But I think I'll move on with my life.
On Friday I took home Lizzy's video recorders with the recordings of my little bits of lessons so far. Today I finally remembered to watch them. After watching them I have decided on my personal goals for tomorrow's lesson (during which I will be observed by my coordinator). They are as follows:
1. Keep it moving!
2. Keep the energy up in every fiber of your being!
3. Vary proximity to students!
So hopefully this goes well.
Today the first hour sixth graders were generally better-behaved and had better attitudes than yesterday. More students were offering answers to questions, more students were actively listening. Therefore Lizzy was able to lighten up a bit. She threw in some horribly unfunny jokes (some only funny to her and me, some just a little off the deep end), and the class was able to relate to her more personally than to the harsh disciplinarian they met yesterday. Now she is a disciplinarian with a soul.
One thing I love about Lizzy's method for the sixth graders is how she leads into topics. Today, she asked the students what music is. She acknowledged every answer and continued to probe the class about the responses they gave, asking why they gave them and what exceptions there might be.
"Well, it needs words..."
"Okay, so the band next door doesn't play music because they don't have lyrics?"
"Oh, I guess you don't need..."
"So does music need lyrics in order to be music?"
"No."
And etc.
It was a really interesting discussion that I think gets overlooked in higher study. I think Lizzy hits it right on the head with her definition:
Music is sound organized in time.
This made me think: wait a sec, does that make some things music that not everyone thinks is? For example, people still debate on the validity of 4'33" as a musical work. However, it does qualify as music based on this definition: it is sound of some kind, organized in time (four minutes, thirty-three seconds). That's it! That's all! The end!
And it is because of this definition that I will acknowledge rap, screamo, serialism, and yes, even autotune, as music.
Ke$ha, though? Well, I guess by this definition, the quality of those three terms doesn't affect the fact that it is, in fact, music.
Doesn't that go right back to enjoyment and to a point, quality being very subjective?
ReplyDeleteYes, quality and enjoyment are subjective. The last statement was more of an afterthought touching on personal taste. The subjective quality does not affect the objective idea of sound organized in time as music. Was the wording great in that statement? Probably not.
DeleteI'm trying to avoid an entry on "just what IS good or bad music?" because I don't want to turn this into some sort of pompous, unreadable, holier-than-thou endeavor. I used to refuse to consider musical styles I didn't like as music, so I think I'm branching out somewhat.
I wrote an answer this morning and it wouldn't send, so hopefully I remembered everything I wanted to say. Bottom line: You make a good point.