Education, Standards and Culture

[Quijote]

If I may add my last thought (and only because this discussion is becoming circular) : I do believe that education in any form cannot be a bad thing. I do think that the purely "economic function" of education to be misguided (Susanwen has alluded to this). This position is not "utopian", though you may well criticise it for its "idealism". Is there a difference? I think so; for where "utopianists" (have I coined a new word?) distinguish between "our position" and "yours", the idealists are more inclusive.

[Quijote]

Above was my last thought, but not my last comment. I would like to talk about "falling standards" (which is not at all the same issue).
I teach harmony at University. I have to say that the general level of musical culture does seem to be slipping, by which I mean many of my students do not know the standard W.A.M. (western art music) repertoire (e.g. the Eroica Symphony - many of my students have never heard this work, to name but one). On the other hand, they seem to be much more au fait with early-to-late 20th works. Is it a bad thing?
The problem is, they want a "quick" degree, meaning they want their degree (for the minimum input) in order to go and get a job (to be teachers, to be performers, to be critics, to be whatever they can do to earn a living). Are we producing "rounded" musicians? In my course I have conservatoire students (great technical exécutants [superb "robots", if you will], but ignorant of any historico-contextual "depth" to the music). What should I do? Educate them for the "depth" (no job for that), or help them "streamline" their cursus for maximum job prospection?

[Quijote]

I suppose the point I am struggling to make is this : do we train for a job, or do we train for something more? Does the "more" have an economic raison d'être? Why do I teach harmony in the style of Bach chorales and the string quartets of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven? Does it have any practical application? Clearly, to understand the "classical" repertoire it is essential to study harmony. Is it helpful for music from the 1950s onwards?
I remember once a student asking me what was the purpose of teaching "classical" harmony and counterpoint. He asked that if we studied English literature was it essential to learn (and master and copy, as "pastiche") the writing styles of an earlier age? Should we be able (as students studying for an English degree) to "write" something in the style of Keats, WS, Dickens, whoever? Should we bother? What would be your answer?

[Quijote]

And now, really my last comment : I remember in another thread ("Stop, Prepare, Cage" I think it was, but I'm not sure) Peter called for a renaissance. We never really got to the bottom of that. In terms of musical education, I think that is a subject worth pursuing, as we are in great need of an "overhaul" in terms of our aims and expectations.
Thank you for your attention.
Philip

[Bonn1827]

It would be nice to be able to accuse you of being too cynical and pessimistic, however I'm afraid you are spot on. No better example is needed of the truth of your remarks than the upcoming Delhi games upon which billions have been spent. Billions that could have helped the millions of desperately poor has been sidetracked to host this obscenity which will meet with accolades and praise around the world. The poor will be hidden away and forgotten whilst the media glory in the athletes and the obscene money they earn.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/michael...nomic-disaster

I'm afraid I have to disagree about your pessimistic sentiments, Peter! I agree about the Delhi games and the profligate waste of money (interesting, isn't it, that the locals aren't patronizing the games - seats are empty!). There is much wrong with the world, as you suggest but, ultimately, pessimism and cynicism erode one's own quality of life. I prefer to focus on beautiful things and people: in fact, I've made it a philosophy that I only want to be surrounded by these things from now on! The world has always been a heaven or a hell: if you are a Christian then you understand the consequences of The Fall. Truly philanthropic people are positive, not negative, I find.

[Preston]

I'm afraid I have to disagree about your pessimistic sentiments, Peter! I agree about the Delhi games and the profligate waste of money (interesting, isn't it, that the locals aren't patronizing the games - seats are empty!). There is much wrong with the world, as you suggest but, ultimately, pessimism and cynicism erode one's own quality of life. I prefer to focus on beautiful things and people: in fact, I've made it a philosophy that I only want to be surrounded by these things from now on! The world has always been a heaven or a hell: if you are a Christian then you understand the consequences of The Fall. Truly philanthropic people are positive, not negative, I find.

Peter's comments are very factual and good, and spot on. I believe Peter was being truthful by not denying the current state of the world. While, you are being much too optimistic, , imo. Yes, I agree, negativity can have a serious effect on one's life- though, for many good-hearted people it is impossible to find happiness, because the state of the world. The key point you are missing, to my mind, is the meaning behind- all for one and one for all?

As for "The Fall"- that is rubbish. Evolution has proven time and time again that there is no possibility for such things. That, and do you really believe that this Earth used to be a place of purity? What a lack of understanding that thought has. Do you think the fate of all souls rested in the hands of two people, as The Bible says? Do you realize our galaxy is one of billions upon billions located in one universe- and there are a next to infinite amount of universes? Meaning, that there are literally 100's of billions of other solar systems in our galaxy alone. Meaning that many of the solar systems in our galaxy support other life, cultures, belief systems, religions, etc.

[Preston]

But what can be done?? We have had too many examples of governments 'doing things' that resulted in the totalitarianism of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. I'm afraid it is the Human condition and until those who feel content with tens of millions (billions) in their bank accounts whilst others starve change, those of us with a conscience about such things have to accept it. I've yet to hear a 'celebrity' (especially those who hypocritically preach on such issues) condemn the amount they and their associates earn and the adoring masses see nothing wrong in it either.

Peter, sadly I would almost say nothing can be done, though I do not know that for sure. I agree, the last thing we need are the governments trying to tell us what is best for us. Though, either way there will always be terrible suffering somewhere out there happening to something. Sadly, the universe we live in is a universe where suffering is all too common.

[Chris]

As for "The Fall"- that is rubbish. Evolution has proven time and time again that there is no possibility for such things.

What? That's nonsense.

and there are a next to infinite amount of universes?

We have no proof whatsoever of any universe except our own.

Do you realize that many of the solar systems in our galaxy support other life, cultures, belief systems, religions, etc.?

We have no evidence of any other planet, anywhere, that contains any life, intelligent or otherwise. Nor do we even have evidence of other planets that could potentially support life.

Really, you've gone off the deep end a bit here.

[Preston]

Really, you've gone off the deep end a bit here.

Sorry, I got carried away with my opinions. It is a very touchy subject for me, and I let it out.

What? That's nonsense.

I do not believe Earth nor this universe has ever been pure, based on the elements that it was created from and the elements that are on it.

We have no proof whatsoever of any universe except our own.

I am a firm believer in parellel universes or multiverses.

We have no evidence of any other planet, anywhere, that contains any life, intelligent or otherwise. Nor do we even have evidence of other planets that could potentially support life.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...pport-life.ars
I am also a firm believer, as many scientists are, that there are over 100 billion solar systems that support life in this galaxy alone.

I apologize Chris. I will try not to let it happen again.

[Bonn1827]

I suppose the point I am struggling to make is this : do we train for a job, or do we train for something more? Does the "more" have an economic raison d'être? Why do I teach harmony in the style of Bach chorales and the string quartets of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven? Does it have any practical application? Clearly, to understand the "classical" repertoire it is essential to study harmony. Is it helpful for music from the 1950s onwards?
I remember once a student asking me what was the purpose of teaching "classical" harmony and counterpoint. He asked that if we studied English literature was it essential to learn (and master and copy, as "pastiche") the writing styles of an earlier age? Should we be able (as students studying for an English degree) to "write" something in the style of Keats, WS, Dickens, whoever? Should we bother? What would be your answer?

Philip, I remember asking you the same question a few months back. I suggested that, like Latin, classical harmony was a "dead" language. But, thinking again, I guess you could argue that Shakespearean language is also "dead" but this is part of academe as much today as ever before (if not high school). The utilitarian/humanities dichotomy of university education ultimately becomes a discussion about culture and personal preference. The job imperative deprives many students of the rich education provided by humanities but, it can be argued, that is something to which they are always free to return. (I use the word "free" only in the libertarian sense). I used to go to a dentist who had a BAHons as well as a Dental degree. He used to talk to me, whilst I was "a captive in a chair" about Shakespeare, Donne, Marvell, Spenser, Milton etc. etc. I had to spit out the cotton wadding on some occasions in order to contribute to the "discussion"!! My nieces and nephew (on my husband's side) all are high-flying doctors (specialist) and lawyers, but their parents insisted they each do a BA(Hons) to accompany the professional degrees!! It took the Obstetrician and Gynaecologist 10 years to get her qualifications but she's a fantastically well-rounded individual! I think one should follow one's heart when it comes to education!!

[Chris]

I do not believe Earth nor this universe has ever been pure, based on the elements that it was created from and the elements that are on it.

That really depends on your definition of purity. I find the elements and the particles which make them up to be astonishingly pure. But none of this relates to the biblical variety of purity anyway.

I am a firm believer in parellel universes or multiverses.

That's fine, but you do so with a complete lack of justification.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...pport-life.ars

Yes, I saw that some time ago. Notice all the "mays" and "mights" in there. They haven't discovered an earth-like planet. They've discovered something that isn't immediately disqualified from being an earth-like planet. People get excited about these things, and understandably so, but we're a long way from actually being able to say we have found one. But we are getting off topic. Perhaps cosmology would be interesting subject for another thread?

[Peter]

I'm afraid I have to disagree about your pessimistic sentiments, Peter! I agree about the Delhi games and the profligate waste of money (interesting, isn't it, that the locals aren't patronizing the games - seats are empty!). There is much wrong with the world, as you suggest but, ultimately, pessimism and cynicism erode one's own quality of life. I prefer to focus on beautiful things and people: in fact, I've made it a philosophy that I only want to be surrounded by these things from now on! The world has always been a heaven or a hell: if you are a Christian then you understand the consequences of The Fall. Truly philanthropic people are positive, not negative, I find.

You are right in that the only way to get through life is with a positive attitude but this is difficult as we are surrounded by so much negativity. I would sum it up by saying I'm right about the state of things, but you are right about how to deal with it.

[Peter]

What? That's nonsense.



We have no proof whatsoever of any universe except our own.



We have no evidence of any other planet, anywhere, that contains any life, intelligent or otherwise. Nor do we even have evidence of other planets that could potentially support life.

Really, you've gone off the deep end a bit here.

That we have no proof of life on other planets is no more of an argument than saying there is no proof of God's existence. With the billions of suns out there surrounded by trillions of planets it would be foolish to deny the possibility of life elsewhere.

[Peter]

I suppose the point I am struggling to make is this : do we train for a job, or do we train for something more? Does the "more" have an economic raison d'être? Why do I teach harmony in the style of Bach chorales and the string quartets of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven? Does it have any practical application? Clearly, to understand the "classical" repertoire it is essential to study harmony. Is it helpful for music from the 1950s onwards?
I remember once a student asking me what was the purpose of teaching "classical" harmony and counterpoint. He asked that if we studied English literature was it essential to learn (and master and copy, as "pastiche") the writing styles of an earlier age? Should we be able (as students studying for an English degree) to "write" something in the style of Keats, WS, Dickens, whoever? Should we bother? What would be your answer?

My answer would be that we learn from the past. There is a terrible dismissal of the past as irrelevant but with that outlook today's generation should reflect on their own futile existence in the eyes of tomorrow's world. I know that my greatest musical pleasures would be denied me if it only began in 1950.

[Chris]

That we have no proof of life on other planets is no more of an argument than saying there is no proof of God's existence. With the billions of suns out there surrounded by trillions of planets it would be foolish to deny the possibility of life elsewhere.

Those aren't really comparable things. Proof has been at least offered for God's existence, both in the abstract philosophical sense and in the direct sense. There are people who claim that God came here in person, taught them things, and gave them commands. They committed these things to writing and testified to their truth through their own deaths. Whether you find that convincing or not, it's at least there for consideration.

Life on other planets, however, is pure speculation. We don't even know that there are trillions of exoplanets out there. To date we have identified less than 500, and even those not directly, but inferred from their believed effects on other things (effects which we don't even fully understand yet). Even if there are such a large number of exoplanets, that must be balanced against the probably that they can support life and that, even if they can, life will arise at all, which is remote in the extreme. Physicists will tend to argue from the vast amount of stuff out there, while biologists will tend to argue the other side due to the complexity of what must occur. And unfortunately, even if life out there was a certainty, the odds of us ever finding one another are almost nonexistent. The more likely value of exoplanets that can support life is that we could colonize them.