Why have a philosophy
of music education?
AN UNDERLYING PREMISE
This book is based 011 a single, fundamental premise that must be stated
a t the outset because everything t h a t follows is designed to explain its
meaning and its applicability. The premise is that the essential nature and
value of music education are determined by the nature and value of the a r t
of music. Other important determinants, such as the growth stages
through which children pass, the functions of education in our society, and
the inany ways teachers teach and students learn, apply equally to all
school subjects. The special character of music education is a function of
the special character of the a r t ofmusic itself. To the degree we can present
a convincing explanation of the nature of the a r t of music and the value of
music in the lives of people, to that degree we can present a convincing picture of the nature of music education and its value for human life.
The branch of philosophy concerned with questions of the nature and
value of the arts is called "aesthetics." This book, therefore, will deal
primarily with aesthetics (musical aesthetics in particular) but in a manner that applies concepts from aesthetics directly to the context of music
education. This is certainly not the only possible approach to the formulation of a music education philosophy. Music and all the arts are multidimensional, and each dimension has implications for an understanding
2
I
l1
Ill
l
1
~
~ll
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
Why have aphilosophy of nnlusic education?
Why have a philosophy o f music education?
of their nature and value. For example, psycho]ogists are interested in the
mechanisms, as
arts in a variety of ways-as a means to study
expressions ofthe unconscious, a s a tool for therapy, and so on. Sociologists
and anthropologists look to the arts for insights they offer about a variety
of social system phenomena such a s attitude formation, socioeconomic
class differences in utilization of the arts, cultural beliefs a s embodied in
ceremonies using the arts, and so on. Historians have still another interest, viewing works of a r t a s documents that give useful information about
how people behaved in the past.
These and many other viewpoints about the arts are useful and necessary and illuminating. But none deals with the essential qualities of the
arts in and ofthemselves-the very qualities that the branch ofphilosophy
called aesthetics attempts to explain. Aesthetics is the study of that about
a r t which is the essence of a r t and that about people which has throughout
history caused them to need a r t a s an essential part ofthelr lives. So among
all the disciplines of thought that are interested in the arts, aesthetics is
the one devoted to an explanation of their intrinsic nature. That is why it
is so important for music educators to understand some basic concepts in
aesthetics, and how to apply them effectively in their teaching.
LIMITATIONS OF ANY PHILOSOPHY
It would be presumptuous in the extreme to imply that any philosophy, the
present one included, can be taken to be a statement "for all time." Music
education, a s everything else, changes with time, so that a philosophy
which is convincing a t one time is likely to be regarded a s primarily of historical interest a t another. The record of change in philosophies must be
gleaned from representative writings over the years: unfortunately there
have been few if any books devoted entirely to systematic statements of
music education philosophy. As one studies the changes in concepts about
music education in history, i t becomes impossible to entertain the notion
that any single philosophy can be more than transient. This state of affairs
keeps would-be philosophers humble (a most salutary condition), but it
does not relieve them of the obligation to articulate the underlying beliefs
of the time in which they live.
Above and beyond the effect of time and the changes time brings is
the matter of the variability of beliefs a t any one time in history. I t is a
truism that people differ in opinions about music education and that these
differences always have and always will exist. But the fact that no
philosophy will ever win total assent by all music educators does not
remove the necessity for reasoned, careful, systematic statements which
help make the field more understandable to all who are involved with it.
A philosophy, then, must be conceived a s being "of a time," and must also
3
give recognition to the fact that i t can only provide a point of departure for
practitioners of that time.
And yet, having acknowledged the inherent limitations of any
philosophy it must be maintained that some philosophy-some underlying
set of beliefs about the nature and value of one's field-is required if one
is to be effective a s a professional and if one's profession is to be effective
a s a whole. Indeed, a continuing need of the profession is a statement of
philosophy which captures the sense of where the profession stands and
where it is going and which provides a common point of reference from
which new and differing ideas can spring. And while the little word " A in
the title of this book indicates that the philosophy to be offered is a particular philosophy (it is not, to be very explicit, offered a s The philosophy
ofmusic education), the writer believes that it does indeed capture the selfimage of the profession a s it h a s evolved a t this point in history. Given the
conditions of changing beliefs and differing beliefs, it still remains possible
to characterize the general state of beliefs a t particular times. There exists a t present an extremely high level of agreement about t h e nature of
music and music education among those who have given serious thought
to this matter. What the profession seems to require a t the moment is not
persuasion about any particular philosophy, but continued refinement and
careful application of the commonly held but imperfectly applied beliefs
now current.
THE NEED FOR A PHILOSOPHY
The need for a philosophy exists a t both the collective and individual levels.
First, the profession a s a whole needs a set of beliefs which can serve to
guide the efforts of the group. The impact the profession can make on
society depends in large degree on the quality of the profession's understanding of what it h a s to offer which might be of value to society. There
is a continuing need for a better understanding of the value of music and
of the teaching and learning of music. An uncomfortable amount of defensiveness, of self-doubt, of grasping a t straws which seem to offer bits and
pieces of self-justification, exists now in music education a n d has always
seemed to exist. It would be difficult to find a field so active, so apparently healthy, so venerable in age and widespread in practice, which is a t the
same time so worried about its inherent value.
The tremendous expenditure of concern about how to justify itself-both
to itself and to others-which has been traditional in this field, reflects a lack
of philosophical "inner peace." What a shame this is. For, a s will be made clear
in this book, justification for teaching and learning music exists at the very
deepest levels of human value. Until music education understands what it
genuinely has to offer, until it is convinced of the fact that it i s a necessary
2
4.
z
- 0
rt"
6
~
Why have a philosophy of music education?
Why have aphilosophy of music education?
7
I
~'
1
~
I
I
commitment of people into a dedication and commitment to music education.
serves for the
All t h a t h a s been said about the purposes a
music educator in training applies a s well to the music educator in service.
No matter how long one h a s been a professional, the need ;or self-understanding and self-esteem exists. In some ways these needs become more
complex with time, a s professional duties, responsibilities, problems, become more complex. For the veteran music educator (and some would
e
year of teaching qualifies the music educator
argue t h a t s u ~ i v i n g t h first
a s "veteran"), a goal is needed which focuses efforts toward scmethingmore
satisfying than another concert, more meaningful than a r o t h e r contest,
more important than another class, broader than another lesson or meeting or budget or report. All these obligations and pleasures need to head
somewhere. They need to be viewed a s the necessary carryilg out in practice of a n end which transcends each of them-which adds to each of one's
duties a purpose deep enough and large enough to make all of them
worthwhile. I t becomes progressively more difficult, very often, for the
professional to see beyond the increasing number of trees to the forest
which includes all of them. Without the larger view, without a sense of the
inherent value of one's work, i t is very easy to begin to operate a t the level
of daily problems with little regard for their larger context. Inevitably a n
erosion of confidence takes place, in which immediate concerns never seem
to mean very much. Having lost a sense of purpose which was perhaps not
very strong to begin with, teachers begin to doubt their value a s professionals and a s individuals.
The inspiring, rejuvenating, joyful nature of music itself is a strong
barrier to loss of concern among those who deal with i t professionally. This
is one of the major benefits ofbeing a music educator. But fortunate a s this
is, a set of beliefs which explains very clearly the reasons fc~rthe power of
music remains necessary if the music educator is to function a s more than
a technician. Too often beliefs about music and arguments for its importance have been a t the level of the obvious, with the secret hope t h a t if one
justified music education by appeals to easily understood, facile arguments, its "deeper" values would somehow prevail. J u s t what these deeper
values a r e usually remains a mystery, b u t they a r e sensed. So one plugs
along, using whatever arguments t u r n up to bolster oneself in one's own
and others' eyes, trusting t h a t all will turn out well in the end. But a s time
goes along, for the individual and for the profession as a whole, i t becomes
less and less possible to be sustained by hazy hopes. A time for candor
presents itself, when the question can no longer be avoided: "Just what is
it about my work t h a t really matters?"
The function of a professional philosophy is to answer that question.
A good answer should be developed while a person is preparing to enter
the profession. If not, any time i s better than no time. If the answer is a
good one i t will serve to pull together thoughts about the fundamental nature and value of one's professional efforts in a way which allows for these
thoughts to grow and change with time and experience. I t is not possible
for a philosophy to serve such a purpose if the effort to accomplish the fundamental is based on the superficial. A strong philosophy m u s t illuminate
the deepest level of values in one's field. At this level one can find not only
professional fulfillment, b u t the personal fulfillment which is a n outgrowth
of being a secure professional.
The final reason for the importance of a convincing professional
is t h e fact t h a t everything music educators do in their jobs carries out in practice their beliefs about their subject. Every time a choice is
made a belief is applied. The music teacher, a s every other professional,
makes hundreds of small and large choices every day, each one based on
a decision t h a t one thing rather t h a n another should be done. The quality
of these decisions depends directly on the quality of the teacher's understanding of the nature of the subject. The deeper this understanding, the
more consistent, the more focused, the more effective become the teacher's
choices. Teachers who lack a clear understanding of their subject can only
make choices by hunch and by hope, these being a reflection of the state of
their beliefs. Music teachers who have forged a philosophy based on a probing analysis of the nature of music can act with confidence, knowing t h a t
whatever they choose to do will be in consonance with the values of the a r t
they represent.
PHILOSOPHY AND ADVOCACY
A great deal of confusion exists a s to the function of a philosophy in the
realm of support seeking a t the school-community-state-national levels;
t h a t is, a t the level of policy or advocacy. The function of advocacy is to
make the strongest possible case for the need for music education to
school administrators or to school boards or to parents and other citizens
who will be voting on school funding issues or to the great variety of other
constituencies whose support or lack thereof will determine t h e health
of music programs in American schools. Should a philosophy present the
kind of arguments t h a t would convince influential people to give music
education the backing i t would like to have?
A good answer would be "yes and no." At the "yes" level a philosophy
should provide a profession with a sense of its most important purposes,
SO t h a t any specific arguments i t offers for community support can be
based on a foundation t h a t h a s been built with care and built to last. At
the "no" level a philosophy devoted to providing a wide range of debating
points t h a t could be used in all the contexts in which the goal is to win
8
1
1
II
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
Why have a philosophy o f music education?
the argument- t h a t is, to gain whatever benefit i s being sought from
whatever person or group in whatever situation-could only be a
philosophy so diverse a n d so superficial a s to be useless philosophically.
This is because t h e task of philosophy is fundamentally different
from t h e task of advocacy, however related t h e two m u s t be. ~ h i l o s o p h y
strives to get below all the many reasons t h a t might be given for the importance of a subject to t h a t reason underlying them all-that essential,
singular, unifying concept t h a t identifies the subject a s being both unique
and necessary. To t h e extent a philosophy is able to explain corlvincingly
how a subject offers values unattainable in any other subjects, to t h a t extent it establishes t h a t the subject must be available in education if those
values a r e to be available. And to t h e extent a philosophy i s able to establish t h a t the values it uniquely offers are necessary for all people, to t h a t
extent it h a s demonstrated t h a t t h e subject is essential in public education. Until those two arguments have been made-the argument for uniqueness and t h e argument for necessity-the philosophical endeavor is
incomplete or faulty. In a t t e m p t i n g to establish "first causes," a
philosophy cannot be satisfied with t h e myriad secondary causes t h e subject might also serve because all such secondary reasons are either (1)not
unique to the subject, or (2) not necessary for all people.
A11 unique, necessary subjects, music included, offer a great variety
of secondary values. Some of these values, while not unique, are nevertheless desirable for all. For example, it is beneficial t h a t performance
groups offer a n opportunity for students to involve themsslves with others
in a common cause, because doing so can be a very positive life experience.
But such a n experience can be gained in a great many other school subjects and activities: i t is not necessary to have music for this. Hundreds
of values of this sort have been claimed for music-values t h a t are indeed
desirable for all students but which can be just a s well if not significantly better served by many other involvements. If such reasons are all music
education h a s to offer, i t can never be regarded a s a n essential subject in
the schools because all these reasons establish clearly t h a t music education h a s nothing to offer t h a t is unique to music education.
On the other side of this issue, some values a r e c l a ~ m e dfor music in
education on the basis t h a t they a r e unique to music b u t a r e not necessary for all people. These values have to do primarily with t h e development of musical talent. (Chapter Five will discuss the idea of talent a s
intelligence.) The argument is made t h a t some students have very high
levels of this special kind of ability and t h a t for their sake, to allow them
to become all they a r e capable of becoming a s individuals, and for society's
sake, which needs to have the contributions of excellent artists, the talents
of these people m u s t be discovered a n d carefully nurtured. h h s i c
educators a r e professionally equipped to identify students with unusual
talent a n d can offer experiences to foster their growth.
Why have aphilosc~phyof music cducafion?
9
This argument is unassailable. I t is so clearly true a n d so compelling
in importance t h a t few if any people would dare dispute it. The problem
with it, of course, i s t h a t i t applies to very few people. Musical talent, like
any other h u m a n ability, is randomly distributed: we can be confident t h a t
if we plotted i t accurately i t would form a normal curve. Only a tiny percentage of people at t h e very tail end of the curve have sufficient talent to
become t h e professional performers, conductors, composers, teachers,
scholars, t h a t society needs a n d can provide for. We m u s t have those
people. B u t we do not need to have music programs in t h e public schools
to get them.
Most nations in t h e world train their talented young people outside
of t h e general education system, in special schools devoted to such purposes. T h a t is the most cost-efficient way to do it. Debates about the improvement ofAmerican education have raised t h e issue of whether schools
should be expectred to do everything. Should not the schools devote themselves to those aspects of education necessary for all, those being considered t h e "basic" subjects, and let the special needs of small groups of
students be handled in a variety of ways t h e community can provide outside t h e school setting? If schools continue to make those special offerings
available, is i t not reasonable to regard them a s easily dispensable when
times get tough a n d money becomes scarce? And i s i t not also reasonable
to regard t h e special subjects, and t h e teachers of them, a s frills rather
t h a n basics in education, so t h a t support of t,hem is contingent on
generosity rather t h a n necessity?
Music education in America h a s been very lucky t h a t for historical
and cultural reasons t h e answer generally given to these questions h a s
been only "maybe" rather than "of course." But who would choose to live a
professional life under t h e cloud of t h a t "maybe," which can so easily become and h a s too often become "of course"? I t is because we do live under
t h a t cloud t h a t we are a s insecure a n d defensive a s we are. We deserve better. For, a s i t happens, music a n d t h e a r t s a r e unique in t,he values they
offer, a n d these values a r e so fundamental to any notion of the good life a s
to be unquestionable in their necessity.
The business of a professional philosophy is to substantiate t h a t
claim. The business of policy or advocacy is to translate a philosophy into
terms understandable to and convincing for a great variety of influential
publics, each of which h a s a particular set of issues it i s concerned about
a n d a particular bias toward those issues reflecting the belief t h a t those
issues are t h e really important ones. School boards, for example, view the
world through a particular set of lenses. PTA groups have a somewhat different set. State legislatures have still another, a s do athletic program enthusiasts and "back to basics" champions a n d "save money a t all costs"
campaigners a n d "raise test scores" partisans and on and on a n d on in this
culture made of countless special interest groups.
10
Why hacw a philosophy o f nzusic education?
Arguments to such groups must be a t least to some extent tailor
made. It would be disastrous strategically to be so rigidly tied to the level
of depth philosophy that arguments adapted to and relevant for the special interests of a particular group could not be presented. That would be
to deify philosophy rather than to build on philosophy. Good policy advocates-that is, good politicians-are able to remain true to an underlying
philosophy while a t the same time addressing issues a t a level of specificity
and in a context of limited interests t h a t must go beyond what a philosophy
can or should deal with. The politicians we respect, and need, are the ones
who can make broad-ranging arguments appropriate to a variety of special interests by choosing wisely among all the primary and secondary
claims attaching to our subject. Such politicians never betray their subject
by making claims so outrageously unrelated to the fundamental values of
music a s to embarrass the musicians and music educators they are supposed to serve. People who do so are politicians only in the worst sense of
that word, and the effect they have is to weaken music education by
dishonoring that which we most deeply believe. But that kind of political
sham is not necessary. There are plenty of ways to wheel and deal in the
world of school politics without demeaning one's integrity or the integrity
of one's subject.
That is why the ongoing debate within music education a s to whether
we should make the case for our value on artistic bases or utilitarian bases
is so fruitless and so self-defeating. It is never a case of one or the other.
Philosophy a s such, unadapted to political considerations, is seldom sufficient a t the level of politics, while political arguments ungrounded in a
philosophy or that do violence to a philosophy are dangerous. The question
for effective advocacy is always how to balance philosophical honesty with
practical efficacy, and this is never an easy question to answer. I t requires
people who understand the basic values of music education deeply yet are
sensitive to the many other concerns held by various nonmusic constituencies. Recognizing this, we can end the tiresome, inappropriate pitting
against each other of two dimensions that must be used to support each
other. And we can get on with the work of building a philosophy t h a t establishes the primary values of music education so that the secondary
values have a leg to stand on.
THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS FOR PRACTICE
The same relationship that exists between philosophy and advocacy exists
between philosophy and practice; that is, practice must be grounded in a
secure philosophy but must go beyond it in countless specific ways. Teacher
Why have a philosophy of music education?
11
,ducation programs consist largely of training in the practice of music
education-methods courses, conductingcourses, student teaching, and so
A]] these are absolutely necessary, of course, but usually do not
coalesce; they remain scattered in bits and pieces of skills and techniques
and methodologies t h a t continue to be scattered even when a student
graduates and becomes a teacher. What is lacking in all this practical
material is a center that holds everything together. A lack of a unifying
core is felt deeply a t the psychological level by many music educators who
are able to function acceptably in specific practices but who have a sense
of emptiness inside because the specifics do not add up to a meaningful
When the tremendous amount of energy it takes to be an effective
music educator is not being fueled from a concentrated source of inner
power, it begins to wane, feeding on itself and dissipating in endless but
uncoordinated activity.
A philosophy provides the unifying power for the energies of music
education a t all levels of practice. As mentioned previously, each choice a
teacher makes a s a professional should carry out in practice a belief about
the value of what is being taught. What are good objectives for a music
program? What are good objectives for a particular rehearsal or class session? What should be said about a piece being listened to on a recording?
How should one guide a student to finish a piece he or she is composing?
How should one give evidence that learning is occurring? Which method
should be usedfor a beginning instrunlentalist? What should the choir sing
for the next concert? How much time should be given to marchingband activities? Which elementary textbooks should be adopted? On and on the
decisions go, a t every level from the most general to the most specific.
Without a dependable source of beliefs about what is genuinely valuable
in these and the thousands of other matters that must be decided, there is
simply no way to make sense of teaching.
That source cannot be found among the secondary values of music or
music education. I t must be sought in a concept about what is of ultimate
value about our a r t and the teaching of it. As it happens, such a concept
has been formulated over a period of several decades and has been given
added impetus in recent years by a variety of contributions from psychology and philosophy and educational theory. Put simply, it is that music
and the other arts are a basic way that humans know themselves and their
world; they are a basic mode of cognition. The older idea, prevalent since
the Renaissance, that knowing consists only of conceptual reasoning, is
giving way to the conviction that there are many ways humans conceive
reality, each of them a genuine realm of cognition with its own validity and
'ts unique characteristics. We know the world through the mode of conceptual rationality, indeed, but we also know it through the aesthetic mode
and several other cognitive modes now beingrecognized, such a s the interPersonal, the intuitive, the narrativelparadigmatic, the formal, the practi-
Why have aphilosophy of n~usiceducation?
cal, and the spiritiial, according to one recent attempt to map this newly
1
explored terrain.
Further, the older notion that human intelligence is unitary, being
exclusively a manifestation of the level of ability to reason conceptually a s
measured by I.Q. tests, is also undergoing a profound revolution. The idea
now gaining currency is t h a t intelligence exists in several domains, such
a s the linguistic, the musical, the logical-mathematical, the spatial, the
bodily kinesthetic, the interpersonal, and the intrapersonal, a s proposed
in one recent influential study.2 The argument is being advanced that a n
education system focused exclusively or predomir~antlyon one mode of cognition-the conceptual, and which recognizes only conceptual forms of intelligence a s being valid, is a system so narrow in focus, so limited i n scope,
so unrealistic about what humans can know and the ways humans function intelligently, a s to be injurious and even dehumanizing in its effects
on the children and the larger society it is supposed to serve."
These burgeoning ideas allow music education to affirm, with great
courage, with great hope, with great relief, that i t must be conceived as all
the great disciplines of the human mind are conceived-as a basic subject
with its unique characteristics of cognition and intelligence, t h a t must be
offered to all children if they are not to be deprived of its values. This affirmation h a s the power to strengthen the teaching and learning of music
and the arts in the schools. At one stroke i t establishes music and its sister
a r t s a s anlong the essential realms of education, prescribes the direction
music education must take if it is to fulfill its unique educational mission,
gives the profession a solid philosophical grounding, and provides the hope
t h a t the arts in education will play a far more important role for society in
the future than they have in the past.
The philosophy offered in this book will explain the inner workings
of music upon which these claims can be built. I t will also attempt to bridge
the gap between philosophy and practice by suggesting, a t the level of
general principles, how music education can be effective in bringing the
unique, essential values of this a r t to all students. Chapter Two will explain the position to be taken a s to the special cognitive status of music
and the arts: that which humans know from a r t that isknowable only from
art. Chapters Three through Seven will explore how this knowledge is
produced and shared. Chapters Eight and Nine will offer guidelines for
effective practice in the general music and performance aspects of the
l~':llio~
W. ICisner, ed., Learrcing ur;d 'IhachirLgllle \Vws ofKr(r,owing(Chicago: National
Socicty for t h c S t u d y of ICduc;~tion,8 4 t h Y c a ~ h o o kP, a r t 11,1985).
' ~ o w a r dGnrdncr, lkiarnrls of itfind: The 77~eoryof Mrrlliplc I n l ~ l l i g c n c e s(Ncw York:
Hasic Books, 1983).
' o r a n cxccllcnt discussion of Lhis point, scc Elliot W. Icisncr, Cogniliorl a n d C'rtrricut'um (Ncw York: Longman, 1982).
Why haue aphilosophy of music education?
13
music program. Chapter Ten will raise the issue of a possible new future
for music education a s p a r t of a larger a r t s education endeavor.
Throughout, the methods of philosophical work will be employed-critical
analysis of ideas, synthesis of ideas, speculative projection of ideas-and
the purpose of philosophical work will be pursued-to create nieanings by
which we can live better lives.