|
|
Saturday, April 02, 2005
The Ethics of an (Autocratic?) Education
On some dismal days I would be sympathetic with J. Mark Scearce’s article on New Music Box - "The Ethics of an Education" - but I think his approach is misguided. He perceives that only 10% of composers admitted to higher learning institutions deserve to be there, and, if I understand correctly, his suggestion is to limit entry to one or two composers per institution.
Student composers (especially undergraduate composers) can learn a *lot* more from interacting with each other than from a singular private instructor. One composer in the whole University/Conservatory would get awfully lonely, and s/he would have only a professor (and possibly some audio recordings) to be influenced by. There's no replacement for the interaction of a group of creative artists, and my experience has been that these groups create community more often than competition.
Also, Scearce proposes that perhaps composers should be required to have undergraduate training in performance, and that there should be no such thing as a bachelor's degree in composition. This statement from the article is particularly frightening: “Until you know an instrument well, possess a modicum of basic knowledge, and can imagine sound—both your own and others through score study—you have no business creating.” What is the reason for requiring creative artists to embrace four years of traditional performance training? Why subject someone who wants to be a composer to the graduation requirements of a performance faculty whose primary interest lies in orchestral excerpts and antiquated canonic literature? Why train a composer to be hired as an orchestral performer or concert pianist or opera singer?
Maybe that 10% of composers Scearce deems worthy of his instruction would be better off studying with someone who’s a little more open-minded about what foundation makes for a good creative artist. Scearce seems completely unaware of the world of electronic performance, synthesizers, and computer processing. Also, there are many remarkable composers who have created innovative works by inventing and cultivating performance skills that ordinary music teachers would eschew. If these composers were brainwashed by traditional conservatory performance training, they might never think to explore uncharted territory. I can't tell you how many performers I've tried to work with who refuse to experiment with their instruments because they're afraid people will think they don't know how to play. Why subject creative artists to a training process that results in such a mentality? Unless of course the professor wants to churn out a group of his own disciples: "...you have no business creating..."
posted by Corey Dargel
1:13 PM
|
|
