Saturday, June 7, 2008
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” Charles Darwin
When I was a graduate student in composition at New England Conservatory, I worked on a project as a film composer’s assistant. My duties included the realization of chord symbols as voice leading under the composer’s melody, some orchestration, notation decisions, and copying the final score and parts in ink. My primary technological tool was a six-inch, clear ruler with pennies super-glued to the bottom so the ink wouldn’t smear as I moved it across the page. I also used a set of drafting pens that invariably clogged within minutes of setting them down.
Recently I saw an advertisement in a Los Angeles newspaper for a film composer’s assistant:
“LA based Film composer seeks full time, detail oriented, multitasker. Duties will include some engineering within Logic and Pro Tools, studio maintenance, PC and Mac maintenance of hardware and various software plugins. Must be fluent with Gigastudio, Reason, Ableton Live, Native Instruments and many more. Good understanding of signal flow and MIDI is essential, putting together demo CD's and DVD's compulsory, and knowledge of blanket licensing, web casting, digital distribution, viral network, meta data management, and digital aggregators necessary. Some office work and cleaning required.”
In a period of twenty-five years this job has changed so much as to become two unrelated jobs with the same title. The skills and knowledge for one do not prepare one for the other. My education as a music student prepared me well to perform the first version. I wonder if the music education I would receive today would prepare me to do the second.
Let us note one crucial fact at this point: technology has not wrought these changes. People have. Technology is merely a means, a tool, albeit a powerful one. But it does not operate independently of human agents who decide when, how, or whether to embrace new knowledge, tools, and techniques. At least, not yet.
The question is not so much about technology as it is about us. Can we as educators embrace change? With incredible ease we have available to us the music of Africa, China, and Indonesia in its abundance of rhythmic layers, rich textures from exotic instruments, and fresh and vibrant tone colors. We have instant access to improvisational traditions from India, Brazil, New Orleans, and Harlem. We have the ability to see music in vivid color with the full sonic spectrum presenting a visual map inviting new and deep theoretical insights. We have the opportunity to bring all these and many more musical treasures into the classroom to shape our understanding of art and culture, of history, and of the future.
Yet in spite of what we can bring to bear from diverse cultures, in spite of the technological tools for creating, understanding, and performing music, the curricula in the vast majority of music departments, colleges, and conservatories looks very much the same as it did in past decades. With the exception of a course or two here and there, it could be from past centuries.
It is deemed acceptable to teach harmony, counterpoint, ear training, music history, ensembles, and all the fundamentals of a music education in the same way, year after year, decade after decade. I suggest this is flawed because music itself is evolving, as is our wider exposure to new music through history and geography. We should provide fresh insights, new approaches, and the application of new technologies in dynamic, diverse curricula.
Music as an art, a vocation, and a commodity rides the intense cultural currents of globalization, digital media, and the Internet. Students emerging from our institutions of higher learning must learn to navigate these powerful currents or be dashed upon the rocks of irrelevance. There is no other choice.
When I was a graduate student in composition at New England Conservatory, I worked on a project as a film composer’s assistant. My duties included the realization of chord symbols as voice leading under the composer’s melody, some orchestration, notation decisions, and copying the final score and parts in ink. My primary technological tool was a six-inch, clear ruler with pennies super-glued to the bottom so the ink wouldn’t smear as I moved it across the page. I also used a set of drafting pens that invariably clogged within minutes of setting them down.
Recently I saw an advertisement in a Los Angeles newspaper for a film composer’s assistant:
“LA based Film composer seeks full time, detail oriented, multitasker. Duties will include some engineering within Logic and Pro Tools, studio maintenance, PC and Mac maintenance of hardware and various software plugins. Must be fluent with Gigastudio, Reason, Ableton Live, Native Instruments and many more. Good understanding of signal flow and MIDI is essential, putting together demo CD's and DVD's compulsory, and knowledge of blanket licensing, web casting, digital distribution, viral network, meta data management, and digital aggregators necessary. Some office work and cleaning required.”
In a period of twenty-five years this job has changed so much as to become two unrelated jobs with the same title. The skills and knowledge for one do not prepare one for the other. My education as a music student prepared me well to perform the first version. I wonder if the music education I would receive today would prepare me to do the second.
Let us note one crucial fact at this point: technology has not wrought these changes. People have. Technology is merely a means, a tool, albeit a powerful one. But it does not operate independently of human agents who decide when, how, or whether to embrace new knowledge, tools, and techniques. At least, not yet.
The question is not so much about technology as it is about us. Can we as educators embrace change? With incredible ease we have available to us the music of Africa, China, and Indonesia in its abundance of rhythmic layers, rich textures from exotic instruments, and fresh and vibrant tone colors. We have instant access to improvisational traditions from India, Brazil, New Orleans, and Harlem. We have the ability to see music in vivid color with the full sonic spectrum presenting a visual map inviting new and deep theoretical insights. We have the opportunity to bring all these and many more musical treasures into the classroom to shape our understanding of art and culture, of history, and of the future.
Yet in spite of what we can bring to bear from diverse cultures, in spite of the technological tools for creating, understanding, and performing music, the curricula in the vast majority of music departments, colleges, and conservatories looks very much the same as it did in past decades. With the exception of a course or two here and there, it could be from past centuries.
It is deemed acceptable to teach harmony, counterpoint, ear training, music history, ensembles, and all the fundamentals of a music education in the same way, year after year, decade after decade. I suggest this is flawed because music itself is evolving, as is our wider exposure to new music through history and geography. We should provide fresh insights, new approaches, and the application of new technologies in dynamic, diverse curricula.
Music as an art, a vocation, and a commodity rides the intense cultural currents of globalization, digital media, and the Internet. Students emerging from our institutions of higher learning must learn to navigate these powerful currents or be dashed upon the rocks of irrelevance. There is no other choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
