ed lab was all about pop music (granted it was teaching it, not about it specifically).
I will be teaching popular music when I am a choir director. I am not saying that it is crucial or necessary, and I certainly am not going to run out and teach my class the newest Brittney Spears song. What I do think is that it adds a bit of variety to the usual classical repertoire. Perhaps I feel this way because my teacher occasionally taught pop music. I vividally remember the excitement of my peers when they discovered we were singing a Josh Groben or Billy Joel song (not to mention when we sang All I Want for Christmas by Mariah Carey <333). I personally do not know anyone who does not enjoy a good tune on the radio. Why not bring it to the classroom once in a while?
A lot of us went to the O Passo seminar last weekend. I haven't heard much about what people thought about it, so I figured I'd ask here.
I personally loved the way he dealt w/ rhythm, teaching it step by step, literally. As someone who has no coordination whatsoever (ask the people who were standing next to me on Friday), I was amazed that by Sunday afternoon I was doing really well understanding where each beat, offbeat, and 16th went. Did everyone else have this reaction?
I have not really thought about that contradiction but I do have one opinion though that has been on my mind.
I honestly think expectations on what a school like this should be where one is attending are useless. Expectation is often confused in our reality of idealisms, which is not fact.If someone thinks something should be done, take initiative, join the student senate, talk to the deans, teachers, talk to Frank Abrahams, do something. If one thinks this is a waste of over thirty thousand ( and then some) for the next four years, do something to improve upon the curriculum or go somewhere else that offers what you want. Everyone claims that they are the best musical institution. It is all a matter of opinion and experience as well as personal preference.
That's not to say ejohnsonmusic, that your method of teaching just to genres is wrong( which both are very intriguing and I took courses specifically on them) but keep this thought in mind.
I still maintain to my reality that you must give students variety of music so they can grow into well-rounded musicians. I kind of compare this to a person eating different foods or trying new recipes.
I can also compare it with different teaching art forms( and to me teaching is an art form) like O' Passo. There are things I love about it that I have used since the seminar ( btw, pianist should try to use this as well by tapping the different rhythms each hand is making while walking each beat, but that is an adaptation I have done.) and other things that I dislike such as not enough actual note reading and the fact that you really can't use this method yet with the disabled. But again that is a my opinion and I take each bit that I learn and work with it to better suit me but keeps options open.If we are open, we can expand our reality and be flexible.
I was reading Wednesday's (Feb. 13) assignment "Giving an A" in the Zander book when I came upon some interesting points about grading. At one point the authors express that the main purpose of grading is to compare one student against another. Does this mean that grading is wrong? Also it talks about when teachers grade student we are only telling them by how much they have fallen short. Fallen short from what? The standards? and who makes the standards? I am curious to here other peoples point of views.
Post a Comment