should britney speares be studied at school?

[Tash]

had my first music education lecture yesterday (awesome!!) and we managed to get into a discussion about studying pop music at school- derived from an article in The Australian newspaper by some woman, after a review of the state of school music education in australia- it's apparently a bit of a disaster- and this woman said, well if the kids want to study britney speares then why not if it gets them to do it? so my lecturer wrote to the paper saying this was stupid- britney is for partying, not studying. so question is, does pop music have a place in school music? there are certain private schools i know of who would have parents going nuts if such a thing was taught, i personally would only use it as an introduction, and then proceed to pay it out and focus on music. defence is for classical music- you should be teaching the kids something different, they already know pop music so what's there to teach? anyway, you can break down pop music in like 5 minutes anyway, so good luck with that.

anyway i think i already know what the majority of people are going to say...

[crazy for ivan moravec]

im against it, but if it's a factor that might lead into interest into studying music, then why not? that's what music education is about. we can't go against the music that appeals to the kids, we can actually use it to our advantage.

[gruffalo]

*agrees with crazy*

I would like the idea of using it to draw them in, then teach em some classical, and then use pop for further incentives.

[Bob]

If it's in the overall context, yes it could be included.  Students should study a variety of styles -- pop and classical and everything else.

Anything that interests the student could be used as a student saver in the lesson setting.

If that's all the student wants to learn, that's another issue.  If the student won't be there if they don't study it, then the teacher has to decide whether they want to teach that student or not.  Taken to the school setting, a group of students can influence the pieces chosen -- If all the students will drop if they don't immediately enjoy music class, then the teacher better do something they enjoy, or they can lose their job.

Pop or anything can be used to keep a student going.  I do not believe, for a broad general music education, that a student should only be studying classical music, even as a piano student.  They should be able to perform in a pop style and a few of those arrangements can help a student really understand how some music doesn't translate well to a piano transcription.

[rlefebvr]

I certainly think the history of Pop music is rich enough to be taught.

Especially if you envelope pop with the standards of the 40' and 50' Rock & Roll, Rock, Dance and the like.

This is all basically the same music anyway.

I think there is more than enough history there to teach a course.

[avetma]

If some teacher really want teach about Britney's music (and only music) the problem is there is nothing to talk about for 30 minutes.

[Bob]

Pop music can be good for teaching form.  If the kids like it, they pay attention immediately and the songs are usually pretty clear for sections.

[quantum]

The same question was asked of jazz in an early part of the 20th century.  At one time Rock and Roll was thought to be the music of the devil - and this too was shunned within education systems. 

Education professes to teach "Music Appreciation" then shoots down current popular music for it's lack of intellectual value - an all out oxymoron.  Practice what you preach! 

I do agree Britney Spears and the popular music of our youth culture today should be an important part of education.  Why should only classical music bask in the glory of intellectuals?  We are all entitled to our likes and dislikes, but that does not excuse us from learning about all forms of music. 

Kids already like the stuff, so why alienate them?  The can be used to explain the formal structures of music - harmony, rhythm, time, etc.   There is a lot of pop music out there that has borrowed from classical music.  When  compare them with classical music we may find pop maybe a bit lacking harmonic development or other formal structures, but there is a lot that also exists in pop that is not prevalent in classical.  Recording and multitracking techniques are quite important to the final result of a pop song - and sometimes such accompaniments have many complex layers to them. 

As a side correlation consider traditional Chinese music.  If you listen to the texture it has a very narrow pitch ambitus, and apparently simple pentatonic based modes.  However there is a great focus on tone - there more than 20 different forms of vibrato that may be used.  The Chinese did develop a sophisticated system of opera centuries before the western world.  It is quite easy to pass off such non-western music as not as sophisticated as western art music, but that would be like saying a banana is not as sophisticated as a strawberry. 

What does all this have to do with Britney and pop music?  Well you see it is all different - different than classical music, but it is music none the less and although we may not fully understand it, our classical music roots give us tools to at least examine it to some extent. 

By saying that classical music is more suited to educational purposes in the classroom than pop, we only further alienate youth to thinking classical music can only be understood by the snobbish intellectual elite and that all other forms of music are second rate. 

[perfect_pitch]

I am becoming a High School Teacher (teaching Grades 8 - 12), and I only intend to teach either Jazz music or Classical....

Pop music from these days has nothing in Music theory to teach, except how to repeat the same 4 damn chords over and over again.

Music has come from a very sohpisticated piece of art in the 1700's and 1800's to a pathetic washed up of simple crap in todays society. Why don't teenagers like Classical Music these days??? Because some idiot deemed that it was cool to listen to music of today, and all these gullible teenagers are dumb and stupid enough to swallow this crap.

People are too interested in trying to fit in and adjusting to suit other peoples image of themselves... I say that Britney and bloody Snoop Dog and Silverchair should NOT and I mean this very clearly.... SHOULD NOT BE STUDIED in High School.

Because if we do teach this crap in High Schools... then our kids are going to become vaccuous morons who couldn't give a crap about history and just want to be cool....

The same goes for TV... You think - 30 years ago - you didn't have any of this Digimon or Pokemon, Beyblades, Yu-gi-oh crap thats on TV.... Kids are rotting their brain cells and are going to become less intelligent, and stupidity is on the rise.

To think of the enormous potential of studying Classical Music, compared to the incredibly limited educational material in pop music... There is no such thing as appreciating Pop Music... there's nothing to appreciated... It's some dinky chord all recorded on some crappy keyboard input into some cheesy computer that adds effects, sound and reverb all in a matter of an hour or two.

[clef]

I do think that students should be alowed to study contempoary music.  Well I go to a private school in Melbourne, Australia and we just got our music school redone over the last 5 years or so, and now that it is finished it is one of the best in the country, I'm serious we have 2 huge concert halls, about 60 classrooms for practice, about 50 pianos, several computer labs, rooms for studying music theory, 1 very large ensumble practice area, for the symphony orchestra and senior strings, a smaller rehersal room for more smaller groups such as the chamber choir, and about 5 rooms for even smaller groups, such as sectional practice.  They also added a drama concert theater, and a few drama class rooms and media studies areas aswell for an added effect.  I don't know why I said all that but I suppose I was just giving you the background information, but anyway at my school, the main focus would probably be on classical music with the synphony orhestra, 3 or 4 string orchestras, 4 brass and woodwind bands, a college choir with 150 voices, and a chamber choir with 30.  Jazz is also a large part of our schools music, with 3 big bands, including a showband with 5 saxaphones, 5 or so trumpets, 4 trombones, bass trombone and all, large rhythm section including grand piano, percussion, guitar, bass, drums ect.  Jazz piano can be learned as well/instead of pianoforte.  Then finaly we come to contempoary music, there are I believe 3 school rock bands.  All with vocals, atleast two guitars, drums and bass (sometimes keyboard) in year 9 music and technology we can choose any genre to compose on, and in year 10 music craft and music performance many different styles and techniques and theory for general music are taught.  I belive that my school thought wisely, and choose best, of course there are much more people in a symphony orchestra then a rock band, but there is no reason why a student who wishes to learn contempoary music should be denied that right. 

[clef]

I am becoming a High School Teacher (teaching Grades 8 - 12), and I only intend to teach either Jazz music or Classical....

Pop music from these days has nothing in Music theory to teach, except how to repeat the same 4 *** chords over and over again.

Music has come from a very sohpisticated piece of art in the 1700's and 1800's to a pathetic washed up of simple crap in todays society. Why don't teenagers like Classical Music these days??? Because some idiot deemed that it was cool to listen to music of today, and all these gullible teenagers are dumb and stupid enough to swallow this crap.

People are too interested in trying to fit in and adjusting to suit other peoples image of themselves... I say that Britney and bloody Snoop Dog and Silverchair should NOT and I mean this very clearly.... SHOULD NOT BE STUDIED in High School.

Because if we do teach this crap in High Schools... then our kids are going to become vaccuous morons who couldn't give a crap about history and just want to be cool....

The same goes for TV... You think - 30 years ago - you didn't have any of this Digimon or Pokemon, Beyblades, Yu-gi-oh crap thats on TV.... Kids are rotting their brain cells and are going to become less intelligent, and stupidity is on the rise.

To think of the enormous potential of studying Classical Music, compared to the incredibly limited educational material in pop music... There is no such thing as appreciating Pop Music... there's nothing to appreciated... It's some dinky chord all recorded on some crappy keyboard input into some cheesy computer that adds effects, sound and reverb all in a matter of an hour or two.

I see your point, and it can be easy to believe that, but from what I've seen, students may like contempoary music more then classical music, I don't believe that any sane teenager would listen to music they didn't like just because it is seen as cool.  I most kinds of music, classical and contempoary, some days I prefer one to the other, but genrally it is even.  I don't believe that teaching students music theory, about modes, tones, advanced rhythms, computer technology, music form, structure of contermpoary bands, including chord voicings, different uses of guitars, composing for contempoary music, advanced harmony, diotonic harmony, chordal extensions and much more is going to make them stupid.  Not at all, because that is what we are taught at my school, and I have been turned into a music analizing machine, I can tell you the form, chord progresions, scales used, instrumentation and much more just by listing to a song, including britteny spears, of course popular music is often synthesized, and I prefer performance over synthesized performances, but it is still music, and if you can look beyond the surface you can see the true difference between genres.

[mikey6]

In one of my year 12 subjects we had to option of studying Alanis Morrisette which we didn't do coz the teacher knew nothing about it (and I would think not too many classically/jazz trained teachers would - unless they researched it which would mean they would have to have some interest in it and...yeh)  There was also a beatles topic which got studied bt the other class which they seemed to enjoy.  Pop music was mentioned in one of my uni classes I remember, I think during a minimalism lecture.  So pop music was not uncommon - but Britney might be a different story.  I don't like her (songs!) so I don't know how musically valid they are, but I'm guessing that most of her popularity is based on her looks.

[Tash]

good comments- totally valid, but i seriously cannot think what i would actually teach about pop music! the history is barely there, most songs follow the same structure, chords, and nothing really changes (not saying the there aren't examples in classical music that don't also do this, cheers to J.C bach!), maybe this is just cos i haven't learnt enough about teaching to have a clue yet. you don't teach kids about ridicuolous movies like american pie in english, there is no crap in maths (though probability and statistics could be getting close but i think that's more part of my personal bias against it...). the only thing i'd like to do is go show classical's influence on pop music by playing songs that have ripped off the moonlight sonata and stuff.

and still, you teach them about pop music that's around today, they've probably already heard it and thus they're not going to learn anything new, except maybe learn how to listen more intently and realise how exceptionally repetitive songs are...

but the main thing about this article was that the woman was sayingt hat kids should have the option of studying beethoven OR britney, which is ridiculous.

the reason why kids don't listen to classical is cos they're not used to listening properly- they use music as wallpaper to either listen to in the background or when partying, so if you showed them the detail they'd probably appreciate it more and be able to understand what's going on- well that's based on the experiences of the other girls in my school music class- all were jazz/musical theatre singers, but after music they'd developed a greater appreciation for classical music, and i think this is important

[Bob]

In the public schools, you're dealing with the masses. 

You may have a class of students who are difficult to work with.  Getting them to sit still might be a challenge let alone getting them to listen to something.

They might not sit still and listen just because you as a teacher told them to.  If they are quiet, they might not pay attention to what you say.

They might be walking in with the idea that classical music is boring and classical music is not their music. 

They may know nothing about music.  Teaching something like the idea of melody and accompaniment can be easier using material they're familiar with.

The music class might be optional.  If you lose students because they don't connect with the class, that's a problem if too many students drop it.  If it is required, then you get students who don't want to be there and may not do anything at all -- even if you threaten them with a grade, if your school counts music as a real grade.

Pop music could be useful as an example of a concept -- one example of several.  Pop could be a unit and could hook students onto you and your class at the beginning of the year.

If a teacher projects the idea that classical music is superior they may alienate their students.  The students may see the teacher as being stuck up and elitist and the teacher could insult the students by saying "their music" is garbage.

[letters]

it wud never be taken seriously - everyone burst out laughing in my gcse listening when gloria gaynor "I will survive kicked in" - what are the characteristics of this style of music? (7 marks)

[prometheus]

When I first saw this topic I knew I wanted to say something on the topic. But I didn't know what to say.

After some careful thinking my answer would be: yes. As long as you also teach them to 'steal rather than buy the music from the music industry.

The point is not the music. Britney Spears isn't music, well she does make music but that isn't what is marketed. So the problem is that when you are going to have a lesson on Britney Spears then the music will be margialised.

And don't tell me this is an jazz vs classical issue, it isn't. The analogy just doesn't work at all. First of, jazz is a music genre which people actually play. Britney Spears is meaningless from a musical perspective, musicians aren't interested. Is is not an issue of simplicity or taste.
Second, the world has changed dramatically. We have extensive levels of marketing. Britney Spears in a marketing product, not a musical one. Jazz was a musical product, even rock music was. Britney Spears is a cultural icon for children. Jazz was something musicians of a particular community liked to play.

Why learn children not to pay money for a by marketing created icon? Because when people stop paying money for it the business will stop blasting us with their marketing garbage and commercials. Just use their own free market weapons against them. Luckely they haven't been able to modify the copyright laws in every country to equal sharing to stealing.

About the actual music. The people that write those pop songs are very skilled. You could teach music theory based on those sons, though they do not go beyond entertainment. Note that without a marketing icon these songs wouldn't sell at all.

Why don't teenagers listen classical music? Because they aren't supposed to. The average classical music listener needs the exclusiveness. If every kid on the block whistles Beethoven's 9th in the subway/metro then the right people no longer have any reason to listen to classical music. The music that identifies their identity, the right senior elite, can no longer identify them as such. Therefore it becomes useless. And therefore a normal teenager can't listen classical music.

Just make music education optional and have it have more depth.

[jason2711]

we studied pop back in junior school... it was good craic if not anything else

we compared different versions (cover + original etc) between songs... which i suppose might be a good introduction to interpretation of music and things

also composition of pop songs and things... it probably made people a lot more excited than having to compose another waltz or march or something like that.

so yes... for most students pop music is good in that it makes them think more actively about the music they listen to the most, rather than just listening to it 'because its cool'

however... a fine balance should be drawn, and the more advanced a student becomes, the more specialised their studies should be (whether that means they study more pop (if they want to be a pop musician... lets face it, its good money ) or more classical (from which they branch out to the different eras)

[Tash]

random thing, we watched elvis presley sing his you ain't nothin but a hound dog, and then listened to big mama thornton sing the original version of it 5 years earlier, and it was interesting to hear how much elvis had simplified it. i'd like to go find the music to both and do a harmonic analysis to see the difference...

[tw0k1ngs]

When you talk about "getting children into it" with pop music, the thing is you have to understand what types of kids like pop music. If a kid likes Brittney Spears but hates classical, chances are when it comes to start learning about harmonies and melodies he will lose a LOT of interest and probably drop it. If he doesn't, more power to him.

[ramseytheii]

im against it, but if it's a factor that might lead into interest into studying music, then why not? that's what music education is about. we can't go against the music that appeals to the kids, we can actually use it to our advantage.

I'm not against "pop" music per se, though I like the poster who said there isn't enough to say about B.S. music for even 30 minutes.

But it is a dangerous idea to think that because students will be interested in pop music, they will transition to classical.  If you want people to learn about classical music, the music with the most rational thinking and achievement behind it, then you have to teach classical music.  There's no compromise about it.  Then the students start demanding more popular music, and you indefinitely postpone the classical portion until.. it's too late.

I wonder why music comes under these attacks - by attacks, I mean the insistence that it drop all of its values and cater to other interests.  For instance the concert hall is constantly suffering vitriol that it is stiff environment, people are not allowed to make noise, and they should be able to be raucus and react "however they feel."  Why does nobody make this argument about tennis?  Have you ever seen Wimbledon on TV?  Nobody makes a sound, and nobody dares.  Same thing for a chess or poker tournament.  But Classical music is the brunt of these attacks all the time.

It's called elitist, and in a negative way; the patrons of classical music are called snobs even if they have to save for a month to be able to purchase tickets to the concerts; people are always trying to "dress up" the music and dumb it down.

For those that stick to the true values of music, that the finest music is there to be heard, not seen, not danced to, but listened to and followed with all your attention, you are attacked for holding your values in a world that wants to make everything equal!  This is the source of attacks on classical music: that it still maintains a respectable tradition of values, ie not clapping between movements, that in the rest of the world has gone down the tubes.  How many cell phones go off in the movie theatre these days?  They ring ceaselessly.  Thank god this is disallowed in the concert hall, otherwise what would be the point of going to listen to concerts?!

The poster I am responding to is probably innocent of all these things, but the principle that fine music should compromise itself for lesser music is repugnant to me.  Take a pop music class, fine, but don't infiltrate study of a refined, artistic music with this B.S. junk!

Walter Ramsey

[shortyshort]

No. She should be shot 

If "pop" is to be studied, why not choose someone with some talent. 

Shorty

[prometheus]

What has Britney got to do with her music?

Anyway, is she still making any?


The people that write the music that is sold under the label' Britney Spears' surely have talent. These people are quite good at what they are trying to do. The question is if that has any merit in itself.

[liszt-essence]

Thing is

When kids think about classical music, they have a muffy, classical picture in mind.

For them: Pop music is easy to listen to, it's fast, it's easy, it's got rhytm, its flashy. I think you know what I mean.

Another important aspect: Sound of instruments.

Where classical music is only recorded with real instruments, pop music is mainly not. It's sound is produced or at least alterted by computers, creating a far more 'digital' sound.

This type of sound is generally more appealing to most kids. It sounds faster, more edgy, more flashy. 'Real instruments' will sound muffy to them compared to these high tech computer sounds.



MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT:

Classical music is complex, thus, it will require energy (for kids) to listen to, meaning -> WORK

Pop music is easy, thus it will require nothing of the listener meaning -> RELAXATION


Most kids don't want to "work" for enjoyment. They don't want to focus, to direct their attention to listen, to use their receptive creativity in this way.

They want to be ENTERTAINED. They want to sit back, to enjoy.
 
Yes, I know, once you get to appreciate classical music, it will be different for them. But most will never get there because they see no reason to stray from this form of music where they have to 'do nothing' and be entertained.


Is there anything to fix? To change? I think not.

There's this saying I can't really remember but it goes something like:

"Once the pain of staying inside the box gets to great, one will take the risk and step out in order to be free from this pain"

So, when they get bored and fed up, one day a nice suite from the nut cracker or so will attract their attention, and perhaps they will discover.

If not? So be it. To quote from a famous pop song (hehe)

Let it be, let it be.

[ahinton]

Might it not be an idea to expose young children to short bursts of "classical" and "pop(ular)" musics for the same eras side by side, from, say 125 years ago to the present day, so that the notion that an ever widening gap between the two occurred across a long period of time (with the relatively small exception of a certain degree of carry-over between "jazz" and "classical" music between the wars) and then such a degree of stylistic diversity developed in both that the labels have more recently become rather less meaningful than once they were? At the risk of avoiding boredom, the extracts really MUST be kept pretty short here - but, since most yound people listen to some kind of music or other, might this idea not kick-start a deeper interest in the whole music-making business?

Best,

Alistair

[shortyshort]

My kids have been brought up with all kinds of music, from classical to 70's Punk.

They have also been exposed to classical music at school.

I think that a broad knolledge of all types of music should be encouraged for all children. How can anyone choose if they don't know the options ??

Comparison, you wouldn't want your children only reading "Harry Potter".

Shorty.

[le_poete_mourant]

"Studying" current pop music in school would be to legitimize it as, in fact music.  However, I don't think it's really possible to call sitting on two chords "music."  There are some people that do good things with music, make it go places.  I think Radiohead may be one of the most musical bands around in that sense. 

Now, the older pop music -- Stevie Wonder, Earth Wind & Fire, Beatles, the oldies but goodies, those are the ones worth studying. 

The things is, contemporary pop music hasn't been established as lasting.  That is, who is to say that a song popular today will be around a year from now? 

On the other hand, studying current pop music can be a good thing if you show students how much crap it is.  Show them that they're being fed garbage by the music industry, and they're eating it like it's caviar.  Show them that there's really nothing to this so-called "music."  If you educate them to the fact that it's not good, then they'll be more interested in real music, I think. 

[danny_sequel]

Some words come to mind:

stereotypes

snobbery

idiocy

closed mindedness

First of all I don't think music can be that targeted
For example I like any kind of music so I listen to classical when I want to and I listen to musicals when I want to and I even listen to trance when I want to. I've known a plethora of kids and school mates that like classical but don't make it their exclusively listening. You know the difference? Your mind is as closed as a brazil nut and they have open minds. You may call that stupid or comformism but it's actually the opposite.
In fact anti-conformism means "just do what you feel and be true to yourself" and avoiding a genre of music by purpose is just another form or conformis not anti-conformism. So it's you anti pop the real brailess conformist but the kids that just listen what they like. So stop this nonsense stereotypes and sto watching television, MTV doesn't represent any reality about kids ... kids are just individuals; maybe more than you snobs are.

I don't think Britnety Spears is devoid of musical content and just because you don't like that musical content it doesn't mean it's objectively lacking. If you go to the fans website of Britney you'll see that fans care more for his music than anything else. They discuss about the songs in her cd not about her shoes or sunglasses.

Let's talk about semplicity: who in the world ever said that if music is simple and imply just two chords it is worthless. Whoever he was he was an idiot
You seem to forget that music is a "MEAN"
Being a mean it doesn't absolutely matter how the hell you use it but the result
There tons of country and rock songs that use just three chords ... and they work!
How can you not understand that's what makes music infinite and always unique and creative: the skill of making few element work
I'm more likely to kudos to the artist that can create something that works using just few elements or even just one chord than not the one that creates something complex
The world is full of simple music that works. In fact the baroque and classical and postmodern world is full of simple music that works.
Oh just so you know ... you're not that one that can say whether a music works or not
What I always say is that if something that has been created is very meaningful and beautiful for EVEN JUST ONE PERSON IN THE WHOLE PLANET ... it is of artistic value and worth existing

I agree with those that said that old music like Heart Wind and Fire and Beatles had more valuable musical content but you're missing two important aspect of modern pop music.
First of all we've more freedom nowadays and you can see that there's not a single style but a very melting pot of style and sounds
On the second place a style of pop music we've nowadays is less melodical and hence more devoid of musical value because it's more rhythmic in nature. Remember Bartok? He and other contemporaries wrote about and kind of shaped a new conception of music where melody is secondary and rhythm and rhythmic variation are the focus. Certain pop music is founded on that principle and therefore works even if it's just a bunch of chords

Also I think it's disgusting for how patronizing and unrespectful it is to say that we need to bring kids to "better music" by attracting them with "pop music" (while still thinking of how stupid they are and what kind of special measure this is)
We need instead to respect individuality a bit more. You won't go far with stereotypes. There are people who listen to classic music and people who don't listen to classic music at all ages. The world is full of adults that could give a *** about classical music and kids that love it. But we need to stop to think that it's our duty to put a sort of control on what people listen. In fact I believe the kind of creativity that is neede to be a complete musician can only can from never intellectually limiting ourselves (with idiotic justification) and by just let it be, flow with whatever music if it's working in that moment
If I listen The Rite of Spring in the morning, Bob Sinclair at lunch, Enya in the afternoon, The Adventure of Winnie the Pooh soundtrack in the evening and Evanescence at night ... why in the world you should care ??! What about minding your own business, be more open minded and let anyone individually listen what the hell one wants the listen whenever he/she wants to listen it?


As for using "pop" music to teach music ... I absolutely see no problem
But I think it's a matter of allowing all kind of music that can be created and will be created to be used as a tool for learning. In other words if Under the Sea from Little Mermaid is good for teaching a certain aspect of a music (calypso progressions) use it, if a Susan Vega song is good for teaching certain things about rhythm ... just use it, if a Mozart Sonata is good for teaching other aspects of music ... use it

The good thing about having many tools is not to choose wich tool to use at the expense of other ... but the freedom we get from having the chance of using the appropriate tool for the right circumstance

For the "genius" that said that Britney can't be used for learning because it is about "parties and dancing" ... doh "genius" ... since when music is not an aspect of partying and dancing, since when classical music was never about dancing and having fun, since when becoming a musician doesn't imply this activities too ??!

I also think that in music and this forum there's a lot of preconceptions.
I don't believe in preconceptions, I believe in trying before judging
And I don't mean trying out of context ... but within the context.
I have this often true of dance music that people judge without knowing
I don't care if it's music done with a Mac Computer and Logic Pro and I don't care if there's a strong synthesized kicks ... I think there are gems (to my ears) within the dance music ... and all I care is that they comunicate somethig to me; when I listen with my eyes closed. Music can also be repetitive ... it's just a mean and if repetition works ... no reason do shun from it. Even thought that repepetive rhythmic music can be used to reach higher states of consciousness, working like a mantra sweeping the mind of the chattering that doesn't allow us to really perceive the world around us? ... these are just example; but it's just to show that there's really a lot to do as far as open mindedness is concerned ... especially in dusty and rotten accademies (or ivory towers if you prefer)

Btw: I don't like rap ... mostly
        Yet, just because there are people that like it I want it to keep existing
        I also know any attempt to intellectual justify why if I don't like rap it must be crap and no one should like it would be pathetical
        I can't also be presumptuous enough to believe/claim that just because I can't "get" it ... there aren't other people that by loving it making themselves able to see and analyze its content like I could have never thought possible.
        Just go to a site where they discuss the music you don't like or consider crap (just because you say so) and you'll see there's  no brainless superficiality in the appreciation of others. Make this a very good lesson in humbleness and start to look beyond your nose

[burstroman]

for a nanosecond.

[le_poete_mourant]

You know the difference? Your mind is as closed as a brazil nut and they have open minds.

I am actually quite open to all forms of music, as long as they are indeed music.  I am not restricting my tastes at all.  In my music library I have rap, r&b, rock, soul, jazz, hiphop, I keep up on current music.  However, I have become disillusioned with the majority of pop music because of its lack of content. 

kids are just individuals; maybe more than you snobs are.

I think you are wrong in your assumption, again, that we are snobs.  I think you will find many people here are open to many kinds of music. 

I don't think Britnety Spears is devoid of musical content and just because you don't like that musical content it doesn't mean it's objectively lacking.

The issue here is that Britney Spears is not a musician, per se.  Examine a jazz song, for example.  Many use only a basic 2-5-1 chord progression.  Why is it more musical than Ms. Spears?  Because jazz musicians make music; Spears reproduces sounds.  I would like to see her improvise.  I would like to see her do something other than "sing." 
Does she write any of her own music?  At all?  Does she do anything besides flaunt her babies and show her parts to the world? 

Let's talk about semplicity: who in the world ever said that if music is simple and imply just two chords it is worthless.

This is the thing: a jazz musician could make two chords into a very meaningful piece of music.  A pop artist like Spears does not generally have that ability.

There tons of country and rock songs that use just three chords ... and they work!

Britney Spears is neither country nor rock.  But I think you'll find for all the songs that do work, there are just as many that don't. 

How can you not understand that's what makes music infinite and always unique and creative: the skill of making few element work

Yet, there is no skill involved in much of this pop music.  It is written by people without an advanced musical education, for non-musicians.  The thing is that we've become so used to treating music as "background" that we don't pay much attention to what it contains or lacks. 

The world is full of simple music that works. In fact the baroque and classical and postmodern world is full of simple music that works.

Sure.  Mozart's famous C major sonata is a perfect example of this.  Why is it good?  Because he uses his intelligence, skill, etc., to make his music varied.  He uses modulations, inversions, other elements that make him a good composer.  But much of modern pop music doesn't do this; it takes the same chord progressions, and plays them the exactly same way each time.  This is boring.  And, frankly, it's a cop-out.  It's lazy. 

Oh just so you know ... you're not that one that can say whether a music works or not

Yeah, actually I am.  I am entitled to express my opinion just as much as you are. 

old music like Heart Wind and Fire

Interesting.  I'm not familiar with that group. 

First of all we've more freedom nowadays and you can see that there's not a single style but a very melting pot of style and sounds

Herein lies another problem.  There are TOO MANY SOUNDS.  We use computer programs to generate so much sound, then overlay them so that there are so many layers, it seems complex, yet it really isn't. 

Remember Bartok? He and other contemporaries wrote about and kind of shaped a new conception of music where melody is secondary and rhythm and rhythmic variation are the focus.

However, Bartok did not abandon chord theory and actually his chords are much more interesting than anything I find in pop.  He knew his music well, actually was probably the musical genius of the century, and created a completely new form, based on a new scale theory. 

But we need to stop to think that it's our duty to put a sort of control on what people listen.

Nobody is suggesting controlling what people listen about; this is, may I remind you, a topic on what people are studying in school. 

I also think that in music and this forum there's a lot of preconceptions.
I don't believe in preconceptions, I believe in trying before judging

So you have a preconception about the preconceptions in this forum? 

Btw: I don't like rap ... mostly

A lot of rap goes deeper than a lot of pop music.  Listen to some of the more serious lyrics by artists like Eminem, when he talks about his life growing up, his personal issues.  It's poetry, really. 

Make this a very good lesson in humbleness and start to look beyond your nose

To be a lesson in humbleness, you would have to prove me wrong about the lack of content in today's pop music.  There is a lack of creativity that is permeating the music industry.  Any shmuck can make it if he/she looks good, has a passable voice, and is marketable.  All the touchup work done in the studios these days takes so much away from actual musicianship. 

Go analyze any pop song for me.  Break it down, chord by chord, see how many modulatios there are, changes in key, changes in chords, inversions, how many different ways these "songwriters" (they are not composers) can play with their "melodies."  It's not very variational. 

Some words come to mind:

stereotypes

snobbery

idiocy

closed mindedness

But first, remove your head from your rectum.  Your entire post is nothing but idiotic steroetypes about snobs. 

[danny_sequel]

I think you're trying to intellectualize the music applying to music umusical standards and to initiate your judgement from there.
For example there was a thread about christian music. An anti-christian could claim that that music is crap because it promotes the christian values of bigotry, judgement, hypocrysy, control, oppression (just an example of what one could say, I'm not saying it)
But we're talking about music, about judging the sounds ... not what's behind them
I can appreciate the musical quality of an hymn of something I don't agree with
A musical judgment must be neutral from the way that music is being used or what kind of way of life or thoughts it represents

So consumism, fake sounds, songs produced interely in a studio are not meaningful criteria.

Let's not talk about Britney Spears since there are too many preconceptions and (probably) ignorance. Let's talk about the All Saints
Let's forget about whether you like their music or not (which is individual taste, nothing more) I saw an interview recently and they looked like intelligent girls no brainless puppets of the market. They explained the last album was their choice and not a marketing move. They also were explaining the passion and fun they had at the studio, working together, working on the melodies and effects and such ... and what they conveyed was an honest love for music, an honest love for what they were doing
I don't care if their songs are simple, if there's no modulation or elaboration of the tmotif ... all I care is that when I listen to it I like it ... for whatever reason I find it pleasant and worth listening. And I do. I can appreciate the Pierrot Lunaire and Ritual Dances by Falla and just a second after appreciate a song by All Saints (just to point out that i'm not wired for pop music and that i listen ton of music from gregorian chants to goa trance)

I too appreciate elaborations of the motif, modulations, inventions ... but I also appreciate simple chord progressions and song you can sing from a fake book or even music entirely composed at the computer. I think there's room and circumstances for both the kinds. I'd hate the idea of losing the "big work" done around a motif of classical/tonal-contemporary music in favour of pop songs ... but I'd also hate the idea of losing the pop semplificity and even banality (but still appreciable by my ears) in favour of classical/contemporary
What i've never understood it's the either-or attitude when there's no need to make wars to choose the ruler of the musical world. We can have both. And they can coexist
And as long as we accept that both have a right to stay we can stop ignoring one genre in favour of the other, even in musical education.
I took a look at the last pop songs around and I didn't see all this "lack of talent and content" you talk about. Evanescence, U2, Pink, Moby, Muse, Lily Allen, Gnarls Barkley ...

What you don't seem to understand is that someone may be able to use all the modulations, elaborations of the motif he/she wants ... but may not want to, because that's no what he/she wants to plays, conveys right now. That's like the pianist that can play Mephisto Waltz at unbelievable speed and yet chooses to play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. The moment I will see the "lack of content" you talk about I will see composers and songwriters that appear brainless and talentless, that never speak with passion about their work and never show any kind of enthusiam in what they do or just show off their opulence. That's not what I see ... the lack of content you talk about is an "artistic choice" ... you just don't get it because YOU want the complexity and elaboration of classical/jazz music and don't seem to understand that its opposite may still work musically and may still be needed and worth existing

But that's my criteria. I believe that brainless money-hunger and ignorant music made just for marketing and trends IS NOT reconciliable with passion and eyes that shines when you talk about your work. I listened two Gwen Stefani songs and I didn't like them ... in fact I find them boring and unmusical. But I accepted that as "my taste". I avoid any kind of judgement of superficiality and lack of content since I had seen an interview with Gwen and she didn't talk like a stupid-goose that is just manouvred by the market. She conveyes with her words a strong passion and love for music, she showed what she does to come up with a song and no one could have denied it was real hard work and not a pic-nic and she spoke intelligently of her songs. This is enough for me not to "appreciate" her song but to "respect" them, her and the people that like that music

And keep in mind that I hate consumism and comformism, I hate the insane materialism and superficiality of modern marketing.

Mind you I'm not denying the kind of artists that you talk about don't exist, those that just do it for the money and has no kind of idea, thought or creativity about their work
But you can't make such a broad judgement, and the ones you're talking about are rarer than the ones I'm talking about.
Also pop means nothing but popular. In other words pop is not a genre with a certain style and everything in a moment of big popularity can become pop. So pop is a non-genre, it's a "characteristic" that certain songs belonging to whatever genre reach.
For example trance songs have become "pop" even if  trance has remained a niche genre,  gothic songs have become "pop" even if gothic has remained a niche genre, bluesgrass songs have become "pop", newage (for lack of a better term) songs have become "pop", soundtracks songs have become "pop", jazz songs have become "pop" and so on and on

As for Britney Spears: I don't think she writes much of his song ... but she's a singer and she doesn't have to be the author of the song she sings. There's a big difference between the singer-writer and the singer. The singer is someone who can sing and sing other people songs. This is something has always bothered me though. Usually the singers become famous and the authors don't. One example is the german singer Blümchen: everyone who likes "her" songs just remember her ... treat her as if she was the author. The real authors: the one creating the music, harmonizing and playing are totally forgotten and unknown.

As for Eminem lyrics: we were talking about the music ... not the lyrics. We must think neutral enough to think of the music alone .... since we were discussing whether to use pop music in schools for musical education. I said I don't like rap musically (mostly) never said I don't like what certain song represents and what the lyrics convey

Also I know it's Earth, Wind and Fire ... not an useful argument making fun of me for a typo isn't it ?

And of course I'm not a native english speaker so let's not use that as an argument either. Also ... when I said snobs i didn't mean the whole forum ... I was addressing certain comments and claims .. rather than the people .. and certainly not all the people in this forum. I've been on this forum for years, have thousands of posts (I changed nick) and I know there are many members here who think like me and are even more liberal and reactionary than I am :p

[liszt-essence]

And of course I'm not a native english speaker [...]

'start to look beyond your nose'

My guess is, your dutch like me.. cuz that really sounds like a translation from dutch

[le_poete_mourant]

But we're talking about music, about judging the sounds [...]

So consumism, fake sounds, songs produced interely in a studio are not meaningful criteria.

[...]


What i've never understood it's the either-or attitude when there's no need to make wars to choose the ruler of the musical world.

Well, your argument is perfectly legit if you're talking about LISTENING.  But this thread was about STUDYING current pop music in school.  I am not against listening to any of the music you're arguing for.  I like a lot of it.  But I don't think there's anything worth studying there.  You can't get nearly as much musical or educational value out of it as the types that are generally studied. 

The problem is, I'm talking about music theory, which is what I think of when somebody talks about "studying music," and you're talking about recreational listening.  So, for what I'm talking about, the criteria is different than what you're talking about.  My criteria right now is construction, theory; your criteria is whether it sounds good.  You're talking about judging the sounds, I'm talking about analyzing the sounds. 

And I would never suggest that you can't listen to whatever kind of music you want, or that one type of music is better than any other, because it's just not true. 

[danny_sequel]

Well, your argument is perfectly legit if you're talking about LISTENING.  But this thread was about STUDYING current pop music in school.  I am not against listening to any of the music you're arguing for.  I like a lot of it.  But I don't think there's anything worth studying there.  You can't get nearly as much musical or educational value out of it as the types that are generally studied. 

The problem is, I'm talking about music theory, which is what I think of when somebody talks about "studying music," and you're talking about recreational listening. 

Okay, now I can talk put your words in context and to a some extent I agree with you but not completely. Certain things are taught better with Bach, Mozart and Chopin. Other aspects of theory are taught better with jazz and blues.
Pop music probably can't provide much education material as far as melody and counterpoint are concerned but I think they can still be usefull to explain certain aspects of harmony, chord progressions and rhythm. For example I can see counting being grasped better by analyzing the rythm of certain pop songs

Then I think it's time that musical educators don't only think they're forming future conductors, orchestra musicians and teachers but also pop musicians, soundtracks composers, musicals writers, jingles creators, electronic musicians, songs/ballads harmonizers and so on
It's time to understand music and music education as more eclectic and global and I think that it would be a good things for pop music if those working at it are better musically trained. There are certain aspect of writing pop music or soundtracks or videogame music or whatever which are the result of "untold common practices, experimentation, tricks, basics, formulas ...". If someone wants to write a canon he/she can take advantage of music education to get the tools to do it, if someone wants to write modern popular/niche music he/she has to resort to information exchange among friends, to knowing the right people, to be mentored by other musicians and so on
I can't see why given the strong role this music has nowadays we can't have an accademical body of knowledge about those too and not just baroque counterpoint, hindemith solfeges, czerny boring tortures, sonata principles, dodecaphonic theory and so on

[burstroman]

It is mindboggling to me that Liszt, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert, Sorabji, et al. have never elicited such lengthy replies as dear Brit.  What is Pianostreet coming to? Curioser and curioser!

[pianowelsh]

No!! I would consider that the worst form of child abuse!!

[danny elfboy]

No!! I would consider that the worst form of child abuse!!

You know that this is just a biased reply and not rational at all right?
It reminds me of those criticizing, for example, trance music without having ever listened to many pieces rapresentative of the genre, read the goals and thoughts of the authors, understood what it conveys to many people, been open minded about it things they don't know, goes beyond the stereotypical and formulaic rumors of what that music is all about or tried not to disregard something or the people that like it just because you've different tastes, mindset, opinions and needs

[pianowelsh]

au contrer.  I have listened to plenty of Britney (my friend was once part of a support act!).  I have no problem teaching kids a wide variety of styles and with popular media BUT i do insist that it be good quality material.  Britney - huh! No way!!!

[danny elfboy]

au contrer.  I have listened to plenty of Britney (my friend was once part of a support act!).  I have no problem teaching kids a wide variety of styles and with popular media BUT i do insist that it be good quality material.  Britney - huh! No way!!!

The problem is that good quality is rather subjective
I agree instead that if you must use pop music too to teach music theory you must choose the correct pieces that have something worth teaching. But even with classical music low quality pieces are used as educational material. Actually some consider them quality pieces and other consider them non-quality pieces ... so it's always subjective in the end ... I would focus on the aspects of the piece that can be used to teach music theory or lack of them ... not on something as ephemeral and biased as "quality"

[danny elfboy]

au contrer.  I have listened to plenty of Britney (my friend was once part of a support act!).  I have no problem teaching kids a wide variety of styles and with popular media BUT i do insist that it be good quality material.  Britney - huh! No way!!!

The problem is that good quality is rather subjective
I agree instead that if you must use pop music too to teach music theory you must choose the correct pieces that have something worth teaching. But even with classical music low quality pieces are used as educational material. Actually some consider them quality pieces and other consider them non-quality pieces ... so it's always subjective in the end ... I would focus on the aspects of the piece that can be used to teach music theory or lack of them ... not on something as ephemeral and biased as "quality"

[pianowelsh]

Quality can be assesed it is not ephemral. I agree there is much bad classical music too. I wouldnt dream of teaching that to youngsters either. I think we must be choosey what we put before young minds. I would teach any style of music as long as the particular piece in question has some intrinsic merit.  Unfortunately I find Britney lacking in almost every area - but she may surprise me oneday.

[shoenberg3]

Stupid topic... but I will chime in anyway.
A merit of a certain piece of art is mostly objective, although there is some subjectivity involved. Why can't people at 88street accept that? They are so naively entrenched with the stupidly quixotic idea that pianism is subjective and we cannot really judge the value of a certain interpretation.

 Anyway, to draw an analogy to literature, a common comic book is simply does not have as much literary value as the classics do. There is nothing to analyze, study about; unlike works of Shakespeare, there is simply not  much thought and depth that was conceived by the creator, thus, leaving us with nothing to look for. Likewise, most mainstream music does not offer any for us to think about and explore deeply into emotions (as cheesy as that sounds, that is the best I can word it).

My proposal simply, then, is to study good music. What is good music? A music that has been carefully and genuinely conceived by the composer. A music that coherently combines the intellect of the brain and the passion of the heart. There is much we can learn from these masterpieces.

Perhaps, the more controversial and important question  may be: where can we find good music? To this, many are tempted to say that it's all subjective. But, alas, good music is absolute and not subjective. There may be preferences, but good music is good music. Well then, I believe most classical music constitute as good music. Some of the more refined non classical acts, such as Pink Floyd, Radiohead, King Crimson and the jazz revolutionaries, can be called good music. And these, and these only, deserve a place in the classroom.

[mephisto]

What about the music of other cultures?

[shoenberg3]

I personally haven't done enough listening of non-Western music, but if they are "good," of course.

[danny elfboy]

Stupid topic... but I will chime in anyway.
A merit of a certain piece of art is mostly objective, although there is some subjectivity involved. Why can't people at 88street accept that? They are so naively entrenched with the stupidly quixotic idea that pianism is subjective and we cannot really judge the value of a certain interpretation.

 Anyway, to draw an analogy to literature, a common comic book is simply does not have as much literary value as the classics do. There is nothing to analyze, study about; unlike works of Shakespeare, there is simply not  much thought and depth that was conceived by the creator, thus, leaving us with nothing to look for. Likewise, most mainstream music does not offer any for us to think about and explore deeply into emotions (as cheesy as that sounds, that is the best I can word it).

My proposal simply, then, is to study good music. What is good music? A music that has been carefully and genuinely conceived by the composer. A music that coherently combines the intellect of the brain and the passion of the heart. There is much we can learn from these masterpieces.

Perhaps, the more controversial and important question  may be: where can we find good music? To this, many are tempted to say that it's all subjective. But, alas, good music is absolute and not subjective. There may be preferences, but good music is good music. Well then, I believe most classical music constitute as good music. Some of the more refined non classical acts, such as Pink Floyd, Radiohead, King Crimson and the jazz revolutionaries, can be called good music. And these, and these only, deserve a place in the classroom.

What you're saying is still totally subjective ... damn even physicists agree that scientific observation is subjective; let alone conveying emotions ...

That's the problem; judging whether something has content or not is subjective
For example you can't absolutely objectively say what the authors of Batman or Superman had in mind for their comics. In fact it's often what appears superificial at first sight that maybe hide more content than you may believe. There's nothing inherently inferior or contentless in entertainment. Something can be entertaining and yet deep and meaningful. In fact deep and meaningful and often personal emotions, thoughts and messages can be hidden behind entertainment ... because that's even emotionally more effective than just making it as obvious as possible

In other words you can't absolutely know what "has been carefully and genuinely conceived by the composer". Either you ask them or your must rely on your interpretation of what you listen BIASED, SUBJECTIVE and personal opinion. According to whether you like what your listen or whether it resonates and communicate with you and your particular mindset and emotions you'll project the serious or non-serious effort and goal of the composer

That's why in the previous messages I wrote that in being as objective as possible I consider good music the "honest music" the one where the author really made a serious effort to create it. And if you look at pop artists interview you'll see it's not just marketing. You're just not agreeing with the means they choose to use, with the way they conceive music, with the way they choose to translate emotions in music ... but the point is that they're indeed serious about their work and they made indeed an effort to create something personal and containing content.

I'm not saying it's always like this ... because I don't generalize, and you can't generalize the other way around

[danny elfboy]

Stupid topic... but I will chime in anyway.
A merit of a certain piece of art is mostly objective, although there is some subjectivity involved. Why can't people at 88street accept that? They are so naively entrenched with the stupidly quixotic idea that pianism is subjective and we cannot really judge the value of a certain interpretation.

To draw an analogy with beauty
The concept of beauty is objective
It appeared in the ancient greek and describes a body and face that are harmonious
A person to be beautiful must have features that are harmoniously combined

Hence according to the objective concept of beauty a person with a small face and long noise can't be beautiful. This doesn't stop many fans and people from literally drowling over Meryl Streep or Barbra Straisand.

Which means that even the non beauty can form a new subjective beauty for someone. In other words even if a concept has objective basis the SUBJECTIVE ONES win over the others. That applies to piano playing too. There are pianistic interpretation that I love and I don't even have a rational reason why ... it's just the way is.

At the end of the day clearly subjectivity wins over objectivity because while it's absolutely USELESS to claim who is the best pianist what really matters is that someone will appreciate and will be there to listen. What I'm saying is that eventually it's just a semantic game but what really matters is not whether a pianist is objectively better ... but whether you love going at his/her recitals. Because eventually the best objectively piano in the world may also be the one that gives and trasmits absolitely nothing

I would always choose to spend my money to listen a non technical perfect pianist that convey true emotions and music vibes than a technical perfect best-world piano "robot"
 

[pianowelsh]

The problem I find with most (not all) pop music is that it is SO formulaeic. It has the same essential components in it and is frankly not that inspired. Now its true much classical music is formulaeic too - I wouldnt consider that the best stuff to teach either..we should be bringing music which will enchant and inspire students .  Having said that it all depends what you want to get out of a class.  If you want them to understand the basic construction of muisc of the music they listen to and to be able to write and perform very simple and stereotypical paraphrases of the pop genre then thats what you must teach.  But then dont be surprised when there is no market for classical music 20 years down the line.

[danny elfboy]

The problem I find with most (not all) pop music is that it is SO formulaeic. It has the same essential components in it and is frankly not that inspired. Now its true much classical music is formulaeic too - I wouldnt consider that the best stuff to teach either..we should be bringing music which will enchant and inspire students .  Having said that it all depends what you want to get out of a class.  If you want them to understand the basic construction of muisc of the music they listen to and to be able to write and perform very simple and stereotypical paraphrases of the pop genre then thats what you must teach.  But then dont be surprised when there is no market for classical music 20 years down the line.

I don't think whole pieces of of music should be used to teach a certain formulai structure. I don't believe in school telling you what to do with you means just teaching you how to take advantage of those musics
For example in an architecture building class I wouldn't never use a whole building as an example but just small details from different building. I wouldn't want student to be taught (brainwashed) what to build just how to use the building means once they already know what build in their minds. It's just a matter of means and providing mean no telling othes how to use it

So either learning music theory from classic music or pop music or both SHOULDN'T absolutely lead to the student writing in a certain genre. Those examples should serve only as ways to teach them how to take advantage of the music building means they have available. What to create with those means is not only something that school shouldn't teach but that CAN'T teach

If you listen to a piece by Bryan Adams and a certain aspect of it is useful to grasp better an aspect of music theory ... you're not teaching Bryan Adams, you're not teaching how to compose like Bryan Adams ... you're teaching NEUTRAL MUSIC THEORY using music examples that are not supposed to influence style as they're nothing but example. And that applies to whatever kind of music. We should understand that using music as a teaching tool is a neutral fact

You're not going to teach pop music just taking advantage of pop music to make it easier to grasp universal and neutral theorical principles. The difference is huge

[pianowelsh]

Well very well BUT lets hope the next Mozarts and Beethovens escape the comprehensive system in that case because that is certainly not the way the great masters of pervious generations were taught. How can you ever get a real feel for structure and form unless you are taught whole works. How can you express yourself intelligeably if you have no syntac. Mozart Beethoven Chopin - all the greats were profound geniuses BUT they still studied the rudiments, thesy still wrote their pastiches of Bach and palestrina. They knew their harmony inside out. They knew their sonata form and modified sonata forms and the rest. You dont learn those principles without studying complete works in detail and frankly most modern music dosent stand up to that much scrutiny. Sorry if that disappoints - but really its true. The mass education recieved in music today lets down those who would seriously consider musical careers. It simply dosent furnish them with the necessary skills. In my piano class at college I was one of only 2 people who didnt come from  private school background with specialist music training. In addition that other one person had been at a junior department saturday school of a conservatory where they had recieved theory and support work training. I held my own because I studied theory in my spare time on my own and actively sightread books upon books of material from all genres. I didnt get into conservatory on the strength of my school music training - id still be hacking of fur elise today if I hadnt taken matters into my own hands.

[ramseytheii]

Well very well BUT lets hope the next Mozarts and Beethovens escape the comprehensive system in that case because that is certainly not the way the great masters of pervious generations were taught. How can you ever get a real feel for structure and form unless you are taught whole works. How can you express yourself intelligeably if you have no syntac. Mozart Beethoven Chopin - all the greats were profound geniuses BUT they still studied the rudiments, thesy still wrote their pastiches of Bach and palestrina. They knew their harmony inside out. They knew their sonata form and modified sonata forms and the rest. You dont learn those principles without studying complete works in detail and frankly most modern music dosent stand up to that much scrutiny. Sorry if that disappoints - but really its true. The mass education recieved in music today lets down those who would seriously consider musical careers. It simply dosent furnish them with the necessary skills. In my piano class at college I was one of only 2 people who didnt come from  private school background with specialist music training. In addition that other one person had been at a junior department saturday school of a conservatory where they had recieved theory and support work training. I held my own because I studied theory in my spare time on my own and actively sightread books upon books of material from all genres. I didnt get into conservatory on the strength of my school music training - id still be hacking of fur elise today if I hadnt taken matters into my own hands.

Somewhere in the middle of this gargantuan block of text you write, "education received in music today lets down those who would seriously consider musical careers."

i actually disagree, having seen so many conservatory students skip class, ignore the teacher, get by on minimal grades because they have instrumental talent, because they think the information doesn't matter.  Actually, the information about music, about how it's made, how it works, how it functions, is all there - it's taught.  People ignore it, that's the problem; pitifully few discover why it would ever be worth their time.

Here is an interesting quote from composer Steve Reich, who granted is talking about studying composition in particular, but I think the sentiment applies in this case also:

"Another thing you learn at a conservatory is to study the music of the past, and to imitate it yourself. And that is a worthwhile activity. To come up with an original style while you are still a student may occasionally happen, but generally speaking, what happens when you're a student is that you are imitating older styles.

Also, you may be doing exercises in formal disciplines like four-part harmony or species counterpoint, and you may wonder to yourself, what possible use will this have for me? Well, I would like to say that I remember being about 35 years old and writing Music for Mallet Instruments, Voices and Organ, thinking to myself, "My gosh! I'm 35 years old and I'm writing four-part harmony."...

These simple, traditional disciplines can sometimes feel onerous and irrelevant. But take my word for it, they will - in unforeseen ways -- become relevant. ... Learning about canon, you know, it seems very mechanical. What possible use could this have? Well, a canon is simply a procedure that is open to any kind of sound you like. You can sound like Sumer is Icumen In in the Middle Ages; you can sound like Johann Sebastian Bach; you can sound like Anton Webern; you can sound like Steve Reich. And you're still writing in canon."

Walter Ramsey