Week 2

Compare/Contrast Elliot and Reimer's views from the above reading selections; Which philosophy can you relate to most, and why?

Although we are not far into either books at this point, the authors have made it clear that their philosophies differ significantly. For Reimer, his beliefs constitute the philosophy of "music education as aesthetic education," which is often shortened to MEAE. Elliot names his the "praxial" philosophy of music education.

I noticed a few similarities between Reimer's and Elliot's thoughts right away. First, I easily caught on to the idea that music is multidimensional. They both recognize that music is set apart by its use of sound, but they also see that the musical experience is more than that. Music incorporates performing, improvising, composing, arranging, conducting, listening, etc. They also feel that music is culturally grounded and that it serves social functions. In addition, both authors believe that everyone should make music to experience it appropriately and that enriching musical experiences should be made available to everyone.

Interestingly enough, the last two similarities listed above were discussed as contradictions in the books. Elliot calls Reimer's views too "narrow," yet Reimer clearly states that, "Music is too complex, too inclusive, too multifaceted, to be entirely dependent on just on of its dimensions, necessary as each of its dimensions might be." I will say, though, that Elliot goes into much more detail (at least, at this point in the book) as he points out the different dimensions of music and how they interact. In the area of promoting the spread of music education to everyone, both authors have different ideas. Reimer wants all students to have a listening-based general music experience and offer elective performance-based musical experiences. Elliot wants all students to have performance-based musical experiences. Either way, they want all students to have music, but they don't quite agree on what and how.

There is a huge rift between the "process" and the "product" of music. Both acknowledge that music goes through a process and a product is created through that work, but they disagree on where the focus should lie within music education. For Elliot, he thinks that there should be less focus on "masterpieces" and more focus on the process that created it. He wants students making music. Reimer also wants students making music, but he also wants students to experience music by listening to it so they can have aesthetic experiences that are intrinsically rewarding. He thinks this can be done by teaching students about the contexts in which music is written.

What I've noticed the most, so far, is that Reimer (although he has specific focus) wants to incorporate everything with his synergistic approach to music education. It seems that Elliot is not aware of this as he makes claims in his book that don't necessarily reflect what I'm reading in the Reimer text. I hope this starts to clear up as we progress though them. That being said, I can relate to Reimer's philosophy the most. I think this is because I share his idea that extremism, while clear and leaving no room for interpretation, is dangerous because it causes people to choose sides, preventing collaboration and middle ground to be established. I like the idea that differing philosophies have to share some beliefs and that avoiding the "either, or" standpoint can cause progress to be made. I also believe in the power of music and what it does aesthetically, although I don't think that should be its be all, end all. We'll see what happens in the following chapters as more ideas unfold.