I think that, in discussions like this, divergences emerge when interlocutors refer to different underlying assumptions. My assumption (upon which my entire conception of the subject of MUSICAL ED. and teaching it rests) is to understand the subject of MUSIC as a PRETEXT to accompany and stimulate personal growth. In particular, the creative aspect, fantasy, personality, etc. This principle was strongly instilled in me during the 4 years of the teacher training course. This means that Musical Ed. MUST NOT train musicians (who train through other well-known paths). This is my starting point; then, over the years, I have shaped my teaching style according to the equation KNOWLEDGE + FANTASY = CREATIVITY. Let me explain. Knowledge, the broad-ranging factual kind, is what is treated in various subjects (literature, mathematics, history, technology, art, etc.); fantasy is what my students have (or should have) VIVIDLY, and which represents the true raw material, the fuel, the energy that drives the system forward. But for it to be good fuel, it must be recognized with the same great and fundamental importance; creativity... is the final goal: creating something concrete, something tangible with one's own strengths and knowledge. Now... if musical ed. is understood as I understand it, i.e., as a catalyst between education, knowledge, and the realization of the individual, certain customs that have been consolidated for too many years now lose their meaning: playing the recorder, music theory, listening, music history, etc. They lose meaning (but not importance) because my goal is different. It must also be said that lately schools have finally opened up to learning diversities because it seems that specific learning disabilities are more widespread than previously thought. Add multi-ethnicity, unemployment, social decay, the crisis... and the circle closes. I learned the hard way that a dyslexic student and a recorder is an impossible pairing. I learned the hard way that it makes no sense to teach even the basics of music theory to a socially degraded class because.... for people with a destiny almost as marked as you can imagine, could notes on lines or spaces, a B-flat played on Mozart's flute of life, or listening to the Rite of Spring matter?
But what if these same people were asked to put into practice those few notions learned in geometry, mathematics, and technology to design a musical instrument? What if, in the woodworking lab, they could actually build it and see that it works? What if then these same people thought of inventing music? What if, after middle school, one of these tough guys had decided to become a carpenter, having become enthusiastic about this circuit of things? Did I do my job well or poorly?....
On the other hand, an old-fashioned music teacher who scrupulously follows the ministerial program—only recorder, history, theory, and rote learning for old folks—manages perhaps to enthuse a tough guy, and this person becomes so passionate that they want to pursue musical studies at a conservatory or study something else... has this teacher done their job well or poorly? ...
In an increasingly small and increasingly difficult world, dry factualism that is an end in itself has neither didactic nor educational effectiveness. To me, my 'tough guys' have demonstrated that they are capable of doing great, very great things, profound, important, exciting things... it is just a matter of putting them in the position to be able to do so.
