The first 5 minutes...

Teaching someone how to play an instrument is a daunting enough task. It requires patience, empathy, and a great deal of ingenuity to be able to impart knowledge that is intelligible to your student(s) as well as help them see things as you do so you can share a like minded unity of thought. This complication is quadrupled when the age of the student is roughly seven or eight years old.

On Monday Feb 24. 2014 I had to give a simulated lesson of a 5th graders first ever flute lesson. The lesson was timed to be 5 minutes and my objective was to impart something, anything into this young students memory that could be built on in a later lesson. I must say I felt oddly at ease yet strangely off put because I'm used to teaching children instruments. However I'm not used to teaching them how to play instruments I don't even play.

I figured though that this is a great way for me to put myself in the student's shoes and start somewhere we both needed to start; an understanding of how to get a pitch. I believe the imagery I tried to convey to my student was useful as it wasn't to wordy and it may have been something he could've related to as well. Also I understood how much time it will take some students to simply get the note to come out correctly. My main goal was to teach the student correct embouchure as well as understand the basics for blowing across the reed of the instrument.

After my 5 minutes ended I was both relieved but also a bit unsatisfied as I felt that with more time I probably could've helped the student to get their first real note out of the instrument. I also received my fellow students' observations, comments, and critiques and one that I got was very encouraging. It told me that they understood how hard it is to teach a young student the flute and how it may even be best to learn how to breathe first, an aspect of music I often forget about because I'm a pianist and I can breathe comfortably for any length of time I choose to do so. I also received remarks such as clear and articulate which made me feel good in the sense that I wasn't too wordy or in depth with my conversation but rather more focused on the task at hand and also more specifically the objective I wanted to accomplish for that particular lesson.

Things I wish I could've done differently would've been:
1) Showcase the instrument for a few seconds to arouse my students interest and also show them that it is a REAL instrument and can sound AWESOME if you get good at it
2) Tried to help my student feel the breathing aspect a bit more so they know the difference between a "cold air" approach and a "hot air" approach.
3) Gave a more extensive homework/practice regiment for the student to go through for the next lesson. I felt as though the only thing I made my student attempt to aspire to was to create a sound when in reality I wanted my student to create tonality and specifically a flute's tonality. I think with a bit more understanding of the instrument I could find interesting and inviting ways to grasp the students interests and keep them motivated to learn even more about their instrument.

Five minutes for me was a paradox; it was the longest short amount of time I've ever had to teach someone.

Three strokes for an A, three strokes for an F

When I was in 3rd grade my teacher was the one who showed the above expression to me on the chalk board. She was doing this in reference to how exactly the same effort is put into the best grade possible and the worst, for her at least. Her point was that someone in her position could personally care less about which grade she had to mark because in her mind you get what you earned, whether it was an A or an F.

Fast forward a bit to when I was in the Army. I was a medic in the Army so I had to go through an intense training regiment to be qualified to do this job. In order to graduate the course, you had to have had an 80 or above average (B- or higher). The training does not stop there however. It continues as you go to your unit and learn from more higher ranking, experienced medics that have been at your unit longer than you've been in the Army. The grading standards in the Army though were far and away different from what I experienced in high school and the year of college I attended before the Army. For instance I knew what was expected of me down to the letter. I knew what would fail me and I knew what I could get away with. I also knew that this was a job that was going to put me in a position where real life people were going to look to me for help because I'm the only person there who could save their lives. So I knew what was depending on my complete understanding of the material I was being taught

So of course I paid attention and tried my best to absorb the material as best I could. I recently read an article by Alfie Kohn entitled Trouble with Rubrics and I must say there were some interesting points brought out about rubrics and some of the inconsistencies they create, such as showing that grading standards are clear and detailed, but that the learning aspect involved is diminished because of the grading standards being so exact and precise.

 The above cartoon is of course an over the top way of driving home a very true point in that rubrics become the standard, not enforce one. They enable teachers and students to work towards a short term goal with the long term one (your actual education) being shoved under the rug.

In the Army of course there was also a rubric. It went something like this:

At the end of this type of training scenario, there is what's called an AAR (after action review) and this is a summary of what happened, what went well, what needs to improve, and the overall satisfaction level of the exercise (pass or fail, or in Army terms "go or no go"). These are all dictated by rubrics. The speed at which something was completed is on the rubric, the critical tasks versus nonessential tasks are on the rubric, and just about anything else minute you can think of (such as maintaining security and helping establish good communication between yourself and those in charge of the mission).

The difference here though, once again, is that at this point you have already learned your respective job, and you are simply bettering yourself through constant training.

In the end rubrics are great tools for advancing your personal development. I don't think that there is anything detrimental about knowing what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable. However when the school system places so much emphasis on them to the point where creativity is stifled, I believe this is where rubrics become even worse than my nihilistic 3rd grade teacher.

If I was to apply a rubric for my performance based music classes such as band, choir, orchestra, or jazz band I'd say that a good model to follow is the one that allows your students to improve. There are numerous rubrics out there available for download. There are even rubric generators on the internet to help an educator make a rubric for a class or even an assignment. As long as these rubrics focus on the subjective qualities of music, such as technique, or embouchure and sitting position then the students can be free to create music, not generate a desired grade for their class.

In mathematics or science it is easier to objectively assess a students understanding of the material. In music however, its not that simple. For starters its an art so it is already subjective in that aspect. On top of that though it is also an art that takes a while for most people to master. So if one was to create a rubric, it would have to be one that focuses on a students comprehension of musical terminology, musical history, and other academic areas that are actually testable. Rubrics have their place and serve their purpose. However to stick with one thing and focus on it completely takes away from our students' educational process and thus hampers their ability to flourish with the knowledge they were supposed to have obtained.

 

 

 

 

Music of the folk, by the folk, and for the folk.

Folk music. If one was to look up this term on google, the definitions will for the most part be consistent. According to the Oxford dictionary folk music is: "music that originates in traditional popular culture or that is written in such a style. Folk music is typically of unknown authorship and is transmitted orally from generation to generation." Why then does this term seem so bland and uninteresting to many people who may think folk music is nothing more than old tunes sung by cowboys in the wild west? Or funny sounding Polish music?

In actuality folk music has so much importance to the societies that created it. There was even a period in time dubbed "Exoticism" where many people were infatuated with non-western art (which of course included music). For example there was a composer named Max Bruch who was a German composer who wrote a song entitled "Scottish Fantasy". Also the well known composer Johannes Brahms was one who particularly enjoyed "gypsy music", which is simply another name for the music of the Romani people, and he embodied this style of music into his own compositions (i.e Piano Quartet No. 25). So what do any of these fun facts have to do with folk music. Well by simply looking back into history from a musical standpoint we can see that many composers used folk music as a way to not only enrich their compositional styles, but as a way to pay homage to a particular culture or people they were fond of. What about here in America? What does folk music sound like here. Well that's the fun part. Folk music in America is the embodiment of what it means to be American. It differs from region to region and changes with the times as well. Its a collection of differences all encapsulated into one grand style, OUR folk music. Music that captured the heart of the American people by musically speaking about the troubles in our country. Even President Roosevelt was a fan of folk music.

Nowadays though its quite obvious that folk music isn't as mainstream as it used to be. So should we even bother teaching it anymore? Is there any point seeing as how Jazz has essentially become America's musical pride and joy; the first truly American art form? Actually we should be quite familiar with folk music as educators. If a great composer such as Brahms thought it was a good idea to add folk music elements to his music, why should we as educators feel any different? Especially when we're trying to explain to our students why these older composers were so great to begin with! Were it not for folk music jazz might not have become what it is today. Most people seem to misunderstand this notion. Folk music is not "white trash" music; its music of the FOLK, AMERICAN FOLK! If music educators were experts in folk music it would help students understand that music isn't just about speaking about topics like cars, women, and love. You can say powerful things with your songs as Pete Seeger did. Beethoven's 9th Symphony was a statement of brotherhood and unity and that if you persevere, the rewards at the end outweigh the heartache and despair you endured to get there. Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony was a statement that Beethoven was probably wrong and that maybe it all ends in despair. These are real life philosophical topics that are expressed in lyric-less music (although Beethoven's 9th does quote the Ode to Joy poem by   Friedrich Schiller but you have to wait 45 minutes before you even here one line from this poem!) To teach students that music has substance and meaning is something I think goes a bit under emphasized because it's easy to fall back on Jazz and the wonderful story it has as well. However to ignore folk, or worse be completely oblivious to its impact on America and American culture, is doing a disservice to our students as well as to yourself as a musician.

 As an educator I believe it is important for our students to know important American songs. Not just the Star Spangled Banner and America the Beautiful, but songs like Blowin In The Wind by Bob Dylan (singing about the end of segregation in the 1960s), I've Been Everywhere by Johnny Cash (a fun song but also educational of different places in America), and of course This Land Is Your Land by Woody Guthrie (instilling a classic tune that also instills pride and fondness of America in the listener).

Lastly I'd like to point out that we as educators are viewed as professionals, so it is only logical that everyone else expect us to have knowledge of  the significance of music in our lives. For us to familiarize ourselves with folk music (American folk) is helping us be better prepared to show our students that there is more to the world of music than Rock, Jazz, and Classical. Folk music is just that, music of the folk, by the folk, and for the folk. So let's share it folks.

Becoming A Musician: Skill Or Talent?

Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Liszt, and Bach. What do these musicians all have in common? What about Scott Joplin, Bill Evans, Oscar Peterson, or Thelonious Monk? Well aside from the fact that they all have memorable piano pieces such as Fur Elise, Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, and The Entertainer these men are all considered great musicians. That is why we learn of them in textbooks at school and references are made about them to pianists whenever they may be playing virtuoso piano music. The question is WHAT made them great MUSIICIANS? Why aren't they simply labeled as great PIANSISTS? In fact why is anybody labeled a great musician as opposed to a great instrumentalist, singer, or composer?

The answer may not be as profound as one would expect... because they put feeling and emotion behind their music. Well if that's all it takes it can't be that hard to be a great musician can it?

I read an article concerning "Musical Flexibility" by a band teacher in Seymour, CT named Brant Schneider. This article discussed the idea that music students (particularly those in an ensemble setting) need to be helped to become musical musicians as opposed to "play or sing all the rights notes at the right time" musicians. This is a concept I think many administrators who aren't musical can't quite wrap their heads around. In the article Mr. Schneider mentions that " Directors are judged by the pieces they select and how their ensembles perform at concerts and competitive festivals." How true. An art form suddenly becomes a numbers and competition game. In line with this thought Mr. Schneider goes on to mention that "Through all of this, rehearsals become desperate scrambles to the finish line – a process that, while it can be rewarding, leaves little room for creativity from the members of the ensemble." So in all this controlled chaos, where does the aspect of musicianship come in?

Well Mr. Schneider has come up with quite an interesting way to embed the concept of being a musician into his students. He states that while he was able to get his students to perform pieces, their musicianship wasn't growing well enough so he came up with an idea to focus on four specific skills. They are 1) Musical discipline, 2) Technique, 3) Theory, and 4) Composition. With musical discipline Mr. Schneider expects his students to perform outside of their comfort range, such as a saxophonist being able to cover a flute part because the flautist is out sick. This indeed is a much needed aspect for students being trained to be musicians. The great musicians were able to do this flawlessly because great musicians know that instrumentation is relative and it is only about the feeling and emotion of that part that needs to be replicated or emphasized.

Technique is an obvious must have for musicians. Without it we don't have a strong foundation to perform the pieces we are reading or the compositions we may hear in our heads. Mr. Schneider goes one step further by mentioning that its not just enough to know how to play a notated part. He wants them to truly know their own instruments and be able to play pieces by ear. Certainly most, if not all would agree that if a musician can figure out a tune on their respective instrument just by hearing the tune in their heads they may certainly be considered a true musician and not just a computer reading code.

Mr. Schneider lists theory and composition as two different focuses. While I understand the idea and also given the fact you only have but so many minutes with your students that you want to spend your time wisely and in an organized, conducive manner, I feel that these two should be combined if students are going to grasp the true essence of notated music. Notation is half of the battle; anyone can write dots on a page. The true test is using your knowledge of those dots and making music from it. The composers I listed above where marvelous at this concept. Its not that their skills with 4th species counterpoint was remarkable (although it was), but the fact that when the first note(s) was struck every single note afterwards had a purpose, whether it was to build tension or intensity or build expectations and choose to either fulfill them or go against them. That was one aspect of what made them great musicians but it is also the essence of why they are considered musicians in the first place. In short I would say if it were me and my band, I would most likely integrate an understanding of theory with practices in composition so as to cement the idea in my students that musical notation, like a well written essay, should lead you on a journey and fulfill a purpose.

 

Mr. Schneider's article was very informative on how much work and patience a music educator must have in order to not only fulfill the requirements the state has for education, but also the building of musical skills in our students. But the question remains: is becoming a musician more of a skill or is it more of a talent?

 In my opinion its all in how, when, and which way your taught.

A love for our art

People have been trying to define love for ages.  The Bible has an interesting chapter of what love is. (1 Corinthians 13). Likewise philosophers such as Nietzsche , Plato as well as a vast majority of the world's religions chime in on what love is and various other ideas of its benefits and repercussions.  However to define the love of one's art is to place it in its own entirely unique category.  It's not an infatuation, and it certainly isn't romantic because its not tangible or palatable.  It seems to me to be a love that is best explained through actions rather than words. So why on earth am I speaking about love?


 
Well the answer is quite easy to grasp if one has ever watched the documentary "Thunder Soul". To summarize this movie would probably do it an injustice but suffice to say that it was truly amazing to see how much of an impact one good, kindhearted man can have on a vast group of people.  The story may seem cliché (inner city, urban, black  high school children with talent become successful later on in their lives because of the good example and hard work ethic of their most influential teacher) but is if far more than that.  You see it wasn't just the fact that this educator was influential, it was the magnitude at which he was influential and also the way it resonated in his community for years that makes this story remarkable. To put it in perspective, when was the last time your high school band was invited to tour in Japan? Needless to say this group was nothing short of spectacular. The name of this group was the Kashmere Stage Band from Kashmere High School in Houston, TX.

 

 
Thunder Soul captured this remarkable story in such a genuine way that its almost hard to believe its a true story.  The name of the band leader was Conrad O. Johnson, who was emphatically knick named "prof" by his students.   

This is a man that put forth effort night and day to help his students succeed and as a future educator I can't help but admire someone like this. To think of the opposition and sweat, blood and tears this man had to endure to achieve what he and his students did is commendable to say the least. Which got me thinking about the question I asked earlier, what really is the purpose of me wondering about love?  The answer at this point must be obvious; because an educator, especially a music educator can achieve great things in his life if he loves his art.  As musicians and educators we love our art so much we want to share it with other people and teach them to make the best music possible so they can share the love we have for music.  What greater gift can one give to another human being than love?

Creating the love however is the challenge.  There are ways this can be done though.  One way is something Mr. Conrad Johnson implemented very well; being able to relate to the students.  In the documentary it was mentioned that one of the reasons the students in this group loved performing so much was because they were able to play a style of music they related to the most.  This music meant the world to them and for them to be able to express it, and at the level that they expressed it at, was truly not only a motivational tool, but also the key that unlocked the door to their love for music.  This music connected them with their peers and their personal beliefs and philosophies. I can think of nothing more effective than this aspect.  From personal experience I can say that it is truly a proud moment as an educator when a student finds they can play a song that actually means something to them, and their faces light up as they look at you in awe and astonishment that they are making sounds that actually hold sentimental value to them.

Another way you can build this love is by helping the students to realize their true potential.  In order to do this a confidence level has to be reached that can only be achieved with proper instruction on their instrument.  I know personally speaking I can learn more about certain instruments, but I would love nothing more than to learn as much as possible about every instrument so that I can teach my students the best way possible to play that instrument. If I can help my students achieve a high level of competency on their respective instruments, I believe I've done my job as well as anyone could ever ask but more importantly I'll have given that student the tools they'll have needed to be successful.  Mr. Johnson was able to provide this resource for his students and that is yet another reason his program was as successful as it was.

Lastly I think the best thing that an educator can do to instill a love for music and performing in their program is to let their students see how much music means to them; how much we love it.  Mr. Johnson was so good at his art that he could've been a big name professional.  This was no amateur.  He mastered his art and it meant everything to him to pass this excellence on to his students.  If our students can see this love and passion for our art it will rub off on them like a contagious virus.  Before long the students will begin to take pride in their work and attempt to be as precise and masterful as their teacher. 

In recapping the title of the blog I simply cannot feel any other way about music. It is truly my passion and my reason for existing in life. I love it with every ounce of spirit in my being.  I know that my students see this but its not because I make a conscious effort to show them, but because it is truly who I am. I hope that my enthusiasm and my love for music encourages them to achieve the same level of excellence I strive for every day.  Maybe one day I too can be as successful as Mr. Conrad O. Johnson, but if I've created a love for music in just one young person's life, then I'll already have achieved the greatest satisfaction of the profession.

Solo Jam Session #1

There's not much to post here but just an explanation. 

I created a song back in high school that I named "Spotlight".  The song was meant to be in the form of your typical jazz standard.  There is an A section and a B section.  However the chords ran through the same sequence over and over.  So to make up for this repetitiveness I made the B section run through the chords slower with a walking bass line and a nice, steady swing beat behind it.

Fast forward to today and I am so proud of this song and what it has been through.  I've forgotten mostly all of my originals, save for maybe some ones I posted on Myspace a long time ago.  But this song is my pride and joy.  You may even call it my first masterpiece!

Ok semantics aside, I just recorded this on my MIDI keyboard and while there's never a substitute for the real thing, my little set up here is pretty respectable considering how much money some of the equipment was.

So I share with you a small work in progress if you will.  A solo session of me running through an improvisational performance of "Spotlight".  Hope you enjoy it!

Blog Post #1

My name is Joel Pacheco.  I've been a musician as long as I've been old enough to have the capacity to speak.  I can't remember a time when I wasn't involved with music at one time or another in my life.  I can remember my first musical epiphany like it was ten seconds ago.  I was about five years old and my father was driving us (the family) back home from church one night.  I remember him having the radio station on and because it was his favorite radio station I would hear certain songs repeated throughout the course of week.  It was an oldies station so of course I heard bands such as the Beach Boys, The Beetles, and Queen.  I also heard other solo artists like Billy Joel and Stevie Wonder.  This particular night I heard Stevie Wonders' My Cherie Amour and I was captivated by how easy the melody was to remember.  I kept humming it in my head all the way back to the house and when I finally got inside I ran straight to our old organ that was tucked in a corner and with one finger began playing the melody as I was hearing it in my head.  I felt really good about being able to hear the music in my head and then being able to play it back to myself.  I was so elated that I called for my father to hear it so he could see what I was doing.  It was then that I knew music was going to be my life.

I can't say it was the easiest road.  I'm still on it as I type this post.  However the lessons I've learned and will continue to learn invigorate me ever more everyday.  My deepest belief is that music is the highest art of expression in our world.  It is the only art that encompasses every sense we have at our disposal, whether you are the listener or the performer (and if your lucky, your both at the same time.) 

As I was reading Teaching Music with Purpose by Dr. Peter Loel Boonshaft I couldn't help but marvel at how much of a true musician this man was.  It was as if I was reading something I will write 30 years from now.  The first few pages to me were some of the most captivating because you could just read how this man wears his heart on his sleeve.  Only a musician could truly express himself so clearly and yet so honestly.  He really made me appreciate why I wanted to teach in the first place.  On page 2 (yes that early in the book) he brings up a beautiful point of what it means to be a teacher; this is something I always believed but I was really happy to hear it from someone else's mouth.  He speaks of a Zen teaching that speaks of a lotus flower. This flower is extremely beautiful, to say the least, and yet it grows and what is seemingly the "ugliest" of places: a swamp.  He mentions afterwards that we must "reach down to where our students are, no matter how 'muddy' that is, and help them bloom."  What a beautiful way to picture the profession I have so willingly and joyfully chosen to pursue.

       

I honestly believe every student I get to teach, however long or short that time may be with them, can bloom into a flower that beautiful if I try my best to help them see how beautiful music can be and is. 

As I continued to read Dr. Boonshaft's book I couldn't help but notice how besides insisting that teachers not give up on students, he also urges us to never feel as though we can't enjoy the moments that take us to the goals we ultimately want to reach.  In chapter three of Teaching Music with Purpose, Dr. Boonshaft states that we "must keep sight of the goal and constantly encourage growth, but never allow it to loom so greatly as to be daunting."  I take this to heart because when I see a student who has never even seen a music note, and I get to be the first person in their lives to thrill them in the world that is music, sometimes I can think to myself "If this student understands A, B, and C then they will be capable of doing X, Y, and Z so I must help them get there by doing 1, 2, and 3".  I've made up a plan without thinking about how joyful it will be to watch their faces light up when they play a C major scale in sixteenth notes with both hands up and down two octaves on the piano.  Or when they have that "Aha" moment as soon as they start seeing patterns and sequences in music that before used to fly right over their heads, figuratively of course.  Those are moments I treasure as a teacher because I remember those moments too when they happened to me.

One topic that Dr. Boonshaft speaks about that certainly drives his entire premise for the book is conducting.  In the chapter "Independence of Hands", Dr. Boonshaft states "Freedom.  A remarkable word.  And when it comes to conducting, that's what its all about.  Freedom to use our arms and hands in any way we wish to convey our interpretation of the music.  So the only constraint we have is the limit of our imagination, not our physical ability to move in a way which could bring that imagination to life."  How true.  The art of conducting is one way in which music expresses itself through us.  The way it can make us move or show emotion on our face portrays the power of the work we are attempting to conduct. 

As comical as the clip above is, does it not show how much a conductor is truly responsible for in a large setting?  Even in smaller settings such as chamber ensembles and such, a conductor can still have a great impact on the performers because he essentially becomes the person to guide them on their musical journey.  And as a music educator that is exactly the position I feel I am put in everyday.  I feel as though when I step in to the room and my students give me their attention, awaiting to hear what will come out of my mouth, I must take my place on my "podium" and be ready, willing, and able to instill the best musical values and techniques I can in my students, whether it be simply understanding how to decipher the notes on a set of lines and spaces, or working out a ii-V-I progression on their respective instruments.

There is one last thing I took away from Teaching Music with Purpose pertaining to why I love teaching.  On pgs 174-175 Dr. Boonshaft states "Now when I am in the throes of rehearsal rapture, frenzy or elation I know my students think I take my job a bit too seriously...But they eventually realize this is an important part of my life...Those rehearsals are far more important to me than any concert could ever be - for rehearsals are where I can be a teacher."  What a profound statement to make.  Here is a man (Dr. Boonsahft) who has performed for former presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton, and yet his rehearsals are what he lives for; not the performances.  Truly he is not only a musician but a true educator as well. And I have no choice but to concur with this sentiment.  When I rehearse with a student, it becomes a moment where I can educe (greek for bring out; also the root word for educate) the musicianship from my student(s).  Those are the times where performance is not for tens, hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of people, but between me and my students.  Moments I can enjoy and cherish as I watch them learn week after week, month after month, how music can affect their lives and then maybe just one day during one of those rehearsals they will perform their piece so well as to get that tinge in your body that every musician has felt when they were touched by something they performed well.  Those are joyous moments I can't imagine wanting to miss out on.