Tag: Elliott

In Chapter 8 of Music Matters, David Elliott attempts to describe the different parts and aspects of a Musical Product. These Musical Products, or as Elliott later calls them Musical Process-Products, are comprised of performance-interpretation, design-syntax, praxis-specific style characteristics, musical-emotional expressions, musical representations, cultural-ideological dimensions, narrative dimensions, autobiographical dimensions, and ethical dimensions.

All told I feel like Elliott is effective in describing the multiple dimensions of Musical Products and while none of the assertions made in the chapter are especially groundbreaking, it does provide a solid foundation for Elliott to argue against the principles of aesthetic music education.

For me, the most important claim Elliott makes comes at the end of the chapter on page 303.

“For now, it’s important to emphasize that it’s not a teacher’s job to assign emotional descriptions to pieces or passages in music without students’ participation in discussions and musical interpretations. The teacher’s responsibility is to open spaces where students can feel and develop their own emotive descriptors of musical experiences and meanings.”

In this sense, music’s abstract nature (a nature that Elliott seems to run from at times) can provide students a unique opportunity to experience art on an emotional level. Yes, a Elliott points out, these emotional inferences are shaped by society and experience; but it’s important for teachers to remember that their students’ experiences are different from their own and that students are capable of developing unique interpretations of music. This is not something that is easily assessed in classrooms but it is an important and vital part of the arts.

One issue I take with this chapter is how Elliott, through a focus on the process of listening and interpreting music, doesn’t give enough space to discuss composers and composition. Running through most of this chapter is a focus on how listeners gather meaning from music through different means (the dimensions of Musical Products) but what about the composer who truly is composing abstract music? Take for example composer James Syler, a composer who while known for composing pieces with programmatic titles, decided to write a Sinfonietta for Wind Ensemble. The piece opens with a 12-tone fugue at the minor 7th. In talking with James he said it took him several weeks to figure out how to get the fugue to work, mathematically. Here is a composition that is not emotionally based, it’s abstract in the truest sense. That is not to say that it can’t elicit an emotional response from a listener but if Elliott is working to a establish a philosophy of music education that encompasses all aspects of musicing, then he should keep in mind all the ways in which music can be created, not just the ones that align with his argument at the time.

On page 67 of Music Matters, David Elliott is discussing two broad categories of music, “work-centered concept” and “contextual-social” (or “praxial concept”.) His aim is to discredit the work-concept of music in order to later promote his praxial arguments.

According to Elliott, “…the work-concept assumes that music = musical products (e.g., composed works, improvisations)”. Within this view, music is simply a combination of musical elements (melody, harmony, rhythm, etc.) and that any value lies in “how these elements are organized or formed.” Elliott goes on to connect the work-centered concept with the “aesthetic concept” of music, where listeners approach listening by blocking out “extra-musical” considerations and only focus in a “distant” or “disinterested” way.

In my opinion, Elliott misrepresents (or perhaps simply ignores) some of the merits of the work-centered concept by relating the work-centered concept directly to the aesthetic concept and by placing too much emphasis on extra-musical elements. Consider any piece of programmatic, classical music. If you were to listen to it without knowing the program could you still find enjoyment in it? I’d argue yes.

Elliott takes the argument too far – by saying that extra-musical attributes are necessary for understanding undermines the importance of quality music. What I’m not advocating is for a purely aesthetic experience, but a listener can experience feelings that are unrelated to a work’s societal, historical, or political influences. Extra-musical elements are not needed in order to enjoy music. They can help, but they are not required.

With an increased emphasis on music’s context, are students given enough space and opportunities to explore less concrete aspects of music such as what makes a piece of music good? Many pieces of music were created under similar circumstances, be it spiritual, economical, social, etc.; but no one would argue that they’re all equally great. There’s no formula or correct answer when it comes to determining what makes a piece of music great, but if teachers blindly follow Elliott and his idea that “the work-concept of music and its aesthetic corollaries fail to provide a board, open-ended, and logical foundation for understanding the natures and values of musics in the world,” we are going to find ourselves increasingly removed from the art that we originally set out to teach.