Hello all,
When I reduce my own children to tears, in the normal course of life, I generally take this to be a sign of my own failure in some aspect of parenting, unless I am intervening in something where time is urgent, and I am leaping into action to save them from imminent destruction, e.g. screaming at them to get out of the street when a car is bearing down on them at high speed and close range. Otherwise, reason should prevail.
Reducing a child to tears is often the insignia of some authoritarian bastard who enjoys having people under his thumb, who revels in the dubious pleasure of making others squirm. I, for one, condemn any such practice.
I ask you, what is the purpose of teaching music?
If you've read any of my posts on my survey of good pianists, you will know that I believe kids need a lot of encouragement and nurturing to stick with music for long enough to cross that magical threshold where this activity becomes self-sustaining. It's very hard to get kids to persist at anything of daunting complexity, such as music.
What is the purpose of learning music? I believe the world is made a better, more peaceful place when people become enchanted by music. It is a good thing when we can help others decide to stick with music long enough to open the door to this exalted realm, this little "parallel universe," which is music. The magic words that open the door to this alternate universe work only when students get good enough to feel that incomparable thrill that comes with a high level of performance. Anything that gets them to stick with it long enough to cross that delightful threshold makes the world a better place. They won't stick with it if they don't feel thrilled. Kids crave such excitement as comes from being able to play well. So do adults.
Now, it may be that some otherwise benevolent souls think that reducing a child to tears may get the student to stick with the program long enough to cross this threshold to the exalted. The violinist Isaac Stern, among others, credits an overbearing mother for getting him to stick with it long enough for music's allure to become self-sustaining.
So it might be tempting to believe that the good end justifies the means. I would argue that Isaac Stern's mother would have done even better if she had found a more peaceful means to encourage her son to stick with it. I would argue that the end never justifies the means.
I will argue that reducing a child to tears, ON PURPOSE, is wrong. I will also argue that such tactics are counterproductive. More often than not, such authoritarian tactics will turn a child away from music, to cement a hatred of it, not to engender a self-sustaining love of music.
Best regards,
Eric Nolte