“Why is music important?”

This question, and many other questions regarding the importance of music and its validity in schools, is difficult to answer because music educators often do not have the tools necessary to describe and justify the importance of music in schools. We, myself and other music educators, often associate our music classes with physical education and sports because in all cases, music is a “team” activity. People must come together and make music together, and when one part is missing it disrupts the flow of the rehearsal. Music educators also tend to latch on to ideas that will allow them to justify their importance in schools. A fitting example of this is the “Mozart Effect”, which Bennet Reimer elegantly describes in Facing the Risks of the “Mozart Effect”. Teachers latched on to the “Mozart Effect” because it “showed” that playing Mozart during, or before, certain tasks, like taking a test or studying, would “increase” cognitive function. The “Mozart Effect” gave justification to both music and non-music educators that music had validity in all aspects of education. It was quickly realized that playing Mozart had no impact on general intelligence or IQ. What is important here is that music educators are constantly trying to justify the importance of music education in schools when other subjects rarely provide the same justification. In Paul R. Lehman’s, A Personal Perspective, when discussing the importance of music he states “Music is one of the most powerful, most compelling, and most glorious manifestations of every cultural heritage. All of us ought to be able to understand, enjoy, and participate fully in our musical environment.” Music is important because it is innate to every human being. It is in nearly every aspect of our lives and culture and will continue to transform and adapt as time moves forward. As Lehman says “Music exalts the human spirit. It transforms the human experience. It’s a basic instinct in every human being…It brings joy, beauty, and satisfaction to people’s lives, all qualities increasingly important in a world that tends to reduce individuals to numbers in huge databases to devalue their human qualities.” Music is much more than just playing notes on a page. It transcends cultures, brings people together, and provides a sense of community among the people it is interacting with. 

Philosophy of Music Education

During my graduate degree, I had the opportunity to revisit my philosophy of music education and revise, edit, and reflect on how my perception of music education has changed over the years. Reflecting on my philosophy allowed me to hone in on what I find the most valuable in music education and what I want my students to understand when they depart from my music program. My philosophy stems from the verb Musicking (defined below) and through this verb the following concepts emerged: 1) Inclusivity, 2) Transferability, and 3) Expression

Musicking

My philosophy of music education is centered around the idea of Musicking. Musicking describes interacting with, being a part of, or participating in music in any meaningful form. When students leave my music program, my goal is to give them the tools necessary to continue to interact with music in some capacity. Whether that be playing an instrument in a community band, singing Christmas carols, noticing the dramatic effects of movie soundscapes, or simply hearing a song at the grocery store and being able to understand it deeper than someone without music experience. Although this term was defined near the end of the 19th century (1987) by Christopher Small, and then used again, without the “k”, in the late 1990s in David Elliott’s praxial music making (musicing), the term musicking can be applied to many music educators throughout history. One example is Carl Orff’s, Orff Schulwerk. The Orff Approach was developed before the term musicking was coined and later reinforced in the 1920s by Gunild Keetman. The Orff Approach to teaching music is “child-centered” meaning the child experiences music by learning through their environment. Like Musicking, the Orff Approach encourages students to seek music out in their daily lives and interact with it. 

Inclusivity

The term musicking also involves a space for students to be heard, seen, respected, and understood. Students cannot achieve meaningful music and begin the process of figuring out how to interact with music in their own unique way if the environment they are in is not inclusive. To be inclusive means to accept students regardless of their socioeconomic class, gender, identity, ethnicity, sexual orientation, culture, and abilities. This directly corresponds with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, which we discussed in the Music in School and Society class. Students must have their basic needs met before true learning can occur. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs shows that to achieve “Self-Actualization” which includes creativity, purpose, and aesthetic experiences students must meet the four previous needs of the pyramid (Figure 1). The “Self-Esteem” section of the Hierarchy of Needs pyramid correlates with inclusivity because for students to finally reach “Self-Actualization” they must be respected by others and their individual; unique needs must be met. For example, students must address their peers with their correct pronouns and appropriately give and receive constructive feedback to and from their peers. By being inclusive it sets the students up for success during the first day of music class.

Transferability

In music, transferability can come in many different forms. Just like how musicking is described as interacting with music in forms that are meaningful to the individual, transferability in the music classrooms is taking the lessons learned in their music classes and applying them to their daily and future lives. This directly correlates with the Connecting Anchor Standard of the National Core Arts Standards (NCAS) for music education. The goal is to not just inspire musicians to become professionals but to also teach them about life and prepare them for the future. An easy example of this is in the traditional band classroom, students work together to make music and perform it for an audience. Individuals in the ensemble must come prepared to play their individual parts and understand how the other musicians’ parts fit together to make beautiful music. This can be transferred to many workplaces where groups of people come together to form a presentation, and everyone must be prepared to speak on their section of the material and work with the other members of their group to give a worthwhile presentation. Transferability also happens within the music classroom itself. Students should be able to transfer learned knowledge from to different sections of the music, from instrument groups, and amongst contrasting pieces of music. For example, during a Wind Symphony rehearsal, I had the ensemble listen to the sound of the rim shot in the percussion section and transfer that sound to their instruments (click here). They transferred what they were hearing from a different section of the ensemble (percussion) and applied it to their instruments. Other than transfers from section to section in the music classroom, students can take learned concepts such as time management, critical thinking, and problem-solving and apply them to aspects of their lives outside of music. Critical thinking skills in the music classroom involve being able to self-evaluate one’s own difficulties during performances as well as evaluate other sections’ performances. Students can transfer this knowledge into their daily lives by using their critical thinking skills to improve and evaluate tasks that they are completing outside of music. An example of this would be doing research for a book project or presentation. Students have to use their critical thinking skills to evaluate if a source is worthy of use, is properly cited, and accurately depicts the content being researched. 

Expression

Centered around musicking, my goal as an educator is to provide a place for students to express themselves in many facets of music education. As outlined in my philosophy, my hope is that I can provide a variety of music classes that allow students of many backgrounds, cultures, genders, and societies to be expressive. Whether that be programming music of female composers and people of color (AndWeWereHeard – Database/Recordings of works by underrepresented composers), allowing students to research, present, and talk about music that resonates with them, and possibly providing classes like Analysis of Popular Music to reach a broader audience (see Fostering Relationships). To be expressive, students must learn to make music meaningful to them. As the teacher, it is my duty to provide them with the resources to discern how to make it meaningful to them and give them opportunities to show that expression. 

Music in School and Society

While co-teaching Music in School and Society, and taking it as an undergraduate, many discussions formed from the question “Why is music important?”. With this question also came the discussion of what we can do, as music educators, to justify music education in schools and “prove” to society that music is an important aspect of life. In Steven N. Kelly’s (2019) book, Teaching Music in American Society, he asserts that music serves many roles making it multi-dimensional. These dimensions show why music is important through statistics, its cultural significance, entertainment, how it brings people together, and why we need music. Statistically speaking, the National Association of Music Merchants (NAMM) found that 93% of people believed that playing an instrument helped children make friends, 80% believed playing a musical instrument made them smart, and 97% who were surveyed agreed that playing a musical instrument provided a sense of accomplishment and was a good means of expression. To further reinforce music multidimensionality, Kelly (2019) provides anthropologist Alan Merriam, Functions of Music (Figure 2) which displays reasons why every human being needs music. In fact, he quotes Merriam by stating “Music is everywhere humans exist and has been everywhere humans have existed” (pg. 56). He also provides Max Kaplan’s (1990) social function of music in society (Figure 3), which uses the ideas of Merriam’s Functions of Music and specifies them for music in society. 

 

This class changed my outlook on how to justify music in schools and in today’s society. The music class should not be considered an elective, it should be considered a valued part of the core curriculum and an important part of human life. Nearly every human being understands music in some capacity, it is a social phenomenon because humans create it. We, the music educators, should not have to grab onto things like the “Mozart Effect” to justify why music is important. We should be able to educate our students, other teachers, and society about music because throughout history music has always been a part of society. Looking specifically at the tables above, the “Contribution to the Integration of Society” of Merriam’s table and the “Collective Possession” of Kaplans’s table go hand in hand. Individuals are drawn together to create music thus fostering a collective possession for said music. Students must be prepared to work on their music together as an ensemble to make beautiful music. With this collective possession, there is a shared experience that could be turned into an aesthetic experience. This gives students the opportunity to see beauty, explore meaning, and provoke feelings toward specific music. Those aesthetic experiences are also meant to be shared with other human beings through performance or general interactions. Music is in all aspects of the human experience and it is influential on basic human behaviors. It influences our “dress, language, religion, celebrations, eating, studying, and even medical practices” which should make it easily justifiable in education. My argument for music in education will no longer be related to sports teams, good grades, or other outside factors. It will be discussed as an important aspect of human life that has been an significant part of our past, present, and future society. 

History of American Music Education

The history of American Music Education demonstrates the accomplishments, sacrifices, and determination of past educators in managing the wavering importance of music education throughout history. By examining the past, future music educators can determine how to handle the current and future challenges in music education. While taking the class History of American Music Education, I was given the opportunity to present on different eras of music history. What I learned while researching these presentations is that music educators have always had to justify why music should be in the general education system. Throughout American history, music education has seen both an increase and a decrease in importance due to many factors. From the 1840s to the 1950s there was an increased importance in music due to the need for better singing in a congregation, finally having “qualified” singing-school masters, the introduction of the common school by Horace Mann (1796-1859), and educators like Lowell Masson (1792-1872) who petitioned the Boston school board to include music in public school curriculum. The ability of music to provide patriotism and belonging to one’s country led to the founding of the Music Supervisors National Conference (1907), and the touring of Patrick S. Gilmore and John Philip Sousa which showcased band music at its highest level. These are just some of the many reasons why there was an influx of publicly funded school-based music programs but what it demonstrates is that if music is viewed as important throughout society, it will not need to be justified as often. 

The decrease in the importance of music education happened in the late 1950s due to Russia’s launch of Sputnik. This sent the United States, and many other countries, into a race of superior academics. In this instance, academics meant math and science. Americans feared that Russia had become more technologically advanced than the United States and the only way to combat this was for the federal government to be involved with education. This movement was called the “back-to-basics” movement, which considered classes other than math and science, especially music, as “anti-intellectual” because it did not directly increase technological advancements. 

Although the back-to-basics movement caused a decrease in music education, the founding of Music Supervisors National Conference/Music Educators National Conference, now the National Association for Music Education (NAfME), prior to the launch of Sputnik highlighted music educators’ ability to learn from the past and establish nationally recognized groups to ensure that music education would not be completely lost. This led to the first Tanglewood Symposium (1967) in Boston. At Tanglewood music educators from across the country discussed how to make music education better reflect societal changes. Led by Max Kaplan, Wiley L. Housewright, Allen P. Britton, David P. McAllester, and Karl D. Ernst they discussed the important characteristics of music in the post-industrial society, what factors are unique to music in society, and how to attain said factors and characteristics in the current societal norm. Rather than provide immediate justification for the importance of music, those at the Tanglewood Symposium took the time to reflect on their answers and produce specific statements that ensured the continuation of music education in schools as well as the expansion of qualified music educators to teach a higher standard of education. They were not only ensuring the current state of music education be maintained and improved but certify that future music educators are better equipped to handle future changes in society (Figure 4). 

Along with the eight statements agreed to at the Tanglewood Symposium, The Goals and Objectives (GO) Project (1969) sought to implement the above recommendations of the Tanglewood Symposium. This initiative was led by NAfME president (1984-1986) and music educator Paul Lehman. The GO Project contacted hundreds of NAfME members throughout the country and with Lehman’s help, developed thirty-five specific objectives with four main goals. The goals were: 

1. Carry out comprehensive music programs in all schools
2. Involve persons of all ages in learning music
3. Support the quality preparation of teachers
4. Use the most effective techniques and resources in music instruction

Along with these goals, of the thirty-five objectives the National Executive Board highlighted eight of the following objectives for immediate attention (Figure 5): 

As destructive as Russia’s launch of Sputnik was to music education, it forced music educators to think of the bigger picture. Music educators saw an opportunity to reform themselves and provide justification for music in the schools. They became refined and ensured that future music educators, like me, would be prepared to take on the challenges of our current society and future societies. Without the sacrifices and dedication of the music educators of the past, there would not be a foundation for music educators like me to build upon. 

The History of American Music Education class changed my perspective on music education and teaching by showing the importance of music in our society throughout history and giving me the tools necessary to prove to my students, colleagues, parents, and society the reason music education is worthwhile. By being up to date with current, past, and future developments in music education, I can better explain the importance of music education in schools and discuss how music education has always been a part of our society and should continue to be a part of our society.