Master thesis – Music studies
Supervisor: dr. F.O. (Oliver) Seibt
Date: 01.08.201
BAD MUSIC IN THE MUSIC CLASSROOM:
Israeli music teachers’ notions about bad music and
A INTRODUCTION ... 2
B THEORETICAL AND HISTRACL BACKGROUND ... 7
B.1 Bad music and evaluative judgments ... 7
B.2 Music education in Irseal – backgorund ... 12
B.2.1 History of music education and national music culture ... 12
B.2.2 The new Pluralistic approach ... 15
B.2.3 The status of music education in schools ... 17
B.2.4 The teachers and their training ... 18
C METHODOLOGY ... 19
D FINDINGS ... 22
D.1 Reflections ... 22
D.1.1 Strong and weak definitions ... 22
D.1.2 Taste and judgments ... 26
D.1.3 Conclusion ... 34
D.2 Judgments of bad and good music ... 36
D.2.a Bad music is empty, good music is rich ... 37
D.2.a.1 Music analysis ... 37
D.2.a.2 Values and meaning ... 39
D.2.a.3 Conclusion ... 44
D.2.b Time and fasion ... 46
D.2.b.1 Fashion ... 46
D.2.b.2 “Inalienable goods” ... 51
D.2.b.3 Challenges to the canon ... 57
D.2.b.4 Conclusion ... 61
D.3 Bad music in the classroom ... 62
E DISCUSSION ... 65
F BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 71
A INTRODUCTION
On 28.08.2017 an interview with Dr Eitan Ornoy, the new head of music education department at Lewinsky College (Israel) was published in Ha’aretz daily newspaper under the title: “The classical music specialist is no longer patronising towards Mediterranean
music1.”(Hitron, 2007) In this interview Ornoy, a musicologist with a classical music
background, explained that he was influenced by cultural musicology and now understands that every music has its value, claiming that the preferred status of Beethoven over a popular song is a product of a specific period.
In the interview, Ornoy avoided passing judgment on any music, whether popular mainstream or simple children songs, claiming that we need to look deeper and find value in the music. Music he once considered as having no apparent artistic value, he now values as being part of “the cultural mosaic” (see Hitron, 2007). His new insights will be implemented in the music teachers’ training program in his department, with the inclusion of more “non-artistic” and non-Western musical genres, thus giving place to musical genres that were once excluded from the formal musical education (see Hitron 2007).
The changes to the study curriculum reflect changes in attitudes towards musical education and curriculum. As reviewed by Barrett (2017), in music education research there is a growing interest in expanding the curriculum, especially to include popular music and world music2. In the Israeli context, this debate is even more significant: although
Israeli society is religiously, culturally and ethnically diverse, and located in the Middle East, this diversity is not reflected in the musical curriculum, which is oriented towards western “art” music and Hebrew songs. In the first three decades of Israel’s establishment, under the “melting pot” integration policy3, immigrants had to abandon their cultural
1 A popular music genre which incorporates elements from Greek, Turkish, Arabic music in a Western pop
music format.
2 Barrett claims that although they are sometimes parallel, the term popular music refers to music that is
“consumed and measured by rankings delivered through accessible media and affiliated with [articular groups and targeted audience”, while world music is associated with “musics of cultural traditions multicultural
ethnic or non-western examples, particularly those “other” cultures that are less familiar to teachers and students in a particular context of study” (Barrett 2007, p. 151-152)
3 Yuchtman-Yaar 2005 claims it was more of “phenomenon of immigrant absorption”, as it was “directed
practices to assimilate into the dominant modern “Israeli culture”, which had emerged during the period prior to the establishment of the state and expressed the Zionist ideology and values (mainly focused on Hebrew language and secularism). The expansion of the curriculum beyond Western art music is seen by many as a correction of this.
Ornoy indicated that some of the faculty members disagreed with this change, as one of the faculty members said: “We should be like the Dutch child who put his finger in
the dike, to stand firm against the decline of culture, and to continue to foster high art”.
(Hitron 2007).
This dispute between Ornoy and the other faculty members expresses two different approaches to music education. One is based on the relativist discourse which calls for an inclusive curriculum and considers every musical practice as valid (as Ornoy claimed that both a Beethoven piece and a popular song on the radio have value). The other is the hierarchal traditional approach which aims to preserve and promote “high culture” and considers the teachers as a bulwark against negative cultural processes and changes (expressed in the phrase “decline of culture”). While advocates of the relativist discourse criticise the traditional view as being detached from the reality of the students and irrelevant to contemporary society, proponents of the traditional approach consider the former as giving in to “populism” at the expanse of quality. Furthermore, this conflict reflects a wider rift in music education, which was discussed by Lamont and Maton (2010) in their study on the challenges in musical education.
Lamont and Maton, 2010 found that there is a shift in the music education research discourse expressed by a growing use of rhetoric of inclusion and democracy, based on the notion that “music is for everyone” (p.74). However, Lamont and Maton (2010) identified a contradiction between the structure of formal education and this relativist discourse. They explain that while the traditional view had clear hierarchies and goals, on which teachers based the curriculum and pedagogy (for example, the music appreciation movement which aimed to immerse students in high culture), under the relativist view it is unclear what should be taught and how it should be assessed. Therefore, Lamont and Maton (2010) claim that the relativist assumption can be “held only as a position on the field rather than a
position in the field - in rhetoric rather than reality” (Lamont and Maton 2010, p. 74). The
point made by Lamont and Maton is that formal education cannot accept the position that “anything goes”, as teachers are in need of aims, standards for assessment, and foundations that determine what should be taught and how.
Roll (2017) addressed this issue as well, asking: “On what should we base our
arguments when it is no longer possible to reliably specify the aims and content of music education or their implementation in schools by simply basing our decisions on lasting musical traditions and changeless forms of life?” (p.89) Roll claimed that, while the
relativist approach may be liberating, when “anything goes” and there are no binding foundations, no fixed and binding criteria for defining quality, then it is primarily about the teachers’ choices and their ability to justify their choices. This discussion is not just a matter of repertoire, but also a question of approach to musical education and education in general.
While both Lamont and Maton and Roll equated the relativist discourse to the extreme approach that “anything goes”, Ornoy stated that the collapse of the hierarchies between high and low does not necessarily mean a dissolution of hierarchies altogether, since differences in quality exist in all genres (Hitron 2007). However, Ornoy did not elaborate on the criteria for assessing quality; in the interview he completely avoided making judgments. The question remains, what are the criteria for assessing quality, and who sets them.
In light of the conflict explained by Lamont and Maton (2010), this thesis aims to examine how music teachers negotiate between the two approaches: on one hand the relativist or pluralistic approach presented by Ornoy, according to which all music has its value, and on the other hand the hierarchical approach supported by some of the faculty members associated with the traditional approach, according to which music education should foster “high culture”.
These approaches will be examined in this thesis through analysis of music teachers’ evaluative judgments of music and their curriculum choices. The analysis will use Simon Frith’s theory (2004), and more specifically relay on his discussion of “bad music”. Frith’s
main assumption is that “bad” is not a quality of the music itself since no music is intrinsically bad, and he questions what it is that people are actually evaluating, and why some aspects of sound have more value than others. For Frith, the point of interest is not the music itself, but the arguments that justify labelling the music as bad, and what values and assumptions underline these justifications.
Drawing on Frith’s assumptions, this thesis will examine what music do Israeli music teachers label as bad and what do they think about including or excluding it from the curriculum. The analysis will seek to revel what values and assumptions underline the teachers’ choices and how they negotiate the conflicting values in the music education discourse. The discussion about the place of “bad music” in the music classroom is used to find the boundaries of the relative discourse, and to mark the limitations to the claim that “anything goes”.
While there are many discussions about what should be included in the curriculum, discussions about what is excluded are equally important. For example, Bryson (1996), in a study on “class-based exclusion” in the United States, found that even subjects considered to be culturally tolerant and educated tended to dislike music associated with uneducated people. Bryson’s focus on individuals’ “dislikes” produced different results than the studies about individuals’ musical preferences.
This also leads to discussion of social aspects, as expressed by Washburne and Derko (2004), who argued that claims about “bad music” are not only expressions of subjective feelings of unpleasantness, but are also:
“a positioning gesture, which serves to construct or reimagine specific modes of subjectivity or to restructure social relationships by asserting deliberate musical agency. […] By explicitly disaffiliating ourselves with certain forms of musical expression, we make a claim for being ‘in the know’ about things, we demonstrate an educated perspective and activate a wide range of underlying assumptions about what is ‘good.’” (Washburne and Derko, 2004 p. 3).
In the context of music education, music teachers negotiate between two identities: on the one hand they are individuals, (musically educated) listeners, some are also musicians, and as such they have their own tastes and ideas about the quality of music pieces. However, as teachers, they are also in a position of influence and have responsibility for their students, and as such there are other considerations: They must manoeuvre between their personal tastes, the demands of the environment (requirements of the Ministry of Education, schools’ needs), and educational values.
The motivation of the thesis is based on my experience as a music teacher in Israel. In my first years as a teacher I had to deal with the conflict between what I had learned in the music teachers training programme and the reality of the classroom. As part of the reflective process I tried to define and justify my choices as a music teacher. These questions challenged what I had learned in my musical training, and in this thesis, I tried to find a way to resolve this conflict.
B THEORETICAL AND HISTRACL BACKGROUND
B.1 BAD MUSIC AND EVALUATIVE JUDGMENTS
This thesis is based on Simon Frith’s theory on evaluative judgments. In his book, Performing Rites (1996), Frith focuses on popular music, aiming to establish an aesthetic discourse in popular culture. Frith criticizes the current academic treatment of popular culture for excluding evaluative aesthetic discourse (pp. 12-13). His criticism has two main points: First, the replacement of aesthetic judgment with political judgment leads to connecting evaluation of popular culture with its ideological implications (such as empowerment, resistance, democracy) and detaching it from other values, such as beauty or craft (p. 14). The second is the association of commercial success and sales with popular culture, which nonetheless fails to provide information as to how consumers value and enjoy the music (p. 15).
Frith’s solution is to review how people describe their own experiences of popular culture and the way they evaluate it, which according to him is an integral part of popular culture that has been ignored by past research. A crucial assumption in Frith’s arguments is that the evaluative judgment process is essentially the same in different cultural spheres, including high and low culture (Frith presents arguments to support the claim that the differentiations between high and low culture are artificial and a result of constructed effort). Additionally, Frith uses Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital to explain how the accumulation of knowledge and discriminations are integral parts of popular culture. According to Bourdieu, the ability to appreciate cultural artefacts is a skill acquired through upbringing and education. The enjoyment of a work of art is based on the knowledge that enables one to decode its full meaning. However, while Bourdieu considered possession of cultural knowledge as a property of the high class, Frith claims that accumulating knowledge, making judgments, discriminating and creating hierarchies are important activities with regard to “low culture” as well as “high culture” (Frith 1996, p. 9).
Frith uses the Mass-Observation surveys of British film tastes from 1938 and 1943 to support his argument. These surveys included questioners designed to explore why people go to the cinema and their taste in films, as well as observations of their behaviour during the film (Frith 1996, p.49). Frith focuses on two main points that the survey reveals: First, evaluative judgments are based on expectations, which are shaped by the person's prior knowledge and familiarity with a genre’s rules, as well as by comparison with other cultural and artistic products. The more knowledge one has, the higher one’s expectations and disappointments. This is also the primary difference between “ordinary” consumers or listeners and fans. And second, even within popular culture, judgments rely on implicit hierarchies between “the easy and the difficult, between trash and quality, between
indulgence and education; the popular consumer too makes different sorts of demand (more or less aesthetic, more or less functional) of different sorts of cultural commodity”
(Frith 1991, p. 112). Frith uses this example to show how the same mechanism applied in both “high culture” and “low culture”.
Another critical claim Frith makes4 is that evaluation and discrimination are shaped by our ways of listening, production of meaning, identification with (or alienation from) the performer or composer – and that they are an integral part of participation in musical activities. In Frith’s words: “It is in deciding - playing and hearing what sounds right (I
would extend this account of music from performing to listening, to listening as a way of performing) - that we both express ourselves, our own sense of rightness, and suborn ourselves, lose ourselves, in an act of participation” (1996b, p.110) In this way Frith links
the aesthetic with the ethic.
For example, regarding pop music, Frith states that, although there is no argument about how pop is influenced by market forces, people still believe that good pop music is unique in that it transcends those forces. Frith claims that “good” pop, is therefore linked to something beyond the music, which Frith connects to the truth (1996b, p.112). In Frith’s words: “musical appreciation is, by its very nature, a process of musical identification, and
the aesthetic response is, implicitly, an ethical agreement.” (1996b, p.114)
In Frith’s view, identity is a process, an experience, which just like music is simultaneously individual and social (1996b, p. 109). Frith refers to theories that attempt to connect social groups’ values to musical expressions and claim that the music does not represent value and ideology, it embodies them:
“What I want to suggest, in other words, is not that social groups agree on values which are then expressed in their cultural activities (the assumption of the homology models) but that they only get to know themselves as groups (as a particular organization of individual and social interests, of sameness and difference) through cultural activity, through aesthetic judgement making.” (1996b p. 111)
Accordingly, aesthetic judgment is not about an object but about our experience; “it means
experiencing ourselves (not just the world) in a different way.” (Frith 1996b, p. 109)
While the process of evaluation is the same in all cultural spheres, what is different is the discourses and the circumstances of judgment (Frith 1996, p. 18-19). Therefore, Frith suggests examining value judgments in their discursive and social contexts to understand what it is that people are actually evaluating, and why some aspects of sound have more value than others (Frith 1996, p. 22).
For this purpose, Frith distinguishes three discursive practices through which music is evaluated: pop, folk and art: The art discourse is associated with the world of classical music and central to it is the notion of art as transcending the everyday, necessitating musical scholarship (accumulation of knowledge and establishing a canon) and apprenticeship (the teacher-student relationship and the importance of recognition by someone with the right authority) (Frith 1996, p. 36-37). The folk discourse is sometimes associated with anti-modernist ideology, idealizing the natural and spontaneous. Central concepts to it are the interaction between art and life and emphasis on tradition, “as the correct way of doing things” (Frith 1996, p. 40). The popular discourse is associated with commercial music and the music industry (“turning sounds into commodities”) (Frith 1996, p. 41), as well as the experience of fun, amusement and escapism. Frith states that these
discourses interlace and influence each other, and “represent a response to the shared
problems of music making in an industrial capitalist society” (Frith 1996, p. 43).
In addition to the three discourses, Frith describes different social groups that evaluate music based on different principles: musicians, critics, producers and consumers (Frith 1996, p. 52-72). For example, for musicians, the important values relate to skill, collaboration and experience of performance. For consumers, music could be evaluated by the “representation or expression of a group's nonmusical concerns” (Frith 1991, p.106), by the listener's ability to identify with a song or a performer, or by the use of music as background for other activities (Frith 1991, p. 106). Frith describes the tension between musicians and audiences, in some cases mediated by producers and critics, and claims that publishers and critics teach the audience how to listen and make meaning of the music. From this perspective, “high culture” is a “form of mass culture which is mediated by
academics” (Frith 1991, p. 106). This point is relevant for music education as well, since
music teachers be positioned as music critics, musicians, fans, and academics.
In his essay “What is bad music?” (2004), Frith analyses judgments of bad music from the perspective of the audience and musicians in a popular music discourse. His primary assumption is that music is not intrinsically bad; “bad” is not a musical quality, but rather a matter of context and arguments. Therefore, he does not focus on what music is bad, but analyses the arguments that people make to explain why they label specific music as “bad”. Frith finds that most judgments are in fact explanations, the justification for labelling the music as bad, which he relates to our need to convince others and “express
ourselves, our own sense of rightness”, as noted above.
When it comes to popular music, from the consumers’ perspective, Frith identifies two types of arguments: arguments about means of production and arguments about effects. The first type is based on the critique of mass production, which views bad music as a commercial product determined by market demand (rather than an expression of artistic originality). Another version of this criticism is expressed in claims about a lack of originality and imitative nature of the music. The second type of argument considers bad music as having a negative effect on the audience and associates bad music with bad
behaviour (Frith 2004, pp. 15-17). Frith concludes that the judgment is thus displaced. “The
apparent judgment of the music is a judgment of something else altogether, the social institutions or social behaviour for which the music simply acts as a sign.” (Frith 2013, p.
15)
Frith concludes that all these arguments are in fact about communication: People expect music to have a meaning or moral. This meaning should then be communicated by the composer or performer. He identifies three aspects on the basis of which music is judged as bad: (1) truth - the expectation of authenticity, sincerity, which is a judgment of human behaviour as well as music, (2) taste – the sense that certain music is inappropriate in a specific context, and (3) intelligence – the consideration of bad music as stupid, as insulting, “because it seems to deny what we’re capable of, humanly, rationally, ethically,
aesthetically” (Frith 2013, pp. 20-21).
Frith (2004) asks: “when does not liking a piece of music mean judging it ‘bad’?” (p. 22). And he answers that
“music is making people angry because of what it is not. People don’t just have unmet musical expectations, thwarted ideals of musical performance, occasion and experience, but feel that these ideals are being sullied” (p. 23).
From this revelation Frith concludes that bad music is a matter of taste and emotional response to the music (Frith specifically refers to anger), but the judgment that music is bad is also based on an argument and a “sense of sacrilege”. This leads to the urge to convince others and justify one’s judgments. (p. 24-25)
In the concluding paragraphs of the essay, Frith identifies two central themes: First, that these arguments are not as much about the music itself as they are about “musical
intent”; in his words bad music is considered to be “music made in bad faith” (p. 22).
Second, that it is a matter of expectations, which are based on individuals’ understandings of what music is and what it should be. Expectations are shaped by experience and familiarity, and some (such as fans or music critics) have more knowledge and higher expectations.
Based on Frith’s extensive analysis of value judgments in music, and his claims that (1) value judgments are essentially the same in all musical spheres, (2) that aesthetic judgments are about something that is outside the music, and (3) they are expressions of identity, this essay will examine music teachers’ evaluative judgments about music using Frith’s theoretical lens. The thesis will seek to identify the music teachers’ evaluative criteria as well as the values and assumptions underlying their arguments and hypothesise as to how this reflects their identity as music teachers. Music education in Israel
B.2 MUSIC EDUCATION IN IRSEAL – BACKGORUND
This thesis will focus on the Israeli Jewish majority state school system5. This section will provide background to music education ideology and the main musical cultures in Israel.
The Israeli population is heterogeneous and diverse in its ethnic, religious and cultural background. It includes a majority of Jews, a large Arab minority and other smaller minorities. Hebrew and Arabic are the official languages. The majority of the Jewish population uses Hebrew, but it is the mother tongue for only half of the population (Gluschankof 2008, p. 37).
B.2.1 History of music education and national music culture
With the Zionist settlement in Ottoman Palestine (during the end of the 19th century) and
the establishment of the Israeli state (1948), Zionist leaders saw a need to create a native Jewish culture. Their goal was to invent “the new Jew”, strong, secular and rooted in the Land of Israel, and to create a modern culture that would be different from the traditional diasporic Jewish culture (as part of the overall rejection of the diaspora). The main principles of the new Hebrew culture were mostly the use of the Hebrew language as a
5 In Israel there is a Compulsory Education Law. The Jewish schools are divided into three streams: state
secular education, state religious education and smaller grouping of ‘independent education’ – recognized schools that are supervised by the state but do not follow the national curriculum (Portowitz 2010, p. 171).
native tongue6, together with the use of modern, secular themes which gave new secular
interpretations to religious traditions (Regev & Seroussi 2004, p. 15-17).
Much efforts were devoted into creating a body of folk songs known as Shirei Eretz
Yisra’el (songs of the Land of Israel) or Zemer ‘Ivri7 (Hebrew song). These songs were written by well-known poets and composers and expressed Zionist ideals and the values of the new Hebrew culture. The songs’ publication and distribution were supported and encouraged by the political leadership. The lyrics and notes were printed in small booklets by the writers and were distributed primarily in two ways:
“Firstly, through events of communal sinning, where a lead singer would accompany and conduct the singing of the audience, using the booklets. These events (which are still practiced nowadays8) are similar to a formal concert but with active participation of the audience.” (Hirshberg 1995, p. 151-152)
Secondly, through the educational system: Music education in the early years (before the establishment of the state and after) had a crucial part in introducing and assimilating modern Hebrew culture into the population and functioned as a means for acculturating immigrants from different background into the mainstream Hebrew culture. For instance, Gluschankof (2008, p. 39) described that with the foundation of secular Hebrew-speaking Jewish schools and kindergartens9 there was a need for new children’s songs in Hebrew,
which music teachers wrote themselves to address this need. These songs contributed to the creation of a new secular Jewish tradition to replace the old religious traditions, transmitted national and cultural values, and enriched the Hebrew language with new expressions (p. 39).
6 Before that time Hebrew was mainly used for writing and prayer but not spoken in daily life.
7 Regev and Seroussi 2004 note that each term emphasises a different aspect, though all the terms refer to the
same body of songs (p. 53).
8 Until today singing of Hebrew songs is included in most music lessons in kindergarten and primary schools,
and community singing accompanies all official events and many private social occasions. (Brand, & Portowitz, 2015 p. 354).
The parents, who were often not native speakers of Hebrew themselves, were also invited to participate in holiday celebrations and communal singing (holiday celebrations in kindergartens are important events until today), and the kindergarten became responsible for educating the parents as well as the children. Gluschankof (2008) concludes that the music teacher was an “agent to socialize and educate the child into a secular,
Hebrew-speaking individual who was proud of his or her Jewish heritage, felt part of the modern Western culture, and identified with the aim of building the Jewish State in the Land of Israel. Music, through its emotional contents imbued in hands-on activities, was highly effective in transmitting these ideological messages”. (p. 39)
After the establishment of the state, music education was supported by the state and continued to function as a channel to transmit Israeli folk songs and to integrate the population in the “one Israeli (Hebrew) culture” as it became “the dominant national cultural capital and habitus” (Regev & Seroussi, 2004 p. 18). New immigrants were expected to assimilate and become “Israeli”. This led to the marginalization of the various musical traditions that were associated with diasporic life. Additionally, the fact that the “one culture” was centred around western aesthetic and secular values lead to tensions between different groups of immigrants, especially between Ashkenazim (Jews from Central and Eastern European countries) which were the hegemonic group, and Mizrahim (Jews from Arab and Islamic countries).
After the 1970’s, only a small group of musicians continued to write in the tradition of the Hebrew folk songs (Naomi Shemer, for instance), but it was still maintained through the educational system as “the traditional culture” and associated with rootedness. In everyday life, mass media became more influential, and Hebrew Rock10 and Pop music became more dominant.
10 Regev and Seroussi 2004 identified this new genre as an expression of what was seen as a “local extension
of contemporary world culture” (p. 19). This genre initially rose in protest against the cultural purism and ideology imposed by the Hebrew folk songs and aspired to replace it with values of cultural openness and the wish to take part in world culture. Once it became legitimate and part of mainstream music, it was considered to be a continuation of the Hebrew song culture, and what started as protest was replaced with attitudes of appreciation and respect towards the traditional culture (p.19-20).
Although Hebrew rock initially rose in opposition to the Hebrew songs, it was still identified with the hegemony of secular Ashkenazi middle-class Jews. Outside the mainstream media, a different music style, Eastern music (musika mizrahit) or Mediterranean music (musika yam-tichonit) emerged. This genre incorporates Hebrew music with elements (such as melodies, scales and ornaments) from non-western musical traditions, together with standardized forms of western popular music (Regev & Seroussi 2004, p.20-21, p.191).
B.2.2 The new Pluralistic approach
For the past several decades (since the 1980s), due to social and political changes, awareness arose of the need to enable expressions of cultural pluralism, as Cohen and Laor claimed in an article from 1997:
“The “melting pot”11 ideology has been giving way to the ‘‘salad bowl” ideology: no longer do dichotomies threaten the integrity of Israel; rather, pluralism exists, and the various aspects of the nation as a whole are reflected” (p.10).
An example of that is the acceptance of Mizrahi music. Originally associated with lower class Middle-Eastern and North African Jews and excluded from mainstream media, such music was produced and distributed mostly through informal performances and cassettes. However, since the 1980s it became more legitimate, and nowadays it is a major part of mainstream Israeli music. (Regev & Seroussi 2004, p.20-21, p.191). Another example is the growing interest in Piyutim (Jewish liturgical hymns), which broke out of the religious context and are now present in mainstream media, performed by popular music artists (Raz 2005, pp. 165-166).
The new national music curriculum
These changes also affected the music education curriculum and were expressed in the new national music curriculum published in 2011. The introduction for the new
published curriculum clearly stated that the new study program was a result of changes in perceptions about musical education: primarily changes in the hierarchy between art-concert music and popular and folk music; and secondly, the fact that music is no longer perceived as a contextless aesthetic field, but as being rooted in culture and society. (Ministry of education 2011, p. 5).
Furthermore, it is stated that the program aims both to balance the various groups in Israel and to create one shared curriculum for all students, as well as to encourage a vast spectrum of musical cultures. Additionally, the curriculum seeks to offer to the teacher criteria for use in selecting a high-quality repertoire, as well as guidance in incorporating the use of technology and ways to connect music with other study subjects. (Ministry of Education 2011, p. 14).
The program focuses on three interlacing areas that should be addressed in the music lesson: listening (music appreciation), performing (singing and playing), and composition (creative music making).
The program offers a gradual progression: in preschool12 it emphasises intuitive perception of music though movement, singing and improvisation, while in elementary school emphasis is put on understanding the musical experience using concepts and knowledge, to provide a foundation of music theory and analysis, which is studied later in high school. This is done by incorporating a variety of music education approaches: international approaches such as those of Orff, Kodaly and Dalcroze, along with methods that were developed in Israel: active listening by Batia Strauss and Musical Mirrors by Veronika Cohen. (See Minstry of Education 2011, p.49-52 for more information about these approaches). The teachers use these methods to teach musical concepts, encourage creative expression and include all children, not just the musically trained (Ministry of Education 2011, p. 15-18).
12 The schools are subdivided according to age groups: Preschool (ages 3-4 and 4-5), primary school (grades
The published curriculum, which clearly express the changes in music education values, provides general guidelines and goals but does not offer a specific or fixed study program. For example, it is stated that the music program should introduce a wide range of music cultures which reflect the cultural worlds of all the sectors and communities in Israel as well as world cultures (Ministry of Education 2011, p. 14), which is a wide and open recommendation. In practice it is up to the teachers to create a specific plan that suits their aims and their students’ needs.
B.2.3 The status of music education in schools
In state elementary schools, music is not part of the obligatory studies, but rather part of “the arts” category which is recommended by the Ministry of Education and left to the discretion of the school’s principal as to which of the art subjects to include in the school’s curriculum and how many weekly hours to allocate to it. School principals mostly choose music for the younger ages: According to data from 2011, 85% of the state elementary schools13 include music in their curriculum, but only 10% of the secondary schools (Portowitz 2010, p. 171). In high school, music is only offered as a specialization – there are no general music lessons. According to data for the 2015-2016 school year, 4,100 students in 140 state schools specialized in music for the exam (out of 970 schools with 325,000 students) (Wisblai 2016, p. 2).
In high school, students can choose a specialization, alongside a minimum of mandatory core subjects. Music is not studied as a general subject, but students may choose to specialize in music for their matriculation exam. Those who do usually already have a musical background and seek to deepen their understanding of music and to acquire practical and theoretical tools. (Brand & Portowitz, p.348)
The specialization consists of 5-7 weekly study hours (in addition to private lessons that the students are expected to take in their instrument), during which they learn the following objectives: core studies of music literature and history (western concert-art
13 The schools are subdivided according to age groups: Preschool (ages 3-4 and 4-5), primary school (grades 1–6, ages 6–12), middle school (grades 7–9; ages 12–15) and high school (grades 10–12; ages 15–18).
music), musical theory, ear training, solfège and harmony, playing in an ensemble. To this is added a choice of electives, such as world music and culture, contemporary and popular music, interaction between music and other disciplines (Brand & Portowitz 2017, p. 348).
B.2.4 The teachers and their training
Music is taught by specialist music teachers. According to data from 2017, Israel has 2,267 music teachers teaching in state schools: 1,597 in elementary schools and 670 in secondary and high school. 54% of them have a BA and 36 % have a master’s degree or higher (Wininger, 2017 p. 2).
In order to work in a state school a teaching certificate is required. The main academic institutions for music teacher training which offer different trainings are:
1. Bar-Ilan University, providing a B.A. degree in the Music Department (musicology, composition, etc.). Students can take additional courses to complete their music teaching diploma. Bar-Ilan also offers advanced degrees in music education.
2. Jerusalem Academy of Music and Dance at the Hebrew University offers B.Ed., B.A. and M.A. degrees in music with a major in music education. To be accepted for the program the students need to have high musicianship skills, and instrumental training is a central part of the program.
3. Levinsky College of Education, School of Music, offers B.Ed. and M.Ed. degrees. Additionally, Rimon School of Jazz and Contemporary Music (non-academic), in co-operation with the Levinsky College, offers a special B.Ed. degree, in which the practical music courses are given at the Rimon school, while theory and pedagogy are studied at Levinsky College.
4. The Music Department at the Jerusalem College (for girls), which specializes in working with religious communities, offers a B.Ed.
C METHODOLOGY
This study was designed to examine certified music teachers’ views about “bad music” and its use in the music classroom. The aim was to reveal the underlying values on which the teachers base their curriculum choices, and how they negotiate between the traditional selective-hierarchical and the pluralistic relativist approaches.
The study was carried out among Israeli music teachers in Jewish Israeli state schools. This setting was chosen because of my own familiarity as a former music teacher within the school system in Israel, and the access I have to Israeli music teachers.
Semi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted in Hebrew using video chat (skype), at a time chosen by the participants. To the request of the participants, the interview was conducted as one exhaustive session (the average interview lasted 75 minutes) instead of several shorter sessions.
The interviews began with background questions: general and musical background of each teacher, information about the school and students, each teacher’s musical tastes (likes and dislikes). Then the questions were arranged around several topics: (1) description of the music lessons and curriculum: what they teach, how they plan the curriculum. Based on their answers further questions were asked about the choices of material, the reasons for their choices and the reactions of the students. (2) what is excluded: Is there music you will not allow/bring into the class and why not, broader examples and doubts, examples of when they were asked or required to teach something that they did not want to teach (What did they do?). Do they have music that they like but will not bring into the class? These questions were used to a trigger the conversation that naturally led to (3) bad music. The teachers were asked to provide examples of bad music in the classroom and examples of bad music in general. What is bad music? Should or could there be use for bad music in the classroom? The interviews were recorded, transcribed and translated into English.
The participants:
Specialist certified music teachers were approached and asked to take part in the study through a Facebook group of Israeli music teachers. This group is an active community of teachers who help each other: share resources and lesson plans, ask and give advice on music education issues. From the teachers who responded, ten teachers were selected according to the following criteria: general music teachers (not instruments teachers) with a teaching diploma who work in Jewish state schools in Israel and have access to video chat.
The background of the teachers varied in terms of musical background and training, age group taught and seniority (see appendix table 01- the participants). All the teachers were born in Israel except one who immigrated to Israel at an older age. However, she had had her training in an Israeli institute and met the criteria mentioned above. All teachers work in secular schools except one, who works in a religious school, but since she works with the same music programm as in the secular schools this was not significant. In this study, teachers were given pseudonyms to ensure their anonymity.
The analysis
This is a qualitative study, and the analysis is inductive in nature, meaning that the analysis and themes stemmed from the content in the data (a bottom-up approach). The transcripts were read, coded and analysed using a thematic analysis approach following that of Braun & Clarke (2006). The advantage of this approach is in its flexibility, as it enables identification and analysis of themes (patterns of meanings), by examining similarities and differences across the data set in relation to a research question. These themes “allows the researcher to see and make sense of collective or shared meanings and experiences” (Braun & Clarke, 2006: p. 79).
The interviews were first analysed in Hebrew and later translated into English. The first stage included a critical close reading of the data, followed by mapping of the content to categories such as: bad music in the class, attitudes to the canon, taste, conflicts, standards. this was based on their dominance in the data and in relation to the research question. (for
example, although the teachers were not asked about “attitudes to the canon” the topic was brought up by the teachers and was dominant in the data). The next step was identification of codes based on repeated patterns of meaning and contradictions, followed by grouping of codes into clusters and formations of new categories. The next analytical step was extraction of themes, followed by reviewing, refining and defining the themes. (see appendix 2 for thematic map). Each them is centered around several notions about bad music, but also notions about the aims of music education and the role of the teachers. This will be presented in the finding chapter.
Limitations
The interviews were conducted in Hebrew. The literal translation for “bad music” (musiqah
ra’ah הער הקיסומ) is not commonly used. The parallel Hebrew term is musiqah geru’ah
העורג הקיסומwhich denotes music of “poor quality” rather than the more morally charged English term “bad”. However, the term for good music (musiqah tovah הבוט הקיסומ) is the same as in English. This will be discussed further in the findings.
D FINDINGS
This chapter will present the analysis of the data: the first section (D1) will focuses on teachers’ views regarding the status of evaluative judgments, the second section (D2) will present the analysis of the teachers’ evaluative judgments and the third section (D3) will discuss the teachers views regarding the use of bad music in the classroom.
D.1 REFLECTIONS
This section will present teachers’ reflections on the term “bad music”, its meaning and application. It will not elaborate on specific definitions for “bad music” nor examples of “bad music” (these will be analysed in the next chapter), but rather the status of these claims and applications as perceived by music teachers.
The teachers were asked to discuss experiences of “bad music” in the classroom, to give examples of bad music, and define bad music. The term “bad music” was a given in the interview, it was not explained, and the teachers were not explicitly asked to reflect on it. Still, most of the teachers reflected on the term.
D.1.1 Strong and weak definitions
When asked to talk about bad music, most of the teachers questioned the use of the term: While four of the ten teachers (Jacob14, Mia15, Limor16, and Tara17) did not have doubts
regarding the use of the concept “bad music”, and had precise and definite answers, the other six teachers expressed difficulties in talking about “bad music” and examined the term itself.
14 Jacob, (M) 34 years old, 4 years as teacher in preschool and elementary school (grades 1-3), Combined
B.Ed., Rimon School of Jazz and Contemporary Music and Levinsky College.
15 Mia, (F) 31 years old, 6 years as teacher in preschool and elementary school, B.A., M.A. and teaching
diploma from Bar Ilan university. Ph.D. candidate in music education.
16 Limor, (F) 31 years old, 6 years as teacher in elementary and secondary school, B.A. and teaching diploma
from Bar Ilan University.
17 Tara, (F), borne in Ukraine, 44 years old, 2 years as teacher in elementary school, B.Ed. from conservatory
Adam18 and Anna19 said that there are no clear definitions for bad music, but they
provided specific examples. Mali20 found it hard to explain and did not have specific
examples. After some thought, she said “the question is also what the goal is. If you just
want to “make people happy21” then all the songs that have no depth are good”
(10.09.2017). Mali suggests that “bad” is a relative term and depends on function and context; music that would be regarded as bad in a specific context might be good in another.
Roni22 was excited to talk about bad music and had many examples, but he raised doubts regarding the use of the term:
“[…] Most music is not bad. What is bad? You need to work very hard to make something really bad. [gives examples of bad music] but even this music, the content may be bad but it is recorded with serious musicians, and the sound sounds good, so even when the contents are bad there is a lot of money invested in it. So really “bad music” I haven’t [pause]. I know that on YouTube any child can take a keyboard and do whatever he wants, but most of the music is not bad and it’s not good, it’s just not interesting.” (Roni, 14.07.2017)
In his examples, Roni questions the use of the word “bad”, proposes a scale of “badness”, and asks how “bad” music should be in order to earn the label “bad”. Roni sets degrees of badness, ranging from “completely bad”, which is music created by amateurs with no musical background and is not even worth discussing, to “mostly bad” and simply “not interesting”, which is neither good nor bad. The use of gradations allows him to talk about the negative properties of the music using softer terms, when the term “bad” might be too
18 Adam, (M) 36 years old, 10 years as teacher from preschool to high school, B.Ed./B.Mus. from Hebrew
University of Jerusalem and the Rimon school.
19 Anna, (F) 34 years old, 10 years as teacher, experience in preschool to high school, B.A. and M.A. in
musicology from Bar Ilan University, teaching diploma from Levinsky College.
20Mali, (F) 36 years old, 8 years as teacher in a religious elementary school, B.Ed. from Jerusalem College
for Girls (training for teachers in the religious education system).
21 The literal translation is “to do happiness” and it refers to songs that are played in celebrations and make
people dance.
22 Roni, (M) 33 years old, 4 years as teacher in secondary and high school, B.Ed. from Rimon and Levinsky
strong, and indicates that “bad” is not a binary category but a scalar one, and that the term “bad music” can be applied in a stronger or weaker sense.
The next example will demonstrate the use of gradation by comparing teachers’ attitudes toward the successful Israeli duo Static and Ben El Tavori. Interestingly, this duo was mentioned by seven of the ten teachers, as it seems to be the most obvious current example of bad music: The duo is very popular among children and young teenagers in Israel and they are played frequently on mainstream media. Their songs are characterised by humor and jokes, optimistic messages, and they imitate a different genre in each song.23
Though seven of the teachers mentioned Static and Ben El Tavori as an example of bad music, they had different opinions about their degree of badness. For Mia, the music of Static and Ben El Tavori is “trash”, and she described it as “background noise, there is
no point to even try and listen to it” (Mia,10.09.2017). Adam focused on a specific song
by the duo (“Tudo Bom”), explaining that this song is completely bad even though it has interesting rhythms and an excellent level of production.
Other teachers stated that the duo’s music is not completely bad: “I would not listen
to it if I did not have to, but it is not the lowest level. These are very successful and popular songs, and they have a talented producer” (Nir24, 03.08.2017). Like Nir, Roni, Anna and
Mali also argued that it is not completely bad because of its good production level and popularity or commercial success. Ruth25 also mentioned that the songs of the duo are not
that bad because there are much worse songs.
The different attitudes toward Static and Ben El Tavori demonstrate that the teachers rely on different parameters, such as commercial success, production and content, as well as comparison to other types of music, and give these parameters different weights. More importantly, they illustrate that “bad” can be applied in a stronger sense (Mia’s use
23 For example, their hit “Zahav” was influenced by 1950’s rock ‘n roll music, and the hit “Silsulim” was
influenced by Mizrahi Israeli music, while the hit mentioned later “Tudo Bom” was influenced by Brazilian Baile Funk.
24 Nir, (M) 52 years old, 10 years as teacher mostly in secondary school and high school but with experience
in elementary school as well, B.Ed. from Levinsky College.
of the word “trash”) or in a weaker one (“not completely bad”). The weaker sense enables the speaker to manoeuver between statements on what the speaker believes to be bad and other notions about badness.
While Adam, Anna, Mali and Roni found it difficult to talk about bad music, two teachers (Ruth and Nir) explicitly expressed their reluctance to use the term:
“I talked about music I don’t like but I wouldn’t necessarily call it bad. I don’t know […] Many things are not bad, they are just nondescript, [...] boring” [Ruth, 07.08.2017].
Like Roni, Ruth considers the term bad to be too strong, and she prefers to use a softer term, “boring” (this point will be addressed in the next chapter). However, unlike Roni, who gave many examples of bad music, Ruth refused to make such judgments, and stated that it is just a matter of personal taste.
Nir also questioned the term “bad music” and refused to use it:
“I don’t think there is really such a thing as bad music. For example, popular Mizrahi music, not the real Mizrahi music26, people say ‘it’s bad’. You [speaking rhetorically] don’t like many things but you can’t say it’s bad, because I can play you some very good songs of Ehud Banai and Moshe Peretz that are very good in terms of harmony and everything. […] There are things that I like, but after a while, I get tired of them because I have listened to them for two days straight. Music is a very emotional thing, and it changes. Your taste or your passion [for something], and your repulsion from it, can all change.” (Nir, 03.08.2017)
Nir’s argument is twofold: First, he challenges the common view of what is good and bad by referring to music that has a low status and is considered bad (popular-Mizrahi (oriental)
Israeli music) and shows it is not necessarily bad27. Second, he claims that judgments of
good and bad are ultimately a matter of taste. He states that he cannot define what he does not like as bad, because taste varies, and is influenced by emotion and level of exposure.
It is interesting to notice the difference between Roni’s doubts regarding the term bad music, which question the standards and criteria for badness and, and Nir’s doubts, which revolve around the validity of judging something to be bad in an absolute sense. Both Ruth and Nir feel that their music evaluation is based on personal taste, and therefore they cannot make a generalisation about it being bad. While Nir and Ruth primarily discuss their own tastes, other teachers believe that evaluative judgments are based on analysis and specific criteria.
D.1.2 Taste and judgments
Both Nir and Ruth mention the gap between aesthetic judgments and taste, which relate to the question asked by Frith (2004): “when does not liking a piece of music mean judging it
‘bad’?” (p. 22). The following examples seek to examine how the teachers perceive the
differences between taste and aesthetic judgments.
“I have not had the occasion to say about a classical music piece that it is bad. If it is something that I don’t like to listen to I would say I don’t connect to it, or that I less like the style […] [One’s assessment of classical] music pieces is something that is related to a personal connection with instrumental music. Once you have words, the content and level and style are so conspicuous that sometimes I hear about choices [of other teachers] that surprise me. […] [A bad song is] a song with poor words or low register language and use of slang. It can be appropriate in other fields but does not speak to me in songs.” (Limor, 17.08.2017)
27 Nir refers to a differentiation between what he calls “real Mizrahi music”, which is the traditional musical
heritage of the Mizrahi Jews, and Mizrahi pop music, which is a hybrid of popular Western-style music with “eastern” elements. He intentionally uses “popular Mizrahi music” as an example, as it has low status on two counts: as being “eastern” and as a commercial mass product (“pop”).
This raises the question, why in the case of instrumental music would Limor say she “does not connect to it”, but in the case of songs with poor language she would not be satisfied with saying she does not connect to the style, but would call it bad - though linguistic register and words are also a matter of style and genre. Limor’s explanation is that linguistic register and words add a more concrete parameter of judgment beyond questions of style and genre, and for that reason a song is not as abstract and open to interpretation as instrumental music. So, it can be inferred from her words that while liking and disliking are associated with an emotional “personal connection” and taste (including preferences for specific styles), judgments of good and bad are associated with more “objective” criteria, such as lyrics of a song, which have specific meaning and context, and are written in a given linguistic style (colloquial language, or grammatically incorrect “street language”, as opposed to the more poetic, aesthetic or intellectual use of language used in the earlier Hebrew songs and their contemporary descendants). The use of the word “appropriate” indicates an ethical judgment about what should and should not be.
Adam expresses a similar idea:
“For instance, I can say ‘the singer is off key’, and someone else would say ‘but I like the way she sings’. It is controversial in music and art. […] But if you bring home a contractor, and you see the paint is peeling off and the wall is not straight, or the size is not what you asked for, and he says [that what you had asked for] ‘does not fit with my art’, that doesn’t work. So, there is a matter of artistic perception, which is something broad, but when you cross a certain line it is just bad. […] It is one thing to say I don’t like it and I don’t connect to it, but there is a situation where you say ‘this person sinned against the profession and didn’t do what he was supposed to do.’” (Adam, 30.10. 2017)
By creating an analogy between music and home renovation, Adam demonstrates that disagreements about styles and interpretation are acceptable only until a certain point. As long as the music meets certain standards it is considered to be art and the evaluation of it
will involve personal taste. However, when music no longer meets such artistic criteria, it is objectively bad.
Adam does not elaborate as to what the criteria are, but rather speaks in a general manner, as he believes that when the music is bad its badness is as obvious as a peeling wall. Adam’s example emphasises the existence of basic norms and rules (in the metaphor: the wall should be straight), violation of which is not just a matter of aesthetics but of ethics as well. The expression (“sinned against the profession”) likens doing “bad” music to committing a sin.
Whether it is a matter of level of the lyrics, as in Limor’s explanation or professionality as in Adam’s example, what is common in both instances is the belief in the existence of criteria for judgment that are objective or obvious and not open to interpretation. This point is further expressed by Jacob:
“There is something they always told us at Rimon [music shool], that there is a difference between knowing what I like and knowing what is good and bad. The fact that I don’t like specific music doesn’t make it bad, but you need to know what is good and what is bad. Some people say that what they don’t like is ‘not good’ but cannot provide a reasonable argument. But those who do provide a reasoned argument, that is something else.” (Jacob, 28.08.2017)
It is inferred from Jacob’s words that without the proper knowledge, judgments of good and bad are merely expressions of personal taste. He differentiates between taste (whether one likes or dislikes specific music) and knowledge. Judgments of good and bad should be based on proper knowledge and contain a proper justification.
While Limor and Adam focus their explanations on violations of certain criteria, Jacob adds another layer, arguing that it is not just about the explanation itself, but also about who is making the judgment: Those who have a “regular ear [that is] not sensitive
music, but those who have learned music have a “musician’s ear”, and can explain why something is good or bad (Jacob, 28.08.2017).
Anna has a similar view: She described “a scale” based on the musical knowledge a person has, as people in different positions on the scale will have different notions about bad music: “Bad music in my opinion is not necessarily bad music; it depends where you
are on the scale”. This statement may be interpreted as a relativist approach to bad music,
but she explains further that it is not just a matter of taste, but also a “matter of facts”. To illustrate her point, Anna tells an anecdote from her master’s degree final exam, in which she criticised a music piece by a contemporary Israeli composer, Michael Wolpe. One of the examiners was a friend of the composer, and as Anna describes it:
“I felt that he was arguing with me, trying to defend his friend. However, I provided evidence from the music […], and we argued until the professor [the second examiner] said: ‘Anna is right, this piece is bad.’ So, as I say, provide evidence from the music, and any [argument you have] will be acceptable. Don’t just say ‘I don’t feel like listening to it.’” (Anna, 24.08.2017)
With this example, Anna intends to demonstrate that if something is bad, it is possible to “prove” it using evidence from the music, and thereby convince others in the “rightness” of one’s claim. Like Jacob, she claimed that not liking a piece of music is not enough, judgments should be based on rational arguments and evidence from the music. This is an example from a specific academic context where all the participants shared similar knowledge and assumptions about music.
Anna also expressed the belief that music education provides tools to appreciate music, to enjoy it, and to discern “good music” from “bad music”, arguing that “people
who are not musicians don’t understand music the way we do. We have this privilege and ability” (Anna, 24.08.2017). Both Anna and Jacob describe a hierarchy of listeners’
judgment: the judgment of the knowledgeable listener is superior to that of the musically “uneducated” listener.
So far, two themes become clear in the teachers’ views: Firstly, as argued by Frith as well, is that aesthetic judgments must include explanations. All the examples presented so far, share the belief that the association of taste and emotional connection is something intuitive that cannot be supported with rational explanation, while judgments of good and bad should be justified and supported with “evidence”. This notion posits an opposition between emotion and reason, objectivity and subjectivity; while liking music or disliking music is influenced by personal experience, or in Limor’s words “a personal connection”, sound aesthetic judgments involve a reasoned argument based on an objective claim (“evidence” or “proof”, in Anna’s words).
However, Frith argues that this opposition is not completely accurate, since, in fact, judgments as to whether music is good or bad are also emotional arguments. This was also evident in the teachers’ claims, for example, in Limor’s statement about a bad song, she said that the use of low language “does not speak to me”. Other teachers did the same, when explaining why certain music is bad they added a personal phrase, such as: “I just can’t listen to it” (Mia), “I don’t like it” (Tara), “I can’t relate to it” (Adam), or “I don’t like when […]” (Roni). These kinds of statements can be interpreted in two ways. Such phrasing could be intended to indicate that the speaker is simply airing an opinion, in order to refrain from making an absolute statement. However, it could also be a way to emphasise the speaker’s rejection of specific practices or values – such as the use of poor language, in the case of Limor. Either way, the use of personal expressions reveals that, despite the notion that arguments about “bad music” should be rational and based on facts, they also contain an emotional factor.
Roni was the only teacher who explicitly questioned the relationship between rational analysis and emotions: As mentioned, Roni talked about music that is “mostly bad”, he had many examples and a clear view about what is good and what is bad. However, towards the end of the interview he said:
“Perhaps it is less about ‘good’ and ‘not good’, and more about ‘complex’, ‘rich’, ‘different’, ‘special’. The words good and bad are problematic. The fact that something is more complex and [has] more chords does not
necessarily mean it is better. In general, defining music as good or bad is problematic. I try to use clearer terms, such as ‘complex’. […] When I talk to them [the students] in such terms, it is easier [for them] to understand, because it is not a matter of taste or emotion, it is a matter of yes or no, almost like mathematics. These are things one can understand. After that they can decide if it is good or not good.” (Roni, 14.07.2017)
Continuing the line of thought presented earlier, Roni at first differentiates between objective analysis of fixed criteria and subjective evaluation on the basis of emotions and taste. He also considers this analysis to be a basis for judging music to be good or bad. However, later on he realizes that setting objective criteria is not enough, because – despite his earlier statement – music is not like mathematics, and emotions ultimately play an important role in evaluating music:
“[…] There is amazing simple music, and there is complex [music] that is not that good. Ultimately it is a matter of emotion. It is problematic to summarize it as ‘good’ and ‘bad’. But because everyone has their own taste and anyone can write ‘in my opinion’, it is important for me to pass on to the students what I think is good and bad, though I can’t define in one sentence something that will be true for all good music and all bad music.” (Roni, 14.07.2017)
The interlacing of emotional and rational discourse is explained by Frith in his claim that judgments regarding good and bad come from an emotional reaction to the music, and that providing a reasoned judgment is meant to justify this initial response. “Bad
music describes an emotional rather than an ideological judgment. We don’t like a record, we then seek to account for that dislike” (Frith, 2004 p. 21). Additionally, Frith relates this
reaction to the aesthetic experience, arguing that “musical appreciation is by its very nature
a process of musical identification, and the aesthetic response is implicitly an ethical agreement” (Frith, 1996b p. 114). Roni’s reflection confirms Frith’s claim regarding the
judgments are in fact about something beyond the music, which cannot be analysed in terms of harmony or melody.
The second theme that emerges is the question of authority. As presented, four teachers (Roni, Adam, Jacob and Anna) explicitly express the notion that as music teachers they have better judgment. (Additionally, both Mia and Limor expressed this implicitly.) This was best explained by Jacob’s differentiation between what he calls the “regular ear” and the “musical ear”. As mentioned earlier, this is a common idea, which was also discussed by Frith (2004). Frith described how judgments of music are shaped by “musical
expectation”, which relates to the listeners’ ideas about what music should or could be. He
suggested that fans and music critics have higher expectations, because they are more familiar with the music, and that they “developed evaluative positions in which greater
knowledge and better taste (derived from the individual devotion to music of much time and attention) meant a superior way of listening” (Frith, 2004 p. 24).
In the case of music teachers, such knowledge is not constructed simply from familiarity and devotion to the music but also from their formal education. The hierarchal approach, according to which one who has musical education also has better judgment is rooted in the principle of what Frith (1996) calls “the art discourse”, which is organized around the notion of “music scholarship”. One of the assumptions of this discourse is that musical experience is only available for those who have the “right sort of knowledge” and “only the right people with the right training can in short experience the real meaning of
‘great’ music” (Frith, 1996 p. 38-39). This point is important because most of the teachers
interviewed consider one of the aims of music education to influence the students’ musical taste, to “get them to listen” (Roni, Jacob, Mali), or “learn to love” ( Limor) other types of music, and to provide access to this musical experience.
Another important point is their aim to teach the students to discern between good and bad music. Part of the professional authority of the teacher is therefore his or her ability to make such judgments and to justify these judgments using the “right sort of knowledge”.
