0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
140 просмотров36 страниц
The gap between conventional music curricula in North American schools and the musical practices in which most people engage in everyday life is enormous, and it is growing wider at a breathtaking rate. This point is illustrated concisely and provocatively by Daniel Cavicchi, who writes:
I would think it safe to say that the steadfast school music rituals of singing folk songs in unison, learning music notation, and playing an instrument in a marching band are quite removed from most students’ musical lives, not only in terms of genre and style but also in terms of defining what ‘music’ is supposed to be about. If outside of school a student’s musical life mainly consists of trading MP3 files of obscure emo and grunge songs on his computer or dancing with friends at an all-ages club, then a music class where he studies how to play the clarinet is going to seem incredibly bizarre.
This “disconnect” between the experiences that typify students’ school-based musical activities and their out-of-school musical lives is no minor curiosity, no idle or passing concern. It is, if critics like Cavicchi are to be believed, part of a broader trend with far-reaching and profoundly troubling consequences. Formal, institutionalized music studies and actual musical practices have, Cavicchi asserts, “parted ways.”
The music education community’s increasing obsession with advocacy is, I believe, a clear reflection of this trend, as more and more resources (both financial and imaginative) become necessary to justify instructional practices whose meaning and relevance is apparent neither to those for whom they are intended nor to those who provide financial support. At the same time, ironically, people’s belief in the value of music is as evident as ever. Music occupies vast amounts of people’s time and expendable income, and plays a constitutive role in vast ranges of daily activity. Clearly, something is amiss in the way we conceive of and engage in music education; for where people find meaning and value in what they do, there is seldom a need to convince them of the importance of becoming more proficient or knowledgeable about it.
The gap between conventional music curricula in North American schools and the musical practices in which most people engage in everyday life is enormous, and it is growing wider at a breathtaking rate. This point is illustrated concisely and provocatively by Daniel Cavicchi, who writes:
I would think it safe to say that the steadfast school music rituals of singing folk songs in unison, learning music notation, and playing an instrument in a marching band are quite removed from most students’ musical lives, not only in terms of genre and style but also in terms of defining what ‘music’ is supposed to be about. If outside of school a student’s musical life mainly consists of trading MP3 files of obscure emo and grunge songs on his computer or dancing with friends at an all-ages club, then a music class where he studies how to play the clarinet is going to seem incredibly bizarre.
This “disconnect” between the experiences that typify students’ school-based musical activities and their out-of-school musical lives is no minor curiosity, no idle or passing concern. It is, if critics like Cavicchi are to be believed, part of a broader trend with far-reaching and profoundly troubling consequences. Formal, institutionalized music studies and actual musical practices have, Cavicchi asserts, “parted ways.”
The music education community’s increasing obsession with advocacy is, I believe, a clear reflection of this trend, as more and more resources (both financial and imaginative) become necessary to justify instructional practices whose meaning and relevance is apparent neither to those for whom they are intended nor to those who provide financial support. At the same time, ironically, people’s belief in the value of music is as evident as ever. Music occupies vast amounts of people’s time and expendable income, and plays a constitutive role in vast ranges of daily activity. Clearly, something is amiss in the way we conceive of and engage in music education; for where people find meaning and value in what they do, there is seldom a need to convince them of the importance of becoming more proficient or knowledgeable about it.
The gap between conventional music curricula in North American schools and the musical practices in which most people engage in everyday life is enormous, and it is growing wider at a breathtaking rate. This point is illustrated concisely and provocatively by Daniel Cavicchi, who writes:
I would think it safe to say that the steadfast school music rituals of singing folk songs in unison, learning music notation, and playing an instrument in a marching band are quite removed from most students’ musical lives, not only in terms of genre and style but also in terms of defining what ‘music’ is supposed to be about. If outside of school a student’s musical life mainly consists of trading MP3 files of obscure emo and grunge songs on his computer or dancing with friends at an all-ages club, then a music class where he studies how to play the clarinet is going to seem incredibly bizarre.
This “disconnect” between the experiences that typify students’ school-based musical activities and their out-of-school musical lives is no minor curiosity, no idle or passing concern. It is, if critics like Cavicchi are to be believed, part of a broader trend with far-reaching and profoundly troubling consequences. Formal, institutionalized music studies and actual musical practices have, Cavicchi asserts, “parted ways.”
The music education community’s increasing obsession with advocacy is, I believe, a clear reflection of this trend, as more and more resources (both financial and imaginative) become necessary to justify instructional practices whose meaning and relevance is apparent neither to those for whom they are intended nor to those who provide financial support. At the same time, ironically, people’s belief in the value of music is as evident as ever. Music occupies vast amounts of people’s time and expendable income, and plays a constitutive role in vast ranges of daily activity. Clearly, something is amiss in the way we conceive of and engage in music education; for where people find meaning and value in what they do, there is seldom a need to convince them of the importance of becoming more proficient or knowledgeable about it.
Wayne D. Bowman Stiff in opinions, always in the wrong. John Dryden You know something is happening here, but you don't know what it is do you, Mister Jones? Bob Dylan The gap between on!entional musi urriula in "orth #merian shools and the musial praties in whih most people engage in e!eryday life is enormous, and it is growing wider at a breathtaking rate. This point is illustrated onisely and pro!oati!ely by $aniel %a!ihi, who writes& ' would think it safe to say that the steadfast shool musi rituals of singing folk songs in unison, learning musi notation, and playing an instrument in a marhing band are (uite remo!ed from most students) musial li!es, not only in terms of genre and style but also in terms of defining what *musi) is supposed to be about. 'f outside of shool a student)s musial life mainly onsists of trading M+, files of obsure emo and grunge songs on his omputer or daning with friends at an all-ages lub, then a musi lass where he studies how to play the larinet is going to seem inredibly bi.arre. / This 0disonnet1 between the e2perienes that typify students) shool-based musial ati!ities and their out-of-shool musial li!es is no minor uriosity, no idle or passing onern. 't is, if ritis like %a!ihi are to be belie!ed, part of a broader trend Bowman, Pop Music, 2 with far-reahing and profoundly troubling onse(uenes. 3ormal, institutionali.ed musi studies and atual musial praties ha!e, %a!ihi asserts, 0parted ways.1 The musi eduation ommunity)s inreasing obsession with ad!oay is, ' belie!e, a lear refletion of this trend, as more and more resoures 4both finanial and imaginati!e5 beome neessary to 6ustify instrutional praties whose meaning and rele!ane is apparent neither to those for whom they are intended nor to those who pro!ide finanial support. #t the same time, ironially, people)s belief in the !alue of musi is as e!ident as e!er. Musi oupies !ast amounts of people)s time and e2pendable inome, and plays a onstituti!e role in !ast ranges of daily ati!ity. %learly, something is amiss in the way we onei!e of and engage in musi eduation7 for where people find meaning and !alue in what they do, there is seldom a need to on!ine them of the importane of beoming more profiient or knowledgeable about it. 8ne strategi response to this legitimation risis is to endea!or to make shool musi more rele!ant to students) li!es by replaing old or anahronisti musial ontent with musi belie!ed to ha!e greater urreny. 9owe!er, this strategy is not nearly as straightforward as it may seem. 8n the one hand, it must be weighed against the important eduational aim of enhaning aess to the less ommon, less aessible, and therefore less 0rele!ant.1 8n the other, it is neessary to ask whether the fators that make for rele!ane are ompatible with or apable of sur!i!al in the onte2t of formal shooling. The ase of 6a.. is illustrati!e. The inorporation of 6a.. into the shool musi urriulum was moti!ated at least in part by onerns about rele!ane and urreny. :ut it is important to note that 6a.. beame *safe,) *respetable,) and *legitimate) musial Bowman, Pop Music, 3 ontent for shool study only as its ommerial !iability and popularity in the broader soial realm waned. 't is also noteworthy that the kind of 6a.. praties that e!entually gained suffiient legitimay to warrant bona fide musial and eduational status beame, in that proess, shool 6a... 'ts reognition of the legitimay of 6a.. notwithstanding, institutionali.ed musi eduation was able to aommodate relati!ely few of the di!ergent soiomusial priorities presented by 6a.. priorities like indi!iduality, independene, inno!ation, nononformity, and reati!ity. :eause adding 6a.. to the urriulum did little to transform the way musi eduators oneptuali.ed musi, or urriulum, or the nature of eduation, 6a.. praties paid a steep prie for admission to the aademy. The signifiane of these obser!ations for our interest in popular musi is twofold. 3irst, the inertia of shool musi and the institutions it ser!es is a fore that must not be underestimated. Seond, and as a onse(uene, popular musi annot impro!e or re!itali.e the urriulum without radially reforming the way it is onei!ed. +ut differently, the introdution of popular musi into the urriulum will hange little unless we e2amine e2pliitly its impliations for how and why we do what we do -- unless we take ad!antage of the opportunity to re-theori.e our instrutional and eduational praties. #n eduational program that attempts to inorporate popular musi without addressing its powerful ultural resonanes and ontraditions -- without situating it amidst issues of struggle, resistane, defiane, identity, power, and ontrol -- is an eduational program that seeks to use popular musi to safe, pre-ordained ends, ignoring the !ery things that aount for its popularity in the first plae. 'f our intent in adding popular musi studies to the urriulum is to maintain 0what is,1 or to enable us simply to Bowman, Pop Music, 4 keep doing what we already do -- to simply 0add *the popular) and stir1 -- we would probably do well to forego the effort. 8ur interest in popularity and things popular should not re!ol!e around the maintenane of the e2isting system. ;ather, we should use it to re- open possibilities for ritial and reati!e thought and ation, both in our students and in oursel!es. The issues attending the inorporation of popular musi studies into the shool urriulum are both e2tensi!e and omple2, and in!ol!e onerns at the !ery heart of musi eduation and urriulum theory. They offer an e2eptional opportunity to open up dialogue on the ways musi eduation might need to hange if popular musi were to beome paramount among the things we deem worthy of teahing and learning. <e need, in other words, to e2amine that into whih we would inorporate these popular phenomena to help make unfamiliar our o!er-familiar world of musi eduation. To that end, taking popular musi seriously is a stane rih in transformati!e potential for "orth #merian musi eduation. =et me identify at the outset se!eral of the assumptions and on!itions that frame this essay. 3irst, ' belie!e that the problems reated by e2luding popular musi far outweigh the perei!ed perils of inluding it. Seond, ' belie!e that "orth #merian musi eduation must and e!entually will 4whether of hoie or neessity5 find ways to inorporate popular musi studies meaningfully into its publi shool and uni!ersity urriula. Third, ' do not belie!e that this an be ahie!ed without ma6or, perhaps e!en radial, reoneptuali.ations of what musi is, and what musi eduation means 4how it is best done, by whom, for whom, to what ends5. 3ourth, these reoneptuali.ation do not 4and must not5 mean that 0serious1 or 0lassial1 musi studies will be eliminated. This suggests that, fifth, it is imperati!e we de!elop instrutional frameworks and teaher Bowman, Pop Music, 5 ompetenies that aommodate both musis at one. > These onerns point olleti!ely to a need for lose interrogation and philosophial analysis of the taken-for-granted beliefs and !alues that undergird urrent eduational pratie in musi. Whence Popularity? =et us begin at the beginning, beause we ought to agree what we are talking about. <hat might be meant by the phrase popular musi, and what is it about popularity that interests 4or ought to interest5 us? The diffiulties begin here. The ad6eti!e 0popular1 has many, many meanings -- some of them ontraditory, some of them inompatible with the aims and nature of eduation, and many of them more impliit than e2pliit. +opular musi)s meaning is a (uestion, as one sholar puts it, 0riddled with omple2ities.1 , The most faile answer is, as usual, not !ery helpful& popular musi is that whih is not unpopular. ? "ot only is this annoyingly irular, it points us in the diretion of statistial rather than musial or eduational issues. @ 9ow e2tensi!e or per!asi!e or en6oyable must a musial pratie be in order to warrant eduational inlusion on the basis of its popularity? The limited statistial perspeti!e replaes (uestions of musial !alue with onerns about the e2tent to whih musi is programmed, purhased or onsumed& an approah made familiar by the top-forty hit parade. A 't replaes (ualitati!e onerns with (uantitati!e ones. 8ne might argue that the most popular 4i.e., the most statistially per!asi!e5 should be represented proportionally in the urriulum, and the least popular should reei!e minimal attention. :ut that flies in the fae of the idea of Bowman, Pop Music, 6 eduation as an endea!or intended to introdue people to the less per!asi!e, the unommon, the rare and the preious. 't also fails to aknowledge that many broadly popular things do not appeal to a homogenous mass of people for reasons they all share, but rather ahie!e their popularity by onneting with di!erse and di!ergent subgroups for different, e!en ontraditory reasons. # more re!ealing way to proeed is by asking to what the term 0popular1 stands as Oher in general usage what the term is presumed to e2lude and, onse(uently, what we mean impliitly when we designate musi popular. The list in Table / helps demonstrate the magnitude and omple2ity of this definition problem.
Ta!le ". De#ining the popular
The Popular is Other to . . . $n% there#ore Is & . . . The elite, rare $own to earth The speial, e2eptional B!eryday, mundane, ommon The pretentious and haughty ;eal, authenti, honest The elegant +rosai The lassial, 0lassy1 Cn-lassy, unouth The aristorati, for 0the few1 $emorati, of 0the people1 The selet #essible The omple2 Simple The restrained, refined 'ndulgent, rass The mindful Diseral The erebral and somber Dital, fun The respetful, polite $efiant, irre!erent, rude, unruly The serious, profound %apriious, tri!ial, lightweight, trite The stuffy, dull, dying or dead Dital, li!ing, energeti The intrinsially !aluable %ommerial, of primarily e2trinsi !alue The ob6eti!e or absolute Sub6eti!e, funtional, soial, politial The formally autonomous Soially-determined The intelletual 9uman, real The hallenging, demanding :anal, pre-digested Bowman, Pop Music, ! The genuine, authenti 3raudulent, fake The time-tested and -!alidated Transient, fleeting The museum The street The transendent <orldly The ontemplati!e Bntertaining, di!ersionary The appreiated +artiipatory The e2pressi!e and !ital 3ormulai, trite dulling The aoustially produed Bletronially-mediated The formal, alulated 'nformal, asual The sophistiated, ele!ated Dernaular, e!eryday The premeditated, planned Spontaneous, unrestrained :road and rihly !arious "arrow E The learn-ed Soiali.ed, absorbed The ontrolled, orderly 8ut of ontrol The high =ow The musial +re-musial, submusial, e2tramusial That with suffiient ohesion, integrity, ;esidue, someone else)s musi F G interest to ha!e a name of its own HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Bah of the ontrasts listed in Table / is deeply flawed. %olleti!ely, they not only distort our understanding of popular and lassial musi, they per!ert our understanding of the entire musial field. Yet at the same time there is in eah ontrast, from some strongly held perspeti!e, a degree of !alidity. Bah represents a way people 4musi eduators among them5 tend to talk about and onei!e of popularity. 'n light of the liberal mi2 of laudatory and ondemnatory ideas, it should be e!ident that popularity means many things to many people -- not a !ery sanguine situation for a profession potentially interested in embraing musi that is popular or in endorsing musi for its popularity. <hat ontrasts like these share more fundamentally and disturbingly is their dualism-- their redution of potentially useful distintions to dihotomous differenes. Bowman, Pop Music, " Most ritiism and praise of popular musi is, ' belie!e, impliated in one or more of these dihotomous systems of thought systems rooted in omfortable, une2amined assumptions that what popularity means is perfetly lear, and that its nature is (uite different from 0the rest1 of musi 4whate!er 0the rest1 means5. The real hallenge for musi eduation, then, lies in learning to deonstrut these binaries, in ways that breathe life into the supposedly moribund lassis while at the same time reogni.ing the eduational integrity of the popular and in the proess, showing the ontinuity and unity of all human musial endea!or. The most realitrant and misleading myths about popular art and musi stem from ertain biases of philosophial idealism, biases ;ihard Shusterman aptly alls 0aseti.1 I These aseti biases beome manifest in three near-phobi a!ersions ' like to designate 0plethorophobia1 4a!ersion to multipliity5, 0temporophobia1 4an2iety about temporal transiene and hange5, and 0somatophobia1 4fear of the body5. "ot oinidentally, musi that is popular often manifests multipliity, transiene, and orporeality in abundane. Thus, popular musi affords pleasures that are often onsidered heap, (uik, or easy 4unlike the 0deferred gratifiation1 /J supposedly assoiated with genuinely artisti musi5. 'ts gratifiations are spurious, or fraudulent the musial e(ui!alent of 6unk food or self-gratifiation. 't titillates the body rather than nourishing the mind. 'ts effets are superfiial and fleeting, not durable7 sub6eti!e rather than ob6eti!e. +opular musi is reated for passi!e onsumption and is bereft of intelletual effort and reward. 't is boringly simple, banal, and predigested, so as to relie!e the listener of any real effort or responsibility. 't aters more to sensation than to ognition. 'ts produts are not reati!e Bowman, Pop Music, # or original, but trendy and deri!ati!e. They enter into and fall out of fashion rather than standing the test of time. +opular musi is musi of the herd -- musi that numbs indi!idual and ritial awareness. 't all sounds the same& formulai, prediable, rhythmi, and ob!ious. 't is designed to pander to the lowest ommon denominator of human taste. The most ogent and on!ining ad!oate of suh !iews is Theodore #dorno, who was probably right in many aspets of his argument. 9e was wrong, howe!er, in one of his most fundamental assumptions& that popular musi is all of one loth, hopelessly enmeshed with a 0ulture industry1 whose influene renders it inapable of ritial resistane, ogniti!e substane, or hallenge. Still, any attempt to mount a balaned understanding of popular musi must proeed through #dorno)s arguments7 they annot be bypassed. // #gain, the hief failing of these arguments is their failure to aknowledge not all popular musi is idential. +opular musi is not an 0it1 but a 0them1 a !ast, multifarious, and fluid range of musial praties with remarkably different and di!ergent intentions, !alues, potentials, and affordanes. Muh of it speaks to the body, or more properly, the inorporated 4embodied5 mind7 but there is nothing inherently heap, substandard, or seond-lass in that. Muh of it is aessible, and en6oyable without ma6or intelletual effort, but there is no reason signifiane must be diffiult, nor is the intellet the primary determinant of musial worth. Muh of it is trite, banal, and insipid, but it is not inherently or in!ariably so. 't aters to large audienes, but these are by no means uniform. 'ts ommodity harater its ommerial side -- is an important part of what it is, but that by no means e2hausts its appeal or its semioti potential. <hat we get Bowman, Pop Music, 1$ from the one-sided !iews of musi represented in Table / are grossly distorted !iews of musi. Bowman, Pop Music, 11 So& What Is Popular Music? <e ha!e disounted the utility of the statistial approah to defining popularity. <e ha!e also obser!ed that our ommon disursi!e uses of the term 0popular1 point to a deeply ideologial field with ontested and ontraditory parameters. <e ha!e suggested as well that many dismissals of the popular follow from the prudishness of philosophial idealism and its worries o!er the trustworthiness of things bodily, multitudinous, or transient. This leads us to the further (uestion of whether popular musi may be best understood along lines of soial lass, a !iew with its substantial share of adherents both among soiologists and musiians. The list of impliit meanings ad!aned in the pre!ious setion of this essay makes e!ident two opposing lass-based !iews of popular musi, one from 0abo!e1 and one from 0below.1 /> :oth !iews are rooted in essentialism the naK!e and seriously mistaken belief that popularity is the kind of thing that has an 0essene1 and that this essene an be traed more or less along soial lass lines. The !iew from abo!e is that popular musi is a mass, standardi.ed, ommerial phenomenon, shaped and defined by the manipulati!e interests of a apitalist ulture industry. Seen from below, popular musi is the musi of 0real people1 authenti, grounded, !ital, and onneted to day-to-day human e2istene. 3rom the first perspeti!e, popularity threatens to replae superior musi that is, for !ariously !alid reasons, inherently unpopular7 from the latter, the elitism of art musi poses a threat to the musi of ommon folk. :oth perspeti!es err in their assumption that popularity has a stable essene -- whether, as Middleton puts it, 0the people1 is regarded as 0an ati!e, progressi!e historial sub6et or a manipulated dupeL1 /, The trouble with essentialist !iews of popularity is that they attempt to Bowman, Pop Music, 12 disentangle what is by its !ery nature entangled, to make onrete what is fluid and immaterial, to unify what is di!erse and ontraditory. 'n opposition to essentialist !iews, Middleton takes the stane that popular musi 0an only be !iewed within the onte2t of the whole musical %ield, in whih it has an ati!e tendeny7 and this field, together with its internal relationships, is ne!er still it is always in mo&emen.1 /? <hat this phrase 0popular musi1 does, then, is attempt to 0put a finger on that spae, that terrain, of ontradition between *imposed) and *authenti,) *elite) and *ommon,) predominant and subordinate, then and now, theirs and ours, and so on and to organi.e it in partiular ways.1 /@ %learly, this is a pro6et replete with ideologial ramifiations. The musial field to whih Middleton refers is the field Meil and 3eld harateri.e as 0ulture1 fermenting, 0morphing,1 bubbling as opposed to the domain of 0i!ili.ation,1 in whih most suh ati!ity has subsided, or spent itself. /A The field of popular musi is, in other words, ontinuous with the whole field of musial ageny and ation7 it is always ontested, ne!er stable, and e!er and una!oidably politial. /E There are no pure or stable ultures, let alone ultures that an be segregated hierarhially so that the terms high and low desribe aurately people)s in!ol!ements and engagements. 'ndi!iduals and groups ha!e multiple and fluid sub6eti!ities, identities, and affinities that may be simultaneously or alternati!ely 0high1 and 0low,1 abo!e or below as irumstanes and propensities warrant. So where does this lea!e us in our (uest for a definition? 'ihou one, if we e2pet something handy-dandy, neat, and definiti!e. The only definition that seems defensible is one that is open, pro!isional, and sub6et to re!ision -- one that foregoes the Bowman, Pop Music, 13 idealist)s yearning for the eternal, e2hausti!e, and final. This does not negate the possibility of definition, but it does render untenable the idea that popular musi and all its assoiated !alues and pleasures an be aounted for in some simple, timeless, monolithi way. +opular musi is, as Middleton shows, a field whose area is e2tensi!e and whose inner struture is highly omple2. #ll this said, it might be argued, we know what popularity means, e!en if that meaning is fluid, !arious, and ontested. <e know more or less what sort of praties we speak of when we talk about popular musi, e!en if we are sometimes unable to agree whether a partiular pratie warrants the label. =et us ask, then, how popular musi tends to be harateri.ed. 't tends, at least in this age of late apitalism and tehnology, to be mass( mediaed. /F 'ts commodiy characer is an important part of what it is, a prominent soure of what makes its popularity possible. 't tends as well to be designed or intended for a broad audience, howe!er onstituted, an audiene often wihou %ormal rainin) or the kind of tehnial understanding musiians all musiianship. 'ts audiene is omprised e2tensi!ely of amaeurs -- those whose interest stems not from professional in!ol!ement but more simply and diretly from lo!e 4amateur deri!es from the =atin, amare5 of the musi at hand. =ikewise, its pratitioners tend to be less formally shooled, and inlined to learn and transmit their raft aurally, /I if enhaned by reorded media. +opular musi is, to this e2tent, musi reated by, and espeially for, the en6oyment and enrihment of e&eryday people in their e&eryday li&es. :y these riteria, 0lassial1 musi and 6a.. one were, but no longer are, popular. Their pratie has beome highly speiali.ed, reliant upon formal training, and aimed Bowman, Pop Music, 14 e2tensi!ely at fellow-pratitioners although ob!iously, this does not prelude en6oyment and use by others, espeially those with the benefit of some kind of formal tuition or other means of indution into the norms of the pratie. Thus another ommon tendeny of musi we tend to regard as popular& its relati!e in%ormaliy, and its seeming indifferene to onerns like stylisti purity or authentiity. >J
+opular musi tends to be musi that is not intended to transend time, plae, and irumstane7 it is more a musi of and for the here and now * though in today)s mediated world 0here1 an range from the loal to the global. This is not to say that ertain of its produts may not e!entually ahie!e the kind of ongoing ultural resonane that transforms them into ultural ions of sorts, but their origins 4preisely like muh musi that has subse(uently attained 0artisti1 status5 are more pra)maic, more onerned with use than transendental status. +opular musi is used music. 4That nonpopular or artistially ele!ated musis are also 0used1 albeit for purposes less immediately ob!ious is both further e!idene of the need for ontingent definitions and of the depth of the ideologial roots of these issues.5 :eause of its pragmati orientation, stylisti modulation, mutation, and hybridity are regular features& popular musis tend to approah the musial field as a plae for play and e+perimenaion more often than as the ground for the reation of works. #n important orollary of these tendenies is popular musi)s linkage to embodied or corporeal e2periene. >/ +opular musi is not generally or primarily intended for erebral or ontemplati!e pereption. 't often emphasi.es rhythm, timbre, !olume, and other attributes that align themsel!es with proess, gesture, and *feel.) ;ather than re!ol!ing around syntatial and hierarhial strutural onerns or the ogniti!ely Bowman, Pop Music, 15 mediated antiipationsNe2petations with whih these are assoiated, >> popular musi tends to speak to the body or to appeal to a bodily mode of engagement that demands familiarity but not formal tuition. >,
The 0definition1 ' ha!e been relutantly de!eloping in this setion >? thus inludes the following tendenies& 4a5 breadth of intended appeal, 4b5 mass-mediation and ommodity harater, 45 amateur engagement, 4d5 ontinuity with e!eryday onerns, 4e5 informality, 4f5 here-and-now pragmati use and utility, 4g5 appeal to embodied e2periene, and 4h5 proessual emphasis. 8ne final matter demands our onsideration before we mo!e on& the fat that popular musi in today)s world seems by and large to mean youth musi. The (uestion of whether this is funtion of 0the musi1 or of the way it is marketed and the disposable inome of young people is a re!ealing one, beause the diffiulty in answering it points to the ine2triable links between popularity and apitalist systems of prodution and distribution. The popularity of musi is a funtion of the reation of onsumer demand, a fator that has no inherent onnetion to the !alue of the musi itself. +eople like what they know and are gi!en, rather than knowing what they like. 'n light of this, we would probably do well to draw a distintion between 0pop1 musi and musi that is popular in the more broadly demorati sense. 0+op1 is more purely ommodity musi, designed foremost with market in mind. <hether the more demorati sense of popularity e!en remains a possibility in the age of ommodity apitalism is !ery muh an open (uestion. The 0punk1 mo!ement, for e2ample, has raised in partiularly aute form the (uestion 0whether, in a apitalist soiety, a really popular musi is in fat possible.1 >@ Bowman, Pop Music, 16 8n loser refletion, then, theses last matters -- these after-thoughts about youth, onsumerism, ommodity e2hange, and the industrial reation of taste -- are not inidental 0asides1 at all. They are among the most important attributes of popular musi as onstituted in our postmodern, late apitalisti world. #nd they bring to the fore one more the eonomi and ideologial underpinnings of popular ulture reminding us that popularity is ne!er straight ahead, ne!er as ob!ious as it seems, ne!er 0popular1 in the one-dimensional sense ad!oates and detrators would ha!e us belie!e. $espite my best efforts at definition, then, the only defensible answer to the (uestion used to frame this setion 4<hat is popular musi?5 is, 0That dependsO1 0+opular musi1 is like 0art17 it does not and annot mean any one thing, or e!en any single ombination of things. Terms like these are tools7 what they mean depends on who is using them and to what ends. Their meaning annot be settled one and for all and will always be ontested. 4' hope, therefore, that readers ha!e found signifiant ountere2amples to eah of the omponents in my ompound 0definition.15 +opular musi is not ommodity or mass musi for those who most are about and are most intimately in!ol!ed with it, >A nor is it always 0youth1 musi, nor is it in!ariably onneted to e!eryday onerns, and so on. +opular musi)s status is e!er unsettled and ontested, and indeed, these may be its most salient harateristis. They are, at the same time, among the greatest hallenges to those who would make it an integral part of musi eduation. '%ucation an% the Popular #dding eduation to the popular musi e(uation e2pands e2ponentially the omple2ity and ontraditions the musi eduation profession must onsider. Thus far, Bowman, Pop Music, 1! we ha!e been onerned with identifying what popular musi 0is1 4or 0isn)t15, beause suh determinations onstitute an important preliminary step in the seletion of urriular ontent. $efinition pro!ides us with a basis for indiating what to inorporate and e2lude. Yet in this ase, it is arguable that what we ha!e identified signifiantly hallenges and sub!erts musi eduation itself at least as it on!entionally understood and pratied. This leads ine2orably to politial (uestions about the desirability or neessity of professional hange, (uestions the remainder of this essay will endea!or to e2plore. # serious and thoughtful ommitment to popular musi in musi eduation would hange a great many things, urriular ontent by no means the least of them. 'f popular musi)s meaning and identity are fundamentally unsettled, a musi eduation profession that takes suh musi seriously an sarely e!ade unsettledness itself. 's musi eduation more onerned with ultural preser!ation or with ultural transformation? To what e2tent are ultural !alues and ideologial struggles appropriately addressed within musial eduation? Should musi eduation onern itself with what is, or is it more properly onerned with what could be? %an eduational institutions study without distortion musial praties that are often rebellious, oarse, !ulgar, and deliberately offensi!e? %an musial praties in whih indi!iduality, reati!ity, and hange figure so prominently be aommodated in shools that are on many le!els de!oted to preisely the opposite ends? B!en if we agree to some stipulati!e definition of popularity and presume thereby to ha!e resol!ed the urriular (uestion of what kind of musi is appropriate and desirable for instrutional purposes, it remains for us to deide suh matters as whose Bowman, Pop Music, 1" musi, for whom, and to what ends and to 6udge whether shools lend themsel!es satisfatorily to suh things. The fat that something is popular pro!ides us with no lear reason for teahing it, >E espeially if the nature of popularity entails alters radially what instrution might entail unless, of ourse, urrent instrutional praties are learly inade(uate and in need of alteration. ' stated at the outset that popular musi might ha!e little effet on musi eduation unless we embrae it as an opportunity to think arefully and ritially about how and why we do what we do. 'f the arguments ' ha!e ad!aned subse(uently ha!e merit, suh thought appears an una!oidable outome of endorsing popular musi. =et us reflet briefly on the aims of shooling, (ualifying what we say with the reognition that suh ends are, like the meaning of popular musi, !arious and ontested. 4'n this interesting way, popular musi and eduation might be ideally ompatibleO5 <hat are the eduational ends of shooling by whih we might be able to assess the desirability of inorporating popular musi into the urriulum? 3irst, eduation is onerned with the de!elopment of skills, understandings, and dispositions that do not follow easily or naturally from the soiali.ation proess alone. 3or most young people, howe!er, popular musi plays a ma6or role in that soiali.ation proess, whih suggests a kind of o!er-familiarity with the sub6et among those to whom we would teah it 4and perhaps an ine!itable under-familiarity among those responsible for instrution5. The (uestion, then, is what teahing, learning about, and engaging in popular musi an ahie!e that is eduational, not already aomplished informally, and yet desired by soiety at large. So long as we onfine our attention to musial praties that are not widespread and that do not flourish unassisted in soiety, the ase for musi Bowman, Pop Music, 1# eduation seems fairly lear. 4This is not to say it is persuasi!e, only that a genuinely eduational need appears to ha!e been ad!aned.5 :ut when we turn our attention to something that is thri!ing without eduational inter!entions, our understandings and 6ustifiations for what we are doing must hange. Seond, eduation is onerned with de!eloping and transmitting skills, understandings, and dispositions that are deemed important by soiety. Though ob!ious, this annot go without saying, sine informal soiali.ation fails to transmit many things that nonetheless do not warrant the alloation of sare eduational resoures. ;esoures are alloated for the protetion or preser!ation of ma6or human aomplishments and the transmission of indispensable soial !alues. #lthough situating popular musi among ahie!ements deemed worthy of eduational transmission be ontro!ersial, popular musi)s rele!ane to soial !alues is less so again, depending upon what !alues one has in mind. #mong the soial !alues deemed indispensable in <estern demoraies are those that prepare an informed iti.enry for demorati partiipation by broadening hori.ons, de!eloping more pluralisti !alues, and the like. # third eduational aim, then, in!ol!es preparing students for life by gi!ing them skills that will ser!e them well. Signifiant among these in apitalisti demoraies are suh attributes as empowerment, independene, self reliane, ritial skills, and the inlination to use them. +opular musi)s ultural signifiane and its ideologially ontested nature may be well suited to ends like these, pro!ided that instrution atually addresses them rather than a!oiding them or sweeping them under the rug. 3rom this perspeti!e it might well be argued that popularity raises omple2 (uestions e2atly where they need to be raised partiularly in light of musi eduation)s Bowman, Pop Music, 2$ historial propensity for tehnial training rather than eduation in the broad sense, and in light of the fre(uent assumption that musi eduation)s designated urriular foi are self e!ident and direted by !alues presumed to be intrinsi. 8n this !iew, then, popular musi studies might be 6ustified on grounds that they de!elop the kind of ritial awareness that makes people less !ulnerable to totali.ing 4uni!ersali.ing, or totalitarian5 thought, to apitalism)s !oraious need for willing onsumers, or to the potent semioti 4thought- and beha!ior-shaping5 fores at work in the musis that now per!ade almost e!ery aspet of e!eryday life. >F <e might argue without ontradition, then, that one reason we should study popular musi is preisely beause musi of it is of dubious (uality. That muh popular musi ser!es as propaganda or a substitute for ritial awareness may be granted without disounting the importane of addressing it eduationally. There are at least two reasons popular musi)s dangers or defiienies should not keep it our of shools& first, it is not uniformly defeti!e or defiient7 and seond, one of the onerns of eduation is to enhane people)s aess to what is better, to make them more disriminating in their pereptions and hoies. Musi eduation might atually presume to impro!e the (uality of popular musi by making students more fully aware and ompetent. >I
#dorno)s sathing riti(ues of popular musi as mind-numbing indotrination 4training the unonsious for onditioned refle2es5, though not uni!ersally !alid as he belie!ed, are persuasi!e aounts of what may indeed happen where people are not e2tended the potential benefits of musial eduation. 3rom this perspeti!e, eduation and shooling e2ist in part to gi!e people more ontrol o!er their li!es, and to enable them to make true, informed hoies. The eduated person makes deisions and ats in Bowman, Pop Music, 21 light of the desirability of foreseen onse(uenes. The musially eduated person is able to use musi to enhane and shape time, not simply to 0kill1 it. ,J #t least one further reason to study popular musi remains -- one that differs substantially from, but is by no means inompatible with, what has been ad!aned abo!e. +opular musi might be approahed as a !ital field of ation, suh that instrution seeks to help students partiipate in and ontribute reati!ely to the field itself. This orientation would fous on bringing students into a realm of meaningful and potentially rewarding ation and is losely aligned with the performane emphasis of on!entional musi eduation in "orth #meria. #lthough it is also more losely aligned with training than with the broader sense of eduation, its ontinuity with e2isting pratie would doubtless enhane its appeal and familiarity to musi eduators. <hether the di!erse performane praties of the popular musi field are feasible in standardi.ing institutions like shools or whether the small si.e of popular musi groups render them un!iable !ehiles for the eduation of broad student populations remains to be seen. 'n light of the allegations of seleti!ity that ha!e plagued large performing ensembles historially, this latter (uestion needs to be onsidered arefully. Popular Music an% Schooling (" ' ha!e referred repeatedly to things like di!ersity, hange, omple2ity, ontestedness, and ontradition when harateri.ing the field of popular musi7 eah of these being inherent features of li!ing human praties, of 0ulture1 in ontrast to 0i!ili.ation.1 The eduational issues raised by suh harateristis need to be addressed e2pliitly, howe!er. Most of these re!ol!e around tensions between li!ing, breathing Bowman, Pop Music, 22 ulture and the standardi.ed and standardi.ing systems typial of institutionali.ed instrution. 'n brief, what often makes popular musi popular are things like oarseness, orporeality, asualness, and ontradition to say nothing of its polysemi nature, its apaity to engage di!erse groups of people in simultaneously different ways on simultaneously different le!els, not all of them refleti!e. Musial !alidity issues aside, many of these harateristis are simply inappropriate to publi institutionali.ed instrution. :ut what of the further (uestion& an popular musi deemed otherwise appropriate remain !iable in suh settings? #lthough none of the potential impediments are insuperable, some do demand areful onsideration. 'n the first plae, the omfort of formal institutions an be inimial to the utting edge ultural realities that are so often the fous of popular artistry. Seondly, the tehnial standards of shooled artistry may be at odds with the kinds of raw reati!e energies at the heart of li!ing, breathing musial praties. Thirdly, the history of any truly reati!e tradition, as Prayk reminds us, re!ol!es around indi!idual in!entions or ahie!ements that simply annot be predited from their predeessors. ,> Therefore, instrution that seeks truly to situate students amid 0the ation1 in popular realms needs not only to allow for but also to inorporate things like di!ergene, unpreditability, freedom, radial e2perimentation a potential worry, one might think, in institutions that are otherwise de!oted so e2tensi!ely to standardi.ation and onformity. %onser!ati!e institutional inertia, as the e2ample of 6a.. shows, tends to enshrine and refine praties rather than nurturing their further e!olution. # personal friend and de!oted 6a.. musiian, =es +aine, one made a passing omment to me about the standardi.ing effet of formali.ed pedagogial systems on 6a.. performane Bowman, Pop Music, 23 a profound omment whose seeming simpliity makes it all the more potent. 0'f you put kethup on e!erything,1 he obser!ed, 0e!erything is going to taste like kethup.1 :y ommitting seriously to proess, one hanges almost e!erything about musi eduation. To the alarmist response that we stand to lose more than we gain by 0hanging e!erything,1 ' an only offer that ' am not neessarily suggesting we disard urrent instrutional praties and urriular emphases in their entirety as if that were e!en possible. 8ne an alter fundamental assumptions, goals, and proesses without starting o!er from srath. Se!eral fundamental harateristis of the status (uo would almost ertainly ha!e to be re6eted, howe!er fondness for standardi.ation and uniformity foremost among these. 't is e2traordinarily diffiult to a!oid 4mis5representing any ulture as fro.en when teah. 3urthermore, there fre(uently omes with institutionali.ed study a degree of tehnial polish and refinement unharateristi of pra2is in the field outside. Shools are by their !ery nature artifiial, ontrolled en!ironments. <hether or not this amounts to a seriously stultifying fator, it does entail the reation of musial ultures that differ in fundamental ways from those in the 0real world.1 Shool ultures are no less 0real1 than ultures outside shool but they are different. More to the point here, the polish and refinement harateristi of institutional ultures tend to generate li(ues or 0lubs1 where tehnial !irtuosity, for instane, beomes !alued abo!e no!elty, or where pratitioners play and ommuniate predominantly with eah other. ,, 0%lubs1 like these e!entually beome musial museums, and must turn to funding foundations to ompensate for dwindling support from 0outside1 soures. 'n fat, shools and uni!ersities themsel!es often ser!e preisely this kind of uratorial funtion -- pro!iding Bowman, Pop Music, 24 support for musial ati!ity that is no longer finanially !iable elsewhere. Suh ommerial supports, as we ha!e seen, are among the distinti!e harateristis of popular musi in the first plae. Se!eral onsiderations warrant our attention. 3irst, the !alues of eduation and of the ommerial sphere are often inompatible. ,? Sine ommerial !alue is an important part of what makes the popular 0popular,1 this should gi!e us pause. %hange the ommerial dimension, one might say, and one has hanged what the musi is. 'f this is persuasi!e, we would do well to stay open to the possibility that the deemed admissibility of a musial pratie into the shool urriulum may indiate the preliminary onset of 0aestheti fatigue.1 ,@ The fat that popular musis hange so fre(uently, mo!ing into and out of fashion at sometimes breathtaking speed, poses problems of its own. #mong these is the fat that a pratitioner who is fluent, suessful, or pedagogially astute in the popular musi of one era is not neessarily so in another. The transformation from hip to arhai an happen o!er night, and this has far reahing impliations for the preparation and professional de!elopment of musi eduators at least where flueny is onsidered essential to pedagogial ompetene, an assumption with a lengthy pedigree in the profession. Muh of what has 6ust been said here makes the assumption, ' belie!e 6ustified in light of past and urrent pratie, that musi eduation would turn to popular musi primarily as a mode of performane. 9owe!er, ' ha!e also suggested that we might well embrae popular musi with the intent of making students more disriminating listeners and onsumers, an end that might ater to a broader eduational 0audiene1 than those Bowman, Pop Music, 25 speifially interested in de!eloping performane skills. This is not to suggest that performane skills are in any way inompatible with the de!elopment of disrimination. The more likely issue is one of effiieny, or breadth of eduational ontat. 'f our interest in popular musi stems from a onern for the way those we euphemistially all 0general1 students think about and respond to musi in e!eryday life a highly laudable eduational onern, ' submit other issues demand our srutiny. %hief among these is a onern raised by Prayk& the desirability of bringing self-onsiousness to an area in whih !ast numbers of people urrently engage un-self-onsiously, without benefit of instrution, and 0without an2iety or feelings of inferiority.1 8ne of popular musi)s attrations, Prayk reminds us, is preisely that 0it is not regarded as *art,) something one must work to appreiate.1 ,A The transformation of popular musi into a 0serious1 enterprise of the kind we ha!e enshrined for the study of the lassis and 6a.. is a onern about whih eduators need to e2erise aution. ' stated earlier that a ommitment to proess 0hanges e!erything.1 ,E <hether suh a laim is greeted with enthusiasm or trepidation depends upon whether one belie!es things need to hange. ' belie!e they do. #nd thus, ' onlude this brief o!er!iew of popular musi and shooling with the obser!ation that emphasis upon proess, ation, ageny, and ultural engagement emphasis that ' belie!e follows from a ommitment to inluding popular musi in musi eduation is fundamentally at odds with the produtNreeption fous that has typified traditional musi studies. That onstitutes a serious impediment to the kind of hange that popular musi seems to re(uire. :ut in it also lies onsiderable potential for professional reoneptuali.ation, re!itali.ation, and Bowman, Pop Music, 26 transformation. <ith that in mind, let us onlude with a brief in!entory of the potential benefits of taking popular musi seriously. Popular Music an% the Music '%ucation Pro#ession Taking popular musi seriously, it should be lear, is by no means a utopian solution to all musi eduation)s problems. :ut neither is it anathema to the ideals of musi eduation or an abdiation of eduational responsibility. ,F "umerous ad!antages might well arue to the profession depending, of ourse, upon what popular musi is taken to mean and how we aommodate it. ' suggest that these !ery ontingenies are at one the greatest hallenge and the greatest potential benefit to musi eduation. 'f we are willing to aept the degree of disiplinary hange it in!ol!es, bringing popular musi into the shools an indeed make a signifiant differene. ;eogni.ing popular musi praties as potential pur!eyors of musial and eduational !alue makes it diffiult for us to ontinue as though answers to the (uestions, <hat musi? and <hose musi? are somehow pre-ordained and self-e!ident. 't takes away from us the omfort and on!eniene of appeals to 0intrinsi1 or 0inherent1 musial !alue. 't an no longer be (uite so lear who the benefiiaries or reipients of musial instrution should be. "or an we proeed as if the primary ends of instrution are foregone onlusions. 't replaes habitual praties with (uestions -- a highly desirable turn of e!ents, in my !iew. Taking popular musi seriously will fore us to reogni.e the mutual reiproity of musi and ulture, the soial and politial power of musi, and in turn its profound importane in human affairs. 't will fore us to aept taste-group affiliations as ruial omponents of musial !alue, and mo!e us away from aesthetis-influened preoupation with 0works1 or 0piees1 and the supposedly inherent !alues of their Bowman, Pop Music, 2! formal or e2pressi!e features. 't will help both us and our students understand musi, in %a!ihi)s words, as an 0open *proess,) and not a losed *ob6et).1 ,I Taking popular musi seriously will mean aepting the ontraditory, the parado2ial, and the ambiguous as pedagogial assets. ?J 't will fore us to see and study musi and its meanings as soiopolitial onstruts -- bubbling, fermenting, and part of 0the ation1 at the heart of ulture -- rather than as artifats or by-produts of suh ations. Taking popular musi seriously will hange the role of the musi eduator, who an hardly presume any longer to be an authoritati!e pur!eyor of fatual insights in a field notable for its effer!esene, fluidity, polysemy, hybridity, and mutation. <hat students bring to the eduational e2periene will of neessity beome muh more entral, a fat that will arguably alter in positi!e ways what they take away as well. Taking popular musi seriously will draw into the eduational realm many students who are traditionally and urrently e2luded. Thus, whom we seek to eduate will beome a more salient issue -- one to be resol!ed in a !ariety of ways in response to di!erse loal irumstanes. Taking popular musi seriously will make the lassis the greatest musial ahie!ements of the past all the more momentous. They beome far more !ital onerns to the e2tent they are appropriately seen as part of a ontinuous, dynami musial field rather than as onstituting the whole of it. ;ather than museum piees that demand re!erent appreiation, they beome part of a broader, li!ing ulture -- ulturally !ital, !ibrant, and rih in their power to enrih here-and-now e2periene in the real world. Bowman, Pop Music, 2" Taking popular musi seriously offers to replae our notions of musi as a thing to be appreiated, understood, and respeted for its inherent (ualities with the reognition that all musis are ations that are use%ul in myriad ways. That musial !alue is inseparable from (uestions of use or funtion is an insight rih with eduational and musial impliations. 8ne of the una!oidable onse(uenes of aepting popular musi as legitimate is the reognition that !alue is always 0!alue for.1 'nherent and autonomous !alue are inspiring, but ideologially-loaded, onstruts that are designed to pri!ilege musi whose 0!alue for1 is institutionally hidden. ;eogni.ing all musial !alue as pratial !alue re(uires us to renoune the myths perpetrated by an aonte2tual, ahistorial Mantian aestheti heritage, re6eting the aloofness from e!eryday onerns that heritage has attributed to 0aestheti1 e2periene. 't has beome e2traordinarily easy in the wake of aestheti orthodo2y to take up musi making 4and teahing5 without paying attention to soial or politial ontraditions. To take popular musi seriously is to hange that, deisi!ely and irre!ersibly. Prayk obser!es that 0all musi is historially grounded in the praties of musial ommunities. 'ts assessment must be grounded in a ommunity of musiians and listeners, not in a transendental *essene).1 ?/
Taking popular musi seriously will pose diret and signifiant hallenges to our eduational obsession with things lear and distint, and to our prediletion to train rather than to eduate. ?> Training and its reliane upon narrow, tehnorati models tends to lead people to re6et what is at first loose, messy, disturbing, or ontraditory. 8ne aim of eduation should be to help people learn to ling to suh images or notions, not re6eting them out of hand but working them through7 for it is preisely in suh form that original ideas almost always first appear. 'nstrution preoupied with the so-alled pratial Bowman, Pop Music, 2# 40how-to,1 as ontrasted to ethial onerns like whether to, under what irumstanes, to what e2tent, and so on5 is assoiated with a long history of anti-intelletualism one that is hardly beoming of a !oation laiming profession status. Pirou2 reminds us that within the tehnorati tradition management issues beome more important than understanding and furthering shools as demorati publi spheres. 9ene, the regulation, ertifiation, and standardi.ation of teaher beha!ior is emphasi.ed o!er reating the onditions for teahers to undertake the sensiti!e politial and ethial roles they might assume as publi intelletuals who seleti!ely produe and legitimate partiular forms of knowledge and authority. ?,
Taking popular musi seriously would re(uire musi eduators situate suh issues at the enter of their eduational pra2is. Taking popular musi seriously would plae (uestions where musi eduation traditionally finds answers. +opular for whom? 'n what sense? 3rom what diretion? There is no inherently popular musi, no musi that is of its own 0high1 or 0low.1 't is we who make it so. #ll musi is intentionally onstruted and onstituted, and any musi has a potentially !iable laim to artisti or popular status. <e an draw ontingent distintions, but there is no inherent or durably ob6eti!e differene. Taking popular musi seriously entails that we ommit to making students less !ulnerable to the manipulati!e onsumerist strategies of what #dorno ontemptuously alls 0the ulture industry1-- helping students to beome more aware and more disriminating toward musi that seeks their ompliity in its popularity, helping inrease the popularity of lesser known musis that arguably warrant broader reognition, and Bowman, Pop Music, 3$ helping make informed hoie and musial ageny onspiuous outomes of musial instrution. 'n short, taking popular musi seriously should re(uire 4to lose with a deidedly normati!e laim5 that we as musi eduators aept as part of our eduational obligation a deliberate role in what Middleton memorably alls the 0struggle to redeem the demorati ore of *the popular.)1 ?? )onclusion Many words ha!e been de!oted here to e2ploring what popular musi is, or is not, and to the attempt to ome to grips with what it might mean for musi eduation to 0take popular musi seriously1 as ' ha!e been putting it. :ut in a way, the real (uestion we need to ask is, 9ow an we no take popular musi seriously? ?@ <hat do we teah our students when we turn our baks on the !ast ma6ority of the musial e2periene they find meaningful? <hat do we do to the field of musi when we ar!e it up into neatly dihotomous and mutually e2lusi!e pakages? #nd perhaps most importantly, what do we do to our own understanding of musi and its role in human endea!or we who purport to ha!e speial insights and assume responsibility for the eduation of the publi? 'f we are to do 6ustie to popular musi to its !itality, its omple2ity, and its legitimay as a field of human musial endea!or we must allow it to hange us. <e must allow it to ompliate our professional li!es, to enrih our understandings of musi)s nature and power, to e2tend our assumptions about whih students we presume to eduate, to broaden our !ision of the ways musi eduation an our, and to reonstrut our !iews of who musi eduators are, what they do, and how they do it. Many students we urrently fail to reah, and many of those we do reah, know a great deal more about musi than we reogni.e. They think and talk about popular musi Bowman, Pop Music, 31 intelligently, use it in all kinds of ways, and are e2traordinarily disriminating in their hoies. 'ndeed, they know a great deal of the field of musi better than we do -- powerful e!idene of our neglet. +opular musi is a powerful and influential part of the musial world to whih we are largely and omplaently obli!ious. Suh a blind spot seriously ompromises our understanding of the whole. 'n turning our baks on popular musis and all that they entail, we depri!e students of our insights while depri!ing oursel!es of theirs. There will be many who feel the musi eduation profession is inapable of the kinds of hange to whih ' ha!e alluded here, or at least ill-ad!ised to attempt it. <e must not underestimate the e2tent of the hallenge, the amount of institutional inertia to be o!erome. 8ne might e2pet the impetus for hange to arise from young musi eduators urrently entering the field, but they fae enormous pressures to onform to urrent praties, and the professional intensifiation reated by our reent infatuation with standards and standardi.ation e2erts an e2traordinarily hilling effet on large-sale hange or inno!ation. The time will ome, howe!er -- and perhaps sooner than we imagine -- when the effort re(uired to keep things as they are will surpass the effort hange entails. ' would prefer to see us lead rather than respond. / $aniel %a!ihi, 03rom the Pround Cp,1 in ,cion, -riicism, and .heory %or Music /ducaion /, no.> 4>JJ>5. #!ailable at http&NNmas.siue.eduN#%TNinde2.html. > 'f it is indeed a 0both1 with whih we are onerned here. 'n due ourse, the inade(uay of this dualisti way of thinking should beome apparent. , ;ihard Middleton, 0udyin) Popular Music 4+hiladelphia& 8pen Cni!ersity +ress, /IIJ5, ,. ? My use of the word 0unpopular1 is deliberate and appropriate in this partiular onte2t. Blsewhere in this essay, howe!er, one might well ask whether 0nonpopular1 would be the more appropriate hoie. 't seems these designations ha!e two subtly differenes& the former attributes )eneral disli1e to a musi, and the latter suggests that the musi in (uestion, whate!er its popularity in some (uarters, does not warrant inlusion in the broad ategory 0popular.1 That is, 0unpopular1 is a more negati!e designation than 0nonpopular.1 @ ;ihard Middleton alls this the 0positi!ist1 approah to defining popularity. #s Middleton obser!es, the positi!ist approah only tells us about sales, not the meaning of popularity. 0Q<Rhat it an tell us about is limited, first, to the data themsel!es, as ategori.ed, and seond to its own assumptions1 -- assumptions that attempt to sidestep popularity)s ideologial repleteness. ;ihard Middleton, 0udyin) Popular Music, A. The ontentiousness and ontestedness of popularity are ruial to its proper understanding, ' submit, and therefore to its potential eduational !alue. A 't is worth noting that e!en this top-forty approah to defining popularity is far from straight ahead. 't is not so muh a diret refletion of listeners) preferenes as of the air time distributors manage to ahie!e for their wares. E "ote that this ontrast is the !iew of the outsider, to whom other people)s musi 0all sounds the same.1 3or many who are unfamiliar with so-alled lassial musial traditions, the lassial musi field appears is narrow and preditable preisely the same laim de!otees of the lassis fre(uently make about other musis. F Theodore Prayk 4personal ommuniation5 indiates that his brother insists he 0only listens to unpopular musi1 my point being that a disdain for 0pop1 e2tends to many whom we might be otherwise inlined to onsider de!otees of popular musi. I ;ihard Shusterman, 0$on)t :elie!e the 9ype,1 in Per%ormin) 2i&e3 ,esheic ,lernai&es %or he /nds o% ,r 4'thaa, "Y& %ornell Cni!ersity +ress, >JJJ54 9ere ' must forego the temptation to argue that muh of what the "orth #merian musi eduation profession has pursued under the banner of 0aestheti eduation1 might better be desribed as 0aseti eduation.1 ' belie!e the lam an be substantiated, howe!er. Shusterman also indiates, orretly and alliterati!ely, that suh aseti idealism is 0a powerful philosophial pre6udie with a +latoni pedigree.1 See also ;ihard Shusterman, Pra)mais ,esheics3 2i&in) Beauy, 5ehin1in) ,r, 482ford& :lakwell, /II>5. /J =eonard :. Meyer, /moion and Meanin) in Music 4%hiago& Cni!ersity of %hiago +ress, /I@A5. // ' e2plore #dorno in the hapter 0Musi as Soial and +olitial 3ore,1 in my book Philosophical Perspeci&es on Music 4"ew York& 82ford Cni!ersity +ress, /IIF5. Prayk offers a !ery aessible riti(ue of #dorno)s 0hathet 6ob on popular musi1 4as Prayk harateri.es it5, as does Middleton. See Theodore Prayk, 0#dorno, Ja.., and the ;eeption of +opular Musi,1 in 5hyhm and 6oise3 ,n ,esheics o% 5oc1 4$urham, "%& $uke Cni!ersity +ress, /IIA5. See ;ihard Middleton, 0't)s #ll 8!er "ow& +opular Musi and Mass %ulture #dorno)s Theory,1 in 0udyin) Popular Music. /> ;ihard Middleton, 0udyin) Popular Music, @. /, 'bid. /? 'bid., E. 'talis in the original. /@ 'bid. /A %harles Meil and Ste!en 3eld, Music 7roo&es 4%hiago& Cni!ersity of %hiago +ress, /II?5. This ontrast maps itself niely onto the ontro!ersy within 6a.. irles o!er whether 6a.. is an art form with, among other things, a long history to be preser!ed, or whether it is a fundamentally reati!e proess. The traditionalist !iew, held by <ynton Marsalis, onflits substantially with the proessualist !iew endorsed by Meith Jarrett, +at Metheny and others. /E The words of +aul Pilroy, appropriated from a deidedly different onte2t, are far from irrele!ant here. The 0fantasy of a fro.en ulture,1 of 0fi2ing ommunal interests1 in their 0most authenti and glorious1 form, 0redues ultural traditions to the simple proess of in!ariant repetition.1 This may help to seure omforting onser!ati!e notions of traditional identity, but these 0do little 6ustie either to the fortitude or the impro!isational skills1 demanded by the omple2ities of ontemporary ultural life. <here tradition 0is understood as little more than a list of rigid rules that an be applied onsiously without attention or attention to partiular historial traditions, it is a ready alibi for authoritarianism rather than a sign of ultural !iability or ethial onfidene.1 +aul Pilroy, ,)ains 5ace3 8ma)inin) Poliical -ulure Beyond he -olor 2ine 4%ambridge, M#& 9ar!ard Cni!ersity +ress, >JJJ5 /?-/@. /F :y mass-mediated, ' mean simply 4or not so simply5 that it is mass produed and mass disseminated by tehnologial means, whih re(uires its redution from a proess to a thing 4a ommodity5. #gain, ontraditions spring to mind, howe!er. +eople)s e2periene of the entire musial field tends today to be mediated e!en their e2periene of so-alled lassial or serious musi, musi that is not originally intended or generally onsidered to be mediated. 4'n "orth #meria, for instane, most listening to lassial musi now ours in people)s automobiles. See #udiene 'nsight)s report at http&NNwww.knightfdn.orgNdefault.asp?storySresearhNulturalNonsumersegmentationNinde2.html5 't is, in other words, misleading to suggest that mediation, ommodity harater, and mass distribution are e2lusi!e or distinguishing attributes of popular musi when the same laims an now be made for the lassis, 6a.., and most musis that are not regarded as popular. /I 't tends, therefore, toward a simpliity unharateristi of notated and notation-based musial praties, though one would want hastily to add that the multidimensionality and polysemy 4multipliity of meaning5 of suh musi negate the possibility of simpliity. >J These generali.ations re(uire areful (ualifiation. Many of popular musi)s rituals are e2traordinarily elaborate and to some e2tent formal, and there is in many popular musi irles an e2traordinary amount of onern about authentiity most often e2pressed as onern about whether an artist has 0sold out1 to ommerial or other pressures. 8n the former point, ' ha!e in mind the relati!e lak of standardi.ation in popular musi endea!ors& a greater latitude in the range and type of transmission praties and range of interpreti!e orientations deployed. 8n the latter point, ' ha!e in mind the degree of hybrid stylisti ross-fertili.ation that is generally tolerated -- a degree enhaned by the relati!ely rapid rate at whih popular musi omes into and passes out of fashion. >/ 3or elaboration on the idea of embodiment and its potential impliations for our understandings of musi and musi eduation, see <ayne :owman, 0%ognition and the :ody& +erspeti!es from Musi Bduation,1 in 9nowin) Bodies, :eelin) Minds3 /mbodied 9nowled)e in ,rs /ducaion and 0choolin), ed. =iora :resler 4$ordreht, The "etherlands& Mluwer #ademi +ublishers, in press5. >> =eonard Meyer designates these parameters as 0primary,1 a mo!e that learly pri!ileges musis that prioriti.e suh formal attributes. See <ayne :owman, 0Musi as #utonomous 3orm,1 in Philosophical Perspeci&es on Music for a more detailed disussion of Meyer)s distintions between primary and seondary parameters. >, #gain, ' would argue that this is an important onsideration in most 0nonpopular1 musi as well. >? ' need to emphasi.e that a signifiant part of my relutane stems from the fat that human praties admit to 0definition1 only in !ery (ualified, speial ways. #ll one an do is take a kind of tentati!e barometri reading at a gi!en moment, and reogni.e that reading represents at best the statistial a!erage drawn from a sample with an e2traordinarily wide standard de!iation. >@ Middleton, 0udyin) Popular Music, ,,. >A $aniel %a!ihi, letter to the author 4January >J, >JJ,5. >E This statement is learly in!alid if one e(uates popularity to rele!ane and in turn gauges the eduational warrant of instrutional praties by the e2tent of their appeal to a broad onsumer base. That is a position with whih ' ha!e little sympathy, despite its pre!alene in musi eduation. >F 8n the ubi(uity of musi)s presene and influene, see Tia $e"ora, Music in /&eryday 2i%e 4%ambridge& %ambridge Cni!ersity +ress, >JJJ5. See also the essay re!iews of this book by $aniel %a!ihi 403rom the :ottom Cp15, 9ildegard 3roelih 40Takling the Seemingly 8b!ious a $aunting Task 'ndeed15, and John Shepherd 409ow Musi <orks& :eyond the 'mmanent and the #rbitrary15 published in ,cion, -riicism, and .heory %or Music /ducaion, / no.> 4>JJ>5, a!ailable at http&NNmas.siue.eduN#%TNinde2.html >I 8f ourse, this is one of the laims made for on!entional musi eduation. Cnfortunately, though, when the musial field is fened off into mutually e2lusi!e popular and serious domains, the instrutional emphasis drifts toward the supposedly 0intramusial1 determinants of musial worth found in the latter -- a mo!e that profoundly misrepresents the unified nature of the musial field and does little to enourage ritial awareness of the great ma6ority of musi that is onse(uently omitted. The point is not to replae the lassis with the popular, but to approah the entire musial field inlusi!ely and in a way that makes its ontinuity as lear as its disontinuities. ,J #lthough, ' hasten to add, killing time is one of the pragmati ends musi has always ser!ed. ' do not wish to denigrate suh ati!ity, e2ept perhaps as an eduational means or as an e2lusi!e mode of musial engagement. ' hope it goes without saying that the assumption that fans of popular musi do not really listen is largely erroneous. ,/ ' trust that the basis for my impliit distintion between eduation and shooling re(uires no e2planation. # ruial dimension of shooling that needs to be born in mind here is one that Pirou2 desribes aptly& shooling is 0a mehanism of ulture and politis, embedded in ompeting relations of power that attempt to regulate and order how students think, at, and li!e.1 9enry Pirou2, 0$oing %ultural Studies& Youth and the %hallenge of +edagogy,1 in ;ar&ard /ducaional 5e&iew 4A?&,5 >EI. ,> Prayk, 5hyhm and 6oise. ,, Milton :abbitt)s infamous artile 0<ho %ares if You =isten?1 is one e2ample that omes to mind. :ut the inreasingly esoteri and speiali.ed status of institutionali.ed 6a.. is arguably another. ,? 8n the other hand, some would argue ' think persuasi!ely that ommerial interests and onsumerism ha!e beome entral 4if o!ert5 features of eduation in apitalisti soieties. ,@ Prayk, 5hyhm and 6oise, >J@. $espite deep personal reser!ations about the use 4or mostly mis-use5 of the term 0aestheti1 by musi eduators, ' like this 6u2taposition of imagery. ,A Prayk, 5hyhm and 6oise, >J@. ,E ' owe this to Peorge 8dam, who e2pressed this profound insight almost in passing during our "CMB=S meeting in June, >JJ>. ,F Peorge 8dam ommented in our "CMB=S seminar that the unease attending disussions of popular musi feels at times like a family disussion about how to deal with a sik hildO ,I %a!ihi, 03rom the Pround Cp,1 @. ?J ' take up the ogniti!e and eduational !alue of ambiguity in <ayne :owman, 0%ognition and the :ody.1 ?/ Prayk, 5hyhm and 6oise, /E,. ?> ' pursue what it might mean to eduate musially in <ayne :owman, 0Bduating Musially,1 in .he 6ew ;andboo1 o% 5esearch on Music .eachin) and 2earnin), eds. ;ihard %olwell and %arol ;ihardson 482ford& 82ford Cni!ersity +ress, >JJ>5 A,-F?. ?, Pirou2, 0$oing %ultural Studies,1 >EF. ?? Middleton, 0udyin) Popular Music, >I,. The stage on whih this struggle must be set, he ontinues , is 0the musial mobili.ation of the *new sub6et) disontinuous but tentaular, loally rooted but a world iti.en. . .1 ?@ This was among the pro!oati!e and hallenging ritiisms raised by $aniel %a!ihi 4personal orrespondene5 in a riti(ue of an earlier draft of this essay. ' am also indebted to ;andall #llsup, ;oger Mantie, and Mristen Myers for omments and ritiisms that helped me impro!e this essay.