Morricone attacks: "music in schools is a disaster and enough with flutes"

Are we sure it's the flute's fault? Perhaps a renewal of the ministerial programs would be needed... no?

Even "flaunting" to the four winds that one has "discovered warm water" [reinvented the wheel] could serve a purpose... as long as people keep talking about it... and often! BURN THE FLUTISTS!!!! I have been shouting this at the top of my lungs for years. However, I must say I have a feeling that these great musical personalities are people who are "poorly informed about the facts". The Orff method... beautiful, intriguing, and fun: I once participated in a full-immersion day and had a world of fun! The other method is also beautiful (which I don't know in detail, but it seems to be geared towards composition and improvisation). It is always very easy to say: "YOU MUST do..." but perhaps it is harder to say: "HOW to do...". A SERIOUS training course like

like Orff costs an arm and a leg... not to mention the relative instrumentation. And if school administrations are the first to not believe in (and therefore not invest in) Music as a subject, guys, we can dig as much as we want but, as usual, it will have been nothing but hot air. Perhaps it is not the wisest solution, but if things truly wanted to change, YOU, principal, or superintendent or minister on duty, start making training courses MANDATORY and FREE and maybe make at least a DIGNIFIED part of the instrumentation available. And above all, value promising ideas, especially those with ZERO COST AND IMPACT! :-p (forgive me... a burst of egocentrism!).

Not to sound "cool," but I didn't mind playing the flute, because I liked music and enjoyed making it by any means. It was an inexpensive instrument and gave everyone the opportunity to understand what a note was, what it meant to know how to play an instrument, etc. I don't think the solution would be to give everyone a Casio keyboard or a Chinese violin instead of flutes. The problems seem to me to be something else entirely.

I have never had the fortune of teaching in compulsory school, and I believe it would be a great experience. However, I had the fortune of discussing a thesis with Carlo Delfrati, whom I consider a brilliant promoter of new educational paths in favor of music. At that time, he had recently written "progetti sonori" (sound projects), which I still consider a beautiful book today. It is true, I believe it is difficult to generate interest. I have occasionally tried some experiments with Music and Theater, in high schools, with disastrous results. They were certainly due to my inexperience regarding the difficult communicative path to adopt in classrooms. Therefore, I believe one can also feel a sense of frustration being and feeling like a music educator. I believe it is not the fault of the teachers' lack of preparation, but rather the fact that... little is said about Music. The Media do not talk about it at all. We need to know more about the Great Examples. Today people speak of Abbado, perhaps not yet sufficiently, but a few years ago no one spoke of him at all! When Borg won Wimbledon (I hope it's spelled like that!) five times in a row... everyone wanted to hold a racket. If instead today I open iTunes, before finding a Mozart symphony, I have to suffer!!!! And then... money. Why doesn't every school have a piano and a certain number of musical instruments available? Who knows how many ensembles could be born!!!!!! Praise, therefore, to all those who, in extreme difficulty, experience Music in schools, and a great invitation to the Greats, and not only them, to take the field... perhaps for free to personally instill the "Joy of Music" (...quoted with reference to the great book by Bernstein, which I recommend reading!!!!)

Of course the problems are not only with the "little flutes".

And the textbooks? Do we want to talk about them? Increasingly larger and more colorful, keeping pace with technology (provided with DVDs and/or CD-ROMs)... but increasingly empty. The flute is fine for a short and limited experience (1-2 pieces max), but then there is a universe to discover. Nowadays, over the years, the habit has become established that music hour is the hour of relaxation... "because we always do the same things, the teacher never gives low grades, I'll do my homework for the next hour, what a pa@@e this flute is, but who cares about music history, anyway, what is music for?".

I am generalizing, obviously. And I am happy for you if, despite everything, music education has left you with something good. But perhaps the general situation is very dramatic. And it wouldn't surprise me if sooner or later music education were excluded from the curricular subjects. Because done the way it continues to be done, in my opinion, it is completely useless!

Pifferi and not flutes! The flute is a dignified instrument with its own history...ok?!

Morricone attacked 2 years ago now (even if little changes in the substance of the facts) and with him others followed suit: http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/News/Spettacolo/Musica-da-Piovani-ad-Accardo-e-Morricone-tutti-contro-i-flautini-a-scuola_313133469299.html

At the time I wrote a small comment, I am posting it almost exactly as it was.

"

It seems the time has come to explode a small musical bomb. The fundamental question is direct and brutal: does studying music still make sense? And if so, how? where? why?

The 99.9% of people between the ages of 15 and 45 (the reform dates back to 1979) have benefited from the 2 hours of Music Education in middle school: it would be interesting to conduct a survey and understand what has remained in their lives from those 198 hours (over 3 years). I won't hide that the results would be disappointing; I believe everyone knows this. For better or worse, everyone will remember some notions of Italian, mathematics, science, or English, and perhaps on some occasion it might even have been useful, maybe to win some money on a television quiz: regarding music, few memories, if there are any at all.

Everyone is right: the collective plastic flute is a blasphemy, but schools lacking support for practice and listening are too; let's add the minimal role of the subject in the school economy (in my day it was better to say gymnastics, at least you have fun), the status quo of teachers (some good and well-prepared for that subject and that age group, others less so, others not at all), demotivation, precarious employment, and so on. With a musical specialization, something has undoubtedly improved, but it remains a very small and particular enclave: the 2 collective hours are quite another thing.

And things are certainly not better in high school. The Musical Lyceum has only just started and is floundering in uncertain waters, with few certainties (one of which is that it will have a graduation exam), teachers on loan from middle schools or even hired halfway through a term until June, only to return to limbo until they are entitled to a permanent position, and a thousand other problems related to logistics, prospects, and preparation for conservatory or university. In other specializations, music does not exist: it is ridiculous that at the Classical Lyceum, the cornerstone of humanistic education, all possible cultural histories are studied (history of history, philosophy, Italian language, Latin, Greek, foreign language, art, and in some cases even religions) but one cannot think that the history of music could perhaps go hand in hand with themes such as Greece (Plato, for example, mentions it every now and then), the Middle Ages (music has nothing to do with it...), the Renaissance, the Baroque, Melodrama (yet libretto authors are studied, see Metastasio et al.), the 19th century, Paris and Vienna at the end of the 1800s, and a thousand other topics.

"

And I closed, rhetorically, asking myself if studying music still made sense.

This is today's reality, unfortunately... and we are talking about one of those subjects that is considered (right or wrong) perhaps the most important...

http://www.fanpage.it/lettera-aperta-ai-miei-studenti-lo-sfogo-di-un-insegnante/

what a bitter discussion...

i also liked playing the flute, others less... and that's fine.

i won't get into the matter of 'practical music' right now... I am an obsessive listener! (and I would like to write you more and have your opinions)

ScalaQuaranta wrote:

And the textbooks? Do we want to talk about them? Increasingly larger and more colorful, keeping pace with technology (provided with DVDs and/or CD-ROMs)... but increasingly empty.

It pleases me (bitterly, obviously) that you, who are in the field, have this opinion which, if said by me, might be considered short-sighted.

Wanting to add bitterness upon bitterness, I say that when I was in middle school, music books had these titles:

Music and us - - - speaks of a relationship, of something that is a part of us

Living music - - - speaks of a passion, of something that fills life

Magic of sounds - - - speaks of something fascinating, seductive

Allegro vivo - - - speaks of something that wants to bring grit to life

Today my daughter's textbook is titled:

Look at what music!

Look!!!???... But 'look' at what!?... But music is meant to be listened to!!!... this is the "civilization" of the image.

And then, truly: an empty book.

Hi Luca,

I respect but do not share your opinion... for the simple fact that, contrary to what you hypothesize, my views are a bit broader. I strongly reject the use of the recorder (and not the flute in a broad sense), only when it becomes the sole constant teaching instrument for an entire three-year period. I reject music education textbooks because (almost - I would like to omit it but I'm holding back) they are almost always EMPTY. I reject everything that the System has pre-packaged because it smells fishy to me. If a teacher wants to, in the subject of music education, they can find all human knowledge! And I often find it (perhaps I am guilty of presumption, but I know well what I am talking about). And that is why I never use the flute and textbooks. There is an ocean of important things to do: vocal/instrumental improvisation, composition, guided listening linked to long-range aesthetic concepts, attending orchestra rehearsals/concerts, participating in lecture-concerts first as spectators and then as performers, building and/or inventing musical instruments, musicals, soundtracks, electronic music, the use of computers for composing (PRACTICALLY.. and not simply cited as theoretical info). I could go on forever. Obviously, with 2 hours a week, choices must be made, but with a bit of organization and, above all, motivation, many extra-curricular voices can be explored. Guys... I'll continue later, I'm going to work.

Hi Scala

icome sono perfettamente d'accordo su ogni cosa che hai appena scritto...

anche rileggendo ciò che io stesso ho scritto, non capisco che cosa io ipotizzerei «al contrario» di te

a più tardi allora!

@ ScalaQuaranta

... maybe I understand!

In your opinion, I would be hypothesizing that you are short-sighted.

Since I wrote about sharing your opinion on current textbooks

And since I then wrote that supported only by me it would be "short-sighted," you expanded the judgment to refer to yourself as well.

Did I understand correctly what happened?

If I have understood the misunderstanding correctly, I would like to clarify this:

Let's forget about 'long-sightedness/short-sightedness.' These are two adjectives that, on second thought, are more suitable for expressing qualities of views, but where 'views' means objectives to be achieved, and not 'views' in the sense of observation of factual data.

Now I will rewrite more clearly what I meant to say:

I am pleased (bitterly, obviously) that you, who are in the field and certainly have a broader vision of things, hold this opinion which I share but which, supported only by me, would have less credibility for the simple fact that I judge current textbooks based on a single example.

If I want to add bitterness upon bitterness (the rest: same as what I had written.....)

bye!... but let me know.

Luca, I think Scala was referring to the fact that he doesn't even consider a textbook necessary... regardless of whether the title is more or less dense and aimed at providing a more or less significant image of interest for living in/with/for/etc. music

Exactly, luca. I misinterpreted that sentence. Everything's okay, anyway

Margherita1 wrote:

Piffers and not flutes! The flute is a dignified instrument with its own history... ok?!

If that's the case, so is the piffero (there is even a register in ancient organs: fiffaro), but it is not the one used in school; which, instead, is a baroque recorder, even if made of plastic. Listen to what Michala Petri can draw out of it, far from being an "undignified" instrument...!

Open content (youtube)

In any case, in my opinion, the problem with teaching lies in knowing how to create motivation; it wouldn't be any different if, instead of "flutes," there were an iPad keyboard. I taught a subject potentially much more boring than music for ten years (labor law, for instance...) and I did everything possible to make my lessons interesting in a vocational institute. If dear music professors punctually applied themselves to doing the same, I believe that "flutes" would be just one of many possible instruments to stimulate young people.

I would add that, in municipalities where there is a pipe organ, perhaps a historical one, very little would be needed to involve young people... But how many teachers have the culture to attempt paths different from those prescribed by the ministry? How many constraints and red tape prevent, for example, taking students out for a morning to see something different, to experience the music of their own territory, and so on...?

The problem, in my opinion, is not only educational and cultural. It is also social. In schools like mine, with medium-low cultural backgrounds, where 80% of families directly experience redundancy schemes, unemployment, poverty, etc., one might be able to conjure up all the educational and teaching fantasies of the cosmic universe... but most of the time, barring a few rare exceptions, it will be like fighting windmills.

Beyond the undeniable social problem, there is first and foremost a problem at a "banally" didactic-educational level in schools.

In musical education, the Italian School (in general, obviously) today makes a blunder that it avoids in other fields.

The exaggerated weight given to the activity phase compared to the value of passivity.

Which in concrete terms means: there is a proposal to do a lot of 'production' (recorder, in the simplest case... But playing the recorder decently does not seem like a small feat to me anyway), at the expense of the listening phase (the "very basic" Four Seasons, Peter and the Wolf, Danse Macabre...)

First listen, then express myself (it should obviously be a journey of years and years).

No more, no less than what happens in the relationship of growth with one's mother tongue.

the trouble is that today 'passivity' is a forbidden word... everything must be interactive (and immediately!)

LucaCavaliere wrote:

The exaggerated weight given to the moment of activity compared to the value of passivity.

Dear Luca, with this intervention you are—unintentionally, no doubt—shooting yourself in the foot. You convey the message that listening is passivity. On the contrary, listening—and especially conscious listening, which must be promoted by teaching—is necessarily active.

My experience as a Music Education teacher is limited to substitute teaching, so I cannot boast the field experience that evidently lies behind ScalaQuaranta's interventions. However, believe me, if the type of listening proposed during lessons were passive, the class's response could only be limited to a "like," or more likely to a "how boring." The attempt to create a context for listening by explaining the history of music, and to direct—through targeted questions—attention toward certain aspects of music that a distracted, superficial, or even just unprepared approach would inevitably fail to grasp, constitutes the construction of active listening.