Third-Stream Music Education

I love this school.

My colleagues and I have been asked by the middle school principal to write out schedule suggestions for next year’s middle school band and choir classes.  There is no promise that we’ll get what we want, but WOW what a refreshing way to do business! This week my colleagues and I have been hammering out multiple plans based on mixed grades, separate grades, mixed instrumentation, separate instrumentation. . . you name it. . . and crunching the related numbers.

I am most proud of our data-driven metrics. We tried to represent our concerns in a systematic way, using data to show the dramatic effect that class makeup has on the classroom environment. Currently having small band classes split into two periods (i.e., fourteen 7th-grade Intermediate Band students scheduled into two sections of seven and seven, with a mixed bag of instruments in each) for the sake of PE and ESL scheduling, we are very concerned with class groupings.

The most important data metric we will rely on in our campaign for music-centric scheduling is “peers on like instrument”, or the number of students in any given class period on a given instrument. For example, in the aforementioned 7th-grade Intermediate Band, which is taught by one of my colleagues, one period has five flutes and the other period has four flutes. The “peers on like instrument” for this situation is essentially an average: n = (5+4) /2 = 4.5 peers on like instrument. The ensemble has two euphonium players, neither of which had ever heard the other until days before the December concert, as they are in opposing periods. Therefore, the 7th-grade Intermediate Band has a “peers on like instrument” score of 1: n = (1+1) /2 = 1 peers on like instrument. It is not surprising that the flute players in this situation feel less exposed and a little more willing to take little risks (go for the high note, go for the 16th notes, etc.) Since the “1″ is not a buddy sitting next to him,  the term “peers” is probably poorly chosen, but it nevertheless gets to the point. In all, the “peers on like instrument” score for our 7th-grade Intermediate Band is currently 1.75. If the two periods were joined (they are the same course, after all) the “peers on like instrument” score would be exactly double, or 3.5.

The “peers on like instrument” is not rocket science, nor will it change the world. My colleagues and I are certainly not statisticians. The “peers” concept is only valid as a comparison, and probably only within one school. It would not help us to compare our 153-student school’s “peers” numbers to those of a AAAAA Texas school (at least not without additional calculation to take the overall enrollment into account). It also doesn’t make me want to add four additional bari saxes to the ensemble out of concern for the existing bari sax player’s feelings. But it does help us get an idea of how an adolescent might feel in one situation versus the other. Remember, after all, that the brain grows wildly in the hypothalamus, or social-emotional area, and largely static (some middle school teachers might even say completely dormant?) in the neocortex, the center of intellectual thought, during the adolescent years. It would be foolish not to take the students’ social experience into account, and the (albeit poor) metric for that would seem to be “peers on like instrument”.

Tune in later this week for Part Two, including the full text of the proposal we sent to admin.

Filed under: Program Administration, Wind Pedagogy | No Comments »

A stunning post from Kenneth Woods at A View From the Podium this week. Check out Kenneth’s essay on Mahler 2. Especially notable are the dozen or so audio clips of a menagerie of conductors bringing their own (more and less “correct”) interpretations to the piece:

Who goes for contrast, and who goes for continuity? Who is fastest and who is slowest? Who has the most terrified sounding Alto soloist? Let’s listen….

On behalf of all of us, Kenneth, thanks for digging through the stack of discs and harvesting the gold!

Filed under: Genres and Stylistic Elements | No Comments »

By reader request, I would like to make my Audacity instructions available for everyone’s use. This is a one-page, full-color handout appropriate for middle- or high-school students (and teachers of all technology abilities!). I use this sheet to introduce my students to Audacity, and I insist that they refer to it every time they record a project. It is focused toward simple projects using a laptop computer’s internal mic (like playing quizzes) and does not cover detailed editing, multi-track options, or external hardware such as interfaces or better microphones.

AudacityInstructions downloadable PDF file

Permission is granted for reproduction and distribution, so long as authorship continues to be attributed to Cary Stewart. All other rights reserved.

Filed under: Technology | 2 Comments »

“ThirdStream2009″ image courtesy of www.wordle.net by Jonathan Feinberg.

What’s at the center of your professional world? Hopefully students are, with either “band”, “choir” or “orchestra” playing a large but not central role. We don’t teach music, after all….we teach students. Better yet, we teach future professionals and happy, self actualizing adults. An easy but important resolution for the new year: Make that state sweepstakes trophy the method, not the objective. Makes smiles, interpersonal growth and student ownership the goals.

Filed under: Aleatory | No Comments »

<Snicker>

Following the advice of this New Year’s Resolution Song, I have set these achievable and attainable resolutions for my teaching in the new year:

Play music in class.

Perform a couple of concerts every year.

Plan my lessons in advance…..at least once a month.

Insert a Band grade and comment into the report card of each and every Band student.

Miss the housing deadline for the state music teachers’ conference, then complete it online a week later in a tizzy at 1:00 a.m. only to see that my favorite hotels are full. A day or two after the charge hits my credit card, have a buddy volunteer to share his room in my favorite hotel.

Delete, without reading, any e-mail from the school secretary, of which the title begins with “IMPORTANT!!!!” or “Today’s Attendance” or “Weather”.

Delete, without reading, any e-mail from the Community Service Coordinator, AP Coordinator, Grade 6 Homeroom Coordinator, or Faculty Sunshine Committee Coordinator.

Listen to Miles while planning and grading.

Write a daily post on Third Stream….at least once a month.

Filed under: Aleatory | No Comments »

Here’s a quote from Tom Blodgett, via David Thomas over at The Buzzing Reed. The Buzzing Reed is one of the newest blogs on the Third-Stream blogroll, and we are quite happy that David is bringing us useful, actionable clarinet-specific information.

I personally think the big 3 makers – Buffet, Selmer, and Yamaha cater to different needs – Buffets have the best (sweetest) tone with the best key work (if you don’t get a lemon) and are more for solo work. Selmers are the darkest and heaviest, their key work is different than the Buffet, but in no way negative. They are good for large orchestras. Yamaha has the best consistency instrument – if you’ve played one, you’ve played them all. In my mind, these make the best military and band applications, where there is much more uniformity in tone and intonation.

While this is a generalization, it has valid points. I have used all three of these major brands in my bands, and I would tend to agree with Tom (in as much as it is a generalization). Just a couple of weeks ago I was extolling the consistency of Yamaha instruments to a colleague. And in clarinets, I really push my best students to invest in a personally-owned Buffet by the time they are going for honor band auditions. As an aside: Selmer, under the trademark Bach, also produces what I feel are some of the darkest-sounding beginning and intermediate-level brass instruments, while Yamaha again produces the most consistent instruments - coincidence, or corporate identity?

What clarinets do you purchase for your band? Do you agree with Tom’s conclusions as to the best applications for each maker’s sound?

Filed under: Wind Pedagogy | No Comments »

Excellent post by Doug Butchy over at Confessions of a Band Director. Cruise on over and have a look…this is how third-stream music educators build personal, lifelong connections between students and their music. Congratulations, Doug, on a major victory!

Filed under: Director's Diary | 1 Comment »

After the first day of the new student e-portfolio system, we have limited success.

The students reported no problem using Audacity. The laptops and their built-in mics worked. Most students set an appropriate gain level and made high-fidelity recordings (the performances recorded, however, seem to represent a wider range of quality!) Exporting to .mp3 format had the minor flaw of consistently causing Audacity to crash…but only after successfully completing the export (it is a known flaw in the Audacity 1.3 beta).

The major hiccup of the day was students’ ability to log in to our Sharepoint server. After several calls to our tech department, I think that is fixed. The major effect of this is that students were unable to upload their recordings and type in their self-critiques before the end of class.

The other half of my Advanced Band will run the gauntlet tomorrow. I’ll report back later this week.

Filed under: Technology | No Comments »

You might remember my struggles last school year to implement student online portfolios for all of my students, in the form of individual blogs. The short version: using Mac laptops, Garage Band audio software, iMovie video software and the school’s brand new Mac directory server, the system worked but was a royal pain in the neck. The recording and editing process was just as easy as you would expect on a Mac. However, the software included on the Mac directory server only does things one way; we had to use wikis instead of blogs, and we had to use Quicktime file types for the student videos. The result was that (1) the instructions for exporting the videos was three pages long and completely convoluted, and (2) file sizes were huge, causing upload and storage space issues. The school’s wireless access and internet reliability were also issues. When students could get their blogs finished the results were spectacular….but hit-and-miss learning tools are just no fun to use when your grade depends on the results. By the time I ceased requiring students to use the system in mid-April, cheers went up in every class. I was also relieved, and disappointed. The process was so draining that I elected to cease blogging about the experience until now.

Begin book two: new school, new technology in place. New pros and cons to navigate. The new school uses PC’s (boo) rather than Macs. We’ll use Audacity to record audio (hoping to add video later, but PC laptops are several years behind Macs in things like integrated webcams/mics), which I have used personally used on projects in the past (and which I have faith in, even though we’re using the 1.3 Beta). We’ll save the final cuts as “.mp3″ files rather than “.mov” using the LAME plugin (which is a lame acronym). We’ll use Microsoft’s Sharepoint server to run the online e-portfolios; the teachers here have been on Sharepoint for at least a year before I arrived in August, but the student Sharepoint server is brand-spanking new and my project will be the first on it. The school has slower and less reliable internet than my last, but seems to have a more reliable wireless access point network and a more reliable server.

The Technology Integration Specialist and I gave it a test run on a ProD day a couple of weeks ago. Worked like a charm. File sizes for one-minute mp3 files saved at full quality stereo are approximately 1.5 MB as would be expected (compared with 40-50 MB for similar .mov files last year). The only downside is that Sharepoint is not designed to hold imbedded media items (darn business-focused software), so audio and video files cannot play directly in the browser window (but I found a possible solution which I have forwarded to the tech department for consideration). Initial conclusions: I wish we were working with Mac laptops and with iMovie, but I am so glad to have a simpler and more reliable system for creating the online e-portfolios. The upside: reliability (hopefully). The downside: the e-portfolios look visually boring on the web page.

Monday and Tuesday this week I introduced my Advanced Band to the new system. Wednesday and Thursday will be our first recordings. I’ll report back next week with the results.

Filed under: Technology | 3 Comments »

We, the teachers, cannot curse in school. We may not swear at students. We cannot curse at the students despite our own frustrations. We may not curse, not even if a student’s poor performance deserves it. There are good reasons for this, including professional propriety, teacherly love and support, setting an example of positive coping strategies, and simple fear of repercussions. No matter what: we may not swear at either poor behavior or poor academic performance.

But what about the student at the other end of the spectrum? Have you ever been tempted to drop a naughty word into a congratulations speech for the purpose of making your students understand just how unnaturally pleased you are with their performance? Have you ever had a student be so extremely modest that a little shakeup might actually boost their self-esteem? Have your students ever earned the “hell yeah” or “damn fine job” or “so fucking proud of you” that didn’t slip past the filter of your professional code of conduct?

Filed under: Leadership Lab, Recruiting & Retention | 1 Comment »