10/13/10 - 3 Points of Interest on Kodaly and Dalcroze

1. "In terms of rhythm, moving rhythms are more child-related than sustained ones" (pg. 10, Choksy). I think this would be common sense to most people. Even as Chosky talks about, children are used to seeing things move and they are used to walking, running, hearing their heart beat, and doing lots of things with movement. Children have a lot of energy, and they learn a lot about their outside world through touching, feeling, and experiencing what it is like to run on an incline, or roll down a hill. It is only natural that children would connect so easily to music by means of rhythm and movement. Thus I agree with Choksy that music educators need to put a lot of different moving rhythms in their lesson plans.

2. "None of the pedagogical tools or processes associated with the Kodaly method were invented by Kodaly and his colleagues" (pg. 16). This comes as a huge surprise to me. I knew that solfege dated to around the middle ages or before, but I had no idea that none of the pedagogical tools or processes came from Kodaly or his group of intellectuals. If this is the case, can Kodaly really put his name on everything that he is known for? It seems to me that he is more of a philosopher than an inventor. I understand the Kodaly philosophy and its implications for students in the classroom, but I don't understand how names get attached to tools and processes that did not originate with the so called "founder" himself.

3. "The work of Dalcroze has been recognized not only by musicians, but also by dancers, actors, therapists, and educators around the world" (pg. 46, Mead). This makes perfect sense to me. So much of Dalcroze and Eurythmics stems from the world of movement, and movement is the essential element in dance and one of the major essential elements in acting. I can understand how therapists can use the methodologies of Dalcroze too. I used to participate in "Bio-Feedback" where you can literally train your body (particularly the muscles) to relax and perform in a certain way. You can literally teach your body how to loosen up, and this decreases your anxiety. After awhile, you can guess the levels of stress you are putting on yourself, and teach your body how to counteract stress with thoughts of relaxation. But the neat thing is that your body can learn to do this automatically. It is important for educators everywhere to be aware of Dalcroze, and the teachings he promoted. They can have a great effect in many professions.

10/6/10 - 3 Points of Interest on "Together In Harmony" (pg. 9-39)

1. "Once something is experienced in the body, it is usually not forgotten" (pg. 12). I think it is amazing that the songs and musical experiences I remember most from childhood are the ones that involved some type of "body percussion" or other physical movement. One of the very first songs I learned as a child was, "If You're Happy and You Know it, Clap Your Hands!" I wouldn't be surprised if the original author of this song was an Orff educator, because they put a form of body percussion into the actual title of the song! What an amazing concept. But it's interesting that I can remember exactly where I was as a three year old when I was learning this song for the first time. I remember my teacher, the other students, the happy music, and the action of clapping, stamping, and using my head voice. Clearly, there is evidence that kinetic movement plays a huge role in helping young students to remember music.

2. "The teaching process involved in Orff Schulwerk is its greatest strength" (pg. 15). After reading these pages I learned all the things an Orff teacher needs to be trained how to do. It is amazing to me that a trained Orff teacher can look at a piece of music, automatically write an accompaniment, assign different parts to each student, and be able to teach it so naturally and quickly. I have a feeling that this type of ability must come more natural to some than others. Still, it must take a lot of practice and concentration to be able to get to the level where composing accompaniments comes automatically. As I think back to my childhood, I don't think I ever had an Orff teacher. I had classes where we used "Orff" instruments, but I was never instructed in the exact manner that they teach in this book. I'm wondering if my classmates had different experiences?

3. "Music Learning Theory advocates that students be taught songs in a wide variety of tonalities" (pg. 23). I agree with this statement, but find its inclusion somewhat superfluous. To me, this is like saying, "We advocate here that little Johnny have friends from a wide variety of racial backgrounds." Doesn't that sound ludicrous? Of course we should teach children songs from different tonalities, but we shouldn't focus our lesson plans in a way that we must include one from every mode in a given period of time. I find this to be too constricting. I also think that a mindset like this will ultimately take away from the music. Off the top of my head I can think of many wonderful songs for children, and they happen to be in four different modes. We teach the songs because they are good and because they have lasting value. We might point out that a particular song is in such and such a mode, but that should not be the focus. After all, the difference between modes is so incredibly small to begin with. Just teach them great music!