The Truth About Music Lessons
by
Jeffrey A. Tucker
DIGG THIS
At some point
when a child is very young, many parents consider pushing the kid
into music lessons. This sometimes results in a year or two of piano
or violin under a private teacher – and then nothing comes of it.
I’ve seen this for years. The 1st-year class starts with 50 kids
and it is cut by half by the 2nd year, and so on until
there are only a handful remaining.
The parents
begin these lessons with great enthusiasm and then it all wanes
in time. Rather than become a great musician, the child then becomes
yet another exhibit in the appalling spread of astounding musical
illiteracy of our time, and hence the popularity of garbage music
in all areas of life.
It's not enough
that you can hardly find any place to dine that doesn't assault
your ears with 20-year-old rock "classics," or, if it is a "high-brow"
place, attempts to entertain you with the random pseudo-profundities
of drug-addicted saxophone players in recordings made in the early
bebop years.
No, it doesn't
stop there. Stumble into just about any church on Sunday and you
will see what I mean. One of the great cultural achievements of
the West – the once-great music of the Christian liturgy – has been
reduced to embarrassing, childish, lobotomizing musical gibberish.
The failure
of music education in the earliest years is a major factor here.
So what goes
wrong? Most parents start kids on playing an instrument too early,
particularly if violin is the instrument of choice. They hear from
the Suzuki teacher that three years old is a fine age, and start
them with a ¼ or ever 1/10th size violin. They don't
make progress for a year, and the kid drops out. The parents are
relived.
The problem
here has to do with expectations. There is nothing wrong with starting
very early but there will be very little progress for years to come.
And you have to expect this from the beginning. The truth is that
whatever progress the child can make between 3 and 6 the same child
can match in a few months starting at the age of 7.
So there is
nothing wrong with holding back a bit. This is especially true for
piano. The child is just not ready until the age of 8 or so. There
are exceptions, but the main point is not to get into too much of
a hurry here. And if you do start early, prepare for a long haul
of very little progress. The earliest years are the best time to
learn to listen to good music, not seriously attempt to play
it.
Why do parents
want to start the kid so early and push them so hard? Here we must
discuss an uncomfortable topic, and it deals with the core problem
of music education today: the parents themselves.
Parents have
this view of their children that is wildly distorted. It begins
with the assumption that the child is the most special, most spectacular,
most talented child who has ever been born. How can the parents
know this? It must be the case because the parents gave birth to
the child, so their high estimation of themselves is transferred
to the child.
The only issue
for parents is discovering precisely what the child is brilliant
at. It could be sports. It could be engineering or math or maybe
modeling or some other glamorous thing.
At some point,
the parents imagine that the child might be the next Mozart or one
of those child-prodigy Japanese violin kids who is playing with
a major symphony orchestra at the age of 9. So the parent tries
music lessons as a means of discovering whether this is true.
When progress
is slow and intermittent the parents give up in frustration. They
are often pushed into this by the child himself, who is evidently
not enjoying the violin or piano as much as he did at the age of
4, when first starting. So rather than push through the first major
hump, the parent gives up.
"Violin wasn't
really his thing."
"Piano just
wasn't right for her."
Why? They also
have a tendency to blame the teacher, or, more likely, they conclude
that music isn't somehow inside the child. He or she is not a "natural
talent," which, in today's way of thinking that disparages hard
work and diligence and merit, is the only kind of talent there is.
But it is an
incredible myth. It's true that some people have a greater aptitude
for music than others, but high aptitude is no guarantee of accomplishment
any more than being "tone deaf" is a sure guarantee of failure.
The truth is that no serious musician has ever achieved anything
in absence of grueling work stretching over many years. Endless
hours of practice is what it requires, and amazing intellectual
and emotional convulsions are part of it as well.
Not understanding
this, and believing that all greatness in life should be a snap,
parents pull their kids at the slightest appearance of anxiety or
difficulty, and attempt to put them on paths that will more readily
reveal their underlying genius, which parents take for granted if
only because the child shares their gene pool.
And that's
the end of the great foray into music. Or perhaps the child will
pick it back up again in junior high, where the child will learn
to play trumpet or drums in order that he or she can be exploited
by the football team in high school to provide junk music during
the half-time show, blatting horns and pounding drums. It's unclear
whether this teaches any music at all.
Hence, the
first step in a child's music education has to be an attitude adjustment
on the part of parents. You don't make sure that the child learns
math solely because you plan for the child to win the Nobel Prize.
Right? There is a point to learning math even if the child doesn't
become a mathematician. This goes without saying. Why doesn't it
go without saying with regard to music?
So deal with
it now: your child will not become a famous recording star, will
not major in music in college, will not get a music scholarship,
will not dazzle millions with astonishing talent. What he or she
will gain is a great sense of art and the discipline that comes
with learning something that requires more than surfing the net.
Truly, people learn music today the same way they did in the ancient
world. It requires mental discipline, diligence, and daily practice
time.
To be sure,
your child might become famous, but that cannot be the goal. It
follows as an aftereffect of daily hard work. It cannot be the sole
reason for music lessons.
There is another
ingredient that parents overlook: their own involvement. There is
no teacher in the world who can really teach a child to play an
instrument. The most the teacher can do is be a guide and a source
of weekly correction and assistance.
The analogy
here might be the skill of walking. A teacher can provide a path,
coach the student to stay on the path, explain how to walk well
and correct for mistakes. But, in the end, it is the child himself
who must put one foot in front of the other.
But no child
of 8 or 10 or even 14 is prepared to do this on his or her own.
The parent must be there to provide daily encouragement. This means
more than blasting away at the child and demanding that he or she
practice for 30 minutes per day.
A parent must
take a detailed interest in the matter directly, learning music
notation, noticing the way fingerings on the keyboard or the violin
work, and understanding the task of the week. This ideally means
attending the lessons along with the child – but not interfering
in what the teacher is doing – or asking the child to reiterate
the contents of this week's lesson and the task ahead.
In violin,
it means that the parent should get a violin too and practice with
the child. To do this does not require that you already read music.
It means that you learn alongside the child, lesson by lesson. This
will provide the parent with the means to offer guidance between
lessons.
In piano, the
parent should also spend time attempting to play the first lesson
book, which is not that difficult. This way the parent can empathize
with the student and provide more sympathetic guidance along the
way.
As for progress,
it comes slowly and systematically and should be counted in years,
not months much less weeks. A child learning violin will need to
play 5 to 8 years before he or she is capable of providing a truly
beautiful rendering of a simple piece of music. On piano, the progress
is quicker but here too, you are in for the long haul. It will consume
years of work and practice.
Parents today
don’t expect this because we live in an age of instant musical gratification.
The greatest performances of the greatest music are a few clicks
away, often downloadable for next to nothing. Something that accessible
seems easy. The truth is that learning to perform music is no easier
now than it was in the ancient world. It is an intellectual process
that requires vast time and effort, and there are no shortcuts.
As a culture,
we are somehow less willing than we once were to put in the hours
to make excellence happen. So why should we bother at all? Because
learning music is a living metaphor for life itself. We live in
an age with all facts at our disposal and every trick for learning
technique is more instantly acquired than ever. In economic terms,
the value of facts is declining while the value of true excellence
in art is increasing. Those who understand what excellence requires
will excel in the future, and music studies are the outstanding
way to impart the ethic of hard work and tenacity to young minds.
Also, the student who understands music will carry a gift throughout
life: namely the capacity to distinguish true beauty and true quality
from their imitations.
To recover
musical talent in the young will also require a rethinking of the
parents’ role in education generally. Ever since the state came
to monopolize education, a culture has developed that regards education
as someone else's job. It is for institutions. The job of the parent
is just to shove the kid in the front door and pick the kid up at
the appointed time. This mentality has led to disaster in every
subject, but it has hit higher forms of learning, such as literature,
art, and language, especially hard.
It should not
surprise that in an age of state-dominated education, people would
not know languages, music, or literature. These require vast investment
on the child's part, and the close assistance of those who love
them. States do not love. They run bureaucratic machines, and these
machines tend to produce other machines.
So
there is a way in which the praiseworthy goal of wanting music instruction
for your child is a revolutionary act in the best sense. It amounts
to saying no to the regime that puts down art simply because the
regime cannot make art happen. But you can. To give your child an
appreciation for art and assist in helping that child become not
only an intelligent consumer of art but a producer also is a wonderful
act of generosity.
Remember that
it is not a gift that you can purchase or produce automatically,
and nor is it a gift that yields its fruit in a short period of
time. It requires great sacrifice and unbelievable work, but it
is worth every bit of both.
December
27, 2007
Jeffrey
Tucker [send him mail]
is editorial vice president of www.Mises.org.
Comment on
the Mises blog.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Jeffrey
Tucker Archives
|