Questions and Answers

Here is a selection of questions and comments I've received from readers.

Q. From Chicago:

"In this fall's Journal of Aesthetic Education (v. 32, 1998) Koopman says that we do not need to make a choice between the aesthetic and the praxial philosophy, but take the best from both. Your response, please?"

A. I disagree with Koopman because (among other errors) his conclusion is based on several incorrect statements about the praxial philosophy.

For example, Koopman says that in the praxial philosophy: "Music listening is not viewed as an end in itself but is taught and learned in conjunction with artistic music making" (p. 5).

Koopman is wrong.

In "The Values of Listening" (pp. 123-124 of Music Matters) I state that music listening is an end in itself: music listening is valuable because it is "a unique and major way that human beings bring order to consciousness" (p. 124). Music listening is a unique and major source of enjoyment, self-growth and optimal experience. I repeat this theme several times throughout the text.

In addition, I state that: "Recordings and listening charts of various kinds deserve an important place in the education of all students, providing that they serve to supplement students' active, goal-directed music making and guide students toward the multidimensional nature of musical works" (p. 176).

Moreover, I urge that students keep "listening logs" by listening to recordings of music they are learning to perform, compose (and so on) in the class practicum; by listening to recordings of related works; and by listening more widely inside and outside the musical practices they are learning in class (p. 285).

Q. From New York:

"Reimer and Swanwick call your philosophy a 'performance-based' philosophy. But this isn't what you're saying in your book, is it?"

A. No. I say that musical values and musicianship (including music-listening abilities) are best achieved through active music making of all kinds; to me, performing and improvising are first among equals.

Q. From Arizona:

"What would you say about the relationship between the 'National Standards' and the praxial philosophy?"

A. The USA's National Standards are an excellent advocacy statement. What they advocate (in essence) is that school music programs should teach all forms of music making and listening to all students.

However, the National Standards are not the same as a philosophy of music education. That is, the Standards do not provide critically reasoned explanations of Why music belongs in the curriculum or What knowledge is most worth learning by all music students.

In addition, the National Standards sometimes echo Reimer's "aesthetic education" philosophy which rests on invalid claims about the nature and value of music and music education.

So, as an effort in advocacy I support the National Standards fully. And because they encourage schools and communities to employ qualified music teachers to teach all students, I endorse the National Standards.

Also, to the extent that the Standards emphasize quality music making and listening in context, the praxial philosophy provides strong philosophical support for the Standards.

But because the nature and quality of music education depends on many key issues that the Standards do not address, their value as a basis for curriculum and instruction is limited.

Q. From Finland:

"Keith Swanwick wrote an article in the first issue of our new music education journal (Finnish Journal of Music Education, Vol. 1, #1, 1996). Swanwick says that you are wrong when you say that his philosophy (1979) 'fails to explain how music can stir and move people (35)' and that his source (Langer) 'denies that music can arouse feelings (38)'. What's your reply?"

A. Swanwick (like Reimer) still relies on Langer's theory to explain the nature and value of music. Langer's key claim is that musical works are a special kind of symbol (a "presentational" symbol) that captures and re-presents the general forms of human feelings (e.g., tension and resolution). All that music can do, says Langer, is reflect the general forms of feeling: "Music," says Langer, "is not the cause or cure of feelings."

Swanwick misunderstands Langer. Nowhere in her writings does Langer say that musical sounds arouse feelings. Also, Swanwick overlooks the fact that most scholars dismiss Langer's theory because of its many logical mistakes.

For careful explanations and criticisms of Langer's theory see: Budd (1985), Fiske (1996), and Bowman (1998).

Q. From Florida

"I'm a sophomore music education major. I'm trying to understand why you disagree with Reimer's philosophy so strongly. Please tell me in a few sentences."

A. Reimer (1989) says that a philosophy of music education must rest on a "convincing" concept of music: "a concept about what is of ultimate value about our art and the teaching of it" (p. 11).

Reimer's chosen concept of music (called "absolute expressionism") rests on two theories of music: Suzanne K. Langer's theory and Leonard B. Meyer's theory. The trouble is: (a) Langer and Meyer contradict each other about the nature of music and (b) most experts over the years have debunked both theories.

So, Reimer's philosophy of music education is invalid and unreliable. He has no dependable source of beliefs about music on which to base his recommendations for music teaching and learning.

Chief among these recommendations is Reimer's idea (via Langer and Meyer) that we should teach all children to listen to music 'aesthetically' (for musical elements alone). To me, this is musical mis-education because listening 'aesthetically' greatly diminishes the richness of music listening and musical works.

Q. From England:

"I've been following the Elliott-Reimer debate for some time. Recently, Koopman (Philosophy of Music Education Review 5, 2, 1997) stated that you take a "hybrid" view of the aims of music education -- that you waver between an internal and external perspective. But Reimer says (Philosophy of Music Education Review 6, 1, 1998, p. 62) that you and he have 'a shared intrinsic viewpoint.' Please clarify."

A. My view is that our engagements with music have a practical pay-off. Musical practices-as-communities provide the conditions (musical challenges and musical knowledge) that we need to achieve important 'life-values' including these: personal individuation and integration, enjoyment, self-growth and self-knowledge (among other benefits). If and when we develop the musicianship to make and listen for music of a particular kind, we can achieve these values.

Clearly, though, it is people who feel and experience these benefits, not sounds. Sounds are not living creatures; sounds cannot feel enjoyment; people experience enjoyment and self-growth.

So, my orientation to musical aims and values is external to the sounds themselves: the values of music (the values of participating in music as a listener or maker) are human constructs. People do and make things. Nothing we experience (including music) is "self-sufficient." It is impossible to "do something for the sake of the doing" (as the old saying goes) because all forms of doing are initiated, guided and experienced by human doers. It is for the doer's sake (benefit) that doers do things. In other words, the notion of "intrinsic" value is highly dubious because all values are culturally grounded and personally constructed.

Bottom line: (a) Koopman and Reimer are both incorrect about my view and (b) Reimer's "self-contained" (autonomous) view of music is illogical.