Abstract
A Wider Perspective
It was with interest that I read the June 2013 Music Educators Journal article by Evan S. Tobias, “Toward Convergence: Adapting Music Education to Contemporary Society and Participatory Culture.” In particular, I noted his statement that “clear-cut rules to determine whether students’ engagement and interaction with existing music qualify as fair use do not exist” (p. 34). He emphasizes that he is speaking only of noncommercial use in the schools, stating that “[Renee] Hobbs argues that educators’ reliance on industry-sponsored guidelines and oversimplified resources have led to confusion, misinformation, and a narrowing of educators” application of fair use (p. 34). Similarly, educators, publishers, composers, students, lawyers, legislators, the public, and judges may have differing perspectives on what students can or cannot or should and should not do with compositions in relation to the musical practices (covering, arranging, parodying, satirizing . . . ). As Tobias states, “It is critical that music educators dialogue with all parties affected by copyright law, fair use, and contemporary musical practices to develop guidelines for moving forward” (p. 34).
I could not agree more. The topic of fair use as it applies to educational arranging and performance in the classroom and by school ensembles is a constantly evolving legal matter, and many in the aforementioned constituencies see a great deal of latitude for school activity. For example, fair use allows anyone to perform a tune after its first public performance; and to perform it, you often have to arrange it. Top 40 “cover bands” bands don’t seek permission to arrange songs by the Beatles or Lady Gaga, and the royalties from their live performances proceed from the venue to the rights-owner. Because copyright law makes no distinction between pop, jazz, or classical cover bands or choirs, considerable dialogue on this subject has taken place and will continue.
My impression from faithfully reading MEJ and Teaching Music has been that NAfME’s publications have conveyed to its members only the very strictest interpretations of what is actually a wide range of extant legal opinion on copyright law and music. I am pleased that NAfME members are now receiving the more balanced view from their periodicals, as Evan Tobias has presented here.
—
Director of jazz studies,
Virginia Commonwealth University,
Richmond, Virginia;
Editor’s note. Check out NAfME’s Copyright Center at http://musiced.nafme.org/resources/copyright-center to find free resources and links to information about copyright for students, teachers, performers, and arrangers.
A Plausible Possibility
This letter is not an academic, footnoted, highbrow presentation; it is simply a reflection of some of the feelings, interests, hopes, projections, and experiences that I believe are terribly important to our students, as well as to our own self-image and well-being.
Here’s a prediction: Music and the study of the arts will ultimately make the difference between anarchy and civility in our blocks, our neighborhoods, our cities, states, and ultimately our nation. Let me clarify.
Crime of all kinds is seen as a way to benefit the individual in a selfish, hurtful, and nonproductive way. The perpetrators are concerned only with their own well-being—about what they can get for themselves without thought for others’ feelings or concerns. What do I propose to counter this selfishness? The answer seems simple to me: participation in a music ensemble. Does this sound too simple? Think about it.
We all know that participation in a group that has a common agenda focuses students’ attention on the welfare of that organization. Think football, baseball, basketball, and so on. But in sports, the overwhelming interest seems to be on what an individual (a quarterback, a pitcher, or a point guard) can accomplish for the group.
What other team activities are there? I can think of participating in the Olympics for one’s country. But this still hinges on benefits to the individual participant. Or maybe debate—or the golf team. No, these also must benefit the individual student before an accumulation of credit can be awarded to the group as a whole.
A music ensemble is one of the few situations where participants relinquish a sense of individuality and give themselves completely to the overall effort and result of the group. A student in a choir, or a band, or an orchestra is completely dependent on the others in the group to produce a final effort by combining all participation into a coherent aesthetic whole. No individual is more important than any other (omitting soloists, of course), and all benefit equally from the concerted effort of the ensemble. So why is this ultimately important to the individual student and to society as a whole?
Giving ourselves aesthetic nourishment through the efforts of the whole is world-changing. The sum of the whole is greater than its individual parts. The accomplishment and enjoyment of excellence with others, the wave of applause after a concert, the camaraderie within the ensemble, not to mention the wonderful music that will be sung or played and that touches each student’s soul, are not matched by any other endeavor in the world. We’ve all felt it. That’s why we all remember it, and perhaps why we chose music teaching as our vocation. Through music we can guide students in the importance of working with others, creating respect for others, the reward of a group effort, and increasing their aesthetic reception, enjoyment, and understanding.
Back to my original pronouncement of anarchy versus civility. Aren’t the majority of criminals out just for themselves? Aren’t most companies, not to mention most employees, out for themselves? Doesn’t each country in the world seek what best benefits that country? I’m not so naive as to think that we as a nation or as a world of disparate interests and concerns can solve all problems in the way I propose. Will ensemble participation decrease bullying, or the use of drugs, or alcohol, or participation in gangs? I don’t really know, but I suspect that in some way it can. Will it engender in each student the energy and enjoyment of accomplishment as a member of a group dedicated to one purpose? Will it carry him or her into a continued interest in and love of music, and perhaps other arts as well? I have absolutely no doubt that it will do these things.
Doesn’t being in a music ensemble ultimately come down to working with others in a concerted, cooperative way so as to increase the feeling of achievement, cooperation, validity of product, and positive friendship and interaction with others, all of which may last a lifetime and be projected far beyond local boundaries? The answer is a resounding yes! Such interaction must follow each student into his or her varied career choices because it reflects the philosophy of working together for the common good. We have a wonderful opportunity for us to start building a society of concern, of participation, and of harmony on so many levels!
Can we as musicians and teachers really effect all that? Can we instill a willingness in our students to join with others until all rise in a soaring current of selflessness through the beauty of making-music together? You bet we can!
As Stephen Sondheim said, “If I cannot fly, let me sing.” We could add “play” to that as well. Making music is actually flying—soaring—in its own way.
Professor emeritus of music,
University of Arkansas at Little Rock;
No One Size Fits All
In his June 2013 Music Educators Journal article, “The Future of Music Education: Continuing the Dialogue about Curricular Reform,” Peter Miksza describes recent critiques on the traditional large ensemble as “shock value” focusing on “surface features” (p. 46). He goes on to describe the current state of music education as mostly rosy using evidence that is no less surface level or shocking than that which he criticizes. Miksza also advocates for patience and reflection “while building on what currently exists” (p. 45), even though such patience and reflection have been ongoing since the 1960s (beginning with the Manhattanville Music Curriculum Project) with little significant effect.
As is perhaps true in many disagreements, there is probably more in this debate that can be agreed on than is actually contested. Even as an author of one of the articles Miksza criticizes, I couldn’t agree more that “It is essential that we continue to pursue approaches that broaden the traditional notions of music education in the public schools. It is also important that our professional dialogue remain grounded in reasoned argument” (p. 45). The reality is that no one model of music education will suffice any longer. What works well at one school might be very different from what works well at another school.
In my “Elephant in the Room” article (September 2011 MEJ, pp. 51–57), I suggested there are two issues keeping us from making any real progress as a profession: the belief that every secondary school music program must include traditional ensembles and the view that other music classes are less musical than band and choir. It is easy to dismiss calls for change as “shock value” and “surface issues” when the real interest is maintaining a status quo. I worry this article will do little more than empower those who resist any change to let things remain as they are.
Associate professor of music education,
University of South Florida,
Tampa, Florida;
Your Ideas Are Welcome . . .
Music Educators Journal often prints comments from our subscribers in the Readers Comment section. Share your opinion with MEJ Academic Editor Patrick K. Freer by writing him at
“A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”