|
The debate seems to be around creativity vs technique.
I think the funding bodies want to fund creativity. I do too I suppose but I do think that a study of music theory and technique by their very nature are the tools that develop creativity.
I also think that a college does well when it trains students in these things where as creativity is often easier to study outside a college (ie. join a band, write some songs and record them etc)
I'm really interested however to see what you guys think. I'm putting together a new scheme (a scheme is what a college actually teaches) and I'm trying to come up with a regime that balances creativity and technique in a way that will satisfy our students.
I'm writing my scheme based upon this definition I've come up with:
Skill can be seen as the ability to execute methods used to create good music.
The course should develop these skills but also constantly question the meaning of ‘good’ in a musical context. Although the concept of good is somewhat subjective, I argue that it isn’t entirely subjective.
This scheme is designed to develop the following skills:
1) Motor skill on the students chosen instrument
2) Communicate with other musicians through different types of music notation
3) Improvise and Compose (these two being related)
4) An awareness of the music theory
5) An awareness of the history of music and the factors that affected it’s development
6) An ability to articulate what makes a piece of music good.
I can understand those here that just wanna play and find this stuff boring but once you get an idea yourself of what is the best to learn it helps immeasurably.
|