Steven Vereb

Music In The Elementary School

1. The authors state that general music "remains somewhat amorphous
and problematic in both theory and practice" (Abril & Gault, 2016, p. 5)
and then go on to elaborate. In what ways do the authors demonstrate
the "amorphous and problematic" nature of general music (give
specific reference to the text)? What are your thoughts about general
music (recollections, interests, values, beefs, etc.)?
Abril and Gault believe general music is amorphous because, as they
quote Reimer (2003, p. 6), there is deep uncertainty of what the program
should consist of. In addition, they highlight the fact there is such a wide
range of principles/beliefs toward student learning and yet minimal
oversight of and accountability for student learning (Abril & Gault, 2016, p.
6). From what I recall about my general music experience, it was mostly
singing. I agree the term general is problematic because it suggests
generality over detail, depth, and specificity (Abril & Gault, 2016, p. 6). That
qualifier has connotations toward the pedestrian and does not help align the
different viewpoints of administrators, teachers, students, and parents. I
really enjoy the breadth of activities and roles general music has to offer.
Students are engaging with music so much more with technology, and they
are passively experiencing music in more ways than they may realize.
General music has the opportunity to create a relationship with music that
goes past the four years someone rented a horn.
2. What are your concerns and feelings regarding the terms "approach,"
"Method," and "eclecticism" as it relates to general music? How
important do you think it is to know "what was" and "what is" in order
to "pave the way for what can be" (Abril & Gault, 2016, p. 19)? What
do you think a general music teacher needs to know with regards to
methods to be "efficient and effective"?
My concern with these terms is that I will mix them up or mislabel the
authors distinctions. Approach sounds a lot more like a philosophy toward
something, and I would be inclined to use them interchangeably? Method
and eclecticism both make sense, but the distinction between method
(little m) and approach is difficult. I remember, in Jorgensens
Transforming Music Education, her comments about a this-with solution
rather than either/or or both/and. Lowell Masons quote reminded me of
Jorgensens when he said the best teachers will not be confined to any
particular previously laid out plan, but will from the different methods make
out one of his own (p. 19). Mason and Jorgensens quotes stand out in
showing me the importance of knowing what was/is in order to pave the
way for what can be. ONE method alone will probably not be vertically
integrated to fit all of a students needs. NO method, without further

application INTO the lives of younger generations will integrate. A general

music teacher needs to know the scope of how general the curriculum is.
Where it starts and where it ends. A general music teacher also needs to
know the history of general music methods (what was), the
background/experiences of their students (what is), and the goal of their
class in order to from the different methods make out one of his own
(Mason, p. 19).
3. Pose at least 2 questions that you might ask a current or future peer in
order to start a discussion related to the contents of this chapter.
In what areas of the national standards do you think we are
underachieving? Overachieving? What standard would you want changed or
added?
How would you shape a curriculum for more student agency? In what
ways could you relate to their musical lives/identities more?