#1: For my history of Rock and Roll Course (or perhaps music appreciation)

Take a look at popular music today. The variety that exists, the ways in which we disseminate the music we listen to. It might also help to discuss the history of radio broadcasting a bit and the popularity of music that was associated with the radio.

For discussion:

Why do we have some many musical styles?
How has the internet affected the choices we have and the popularity of music?
How did the radio and sound recording affect and lead to music of today?

Have the students write 2 -3 pages about how the music of today might be different without the radio and sound recording moving rock and roll to the forefront. Would classical music dominate or the music of Tin Pan Alley? Would rock and roll have developed and attained the level of popularity it ultimately did?

Another aspect that could be looked at is how future generations will view us and the contribution that radio has made to that image. I could see a 2 -3 page assignment asking student to discuss if we will be viewed positively or negatively for the songs we have today. How did the radio influence this path? Was the radio ultimately a good thing or a bad thing for music?

#2: For American Politics and Government

I would like this lesson to focus on campaign music and how technology has changed the music of campaigns and the way we hear that music.

Listen to four or five campaign songs from between 1800 and 1900.

For discussion:
• What are the defining characteristics of those songs?
• How are they constructed?
• How are they delivered to the electorate?

Moving along in history:
• What happens to this music in the 1920s when radio appears?
• How are the songs different?
• In what ways are candidates using these songs?
• Does marketing become more of a factor?
• How about the use of television?
• Or the internet in modern times?

Now, write 2 -3 pages discussing how the music has changed in presidential elections as the technology has changed. Remember to talk about how songs were constructed early on as opposed to what candidates chose to use now. Are the current songs more or less effective? Would they have worked with the new medium of radio? Why or why not?

First, let me say that I am not sure why this thought kept coming into my head when I was reading this chapter but I will run with it anyways.

It has been said many times through history that "the only thing that stays the same is that everything changes." I would like to contest this logic by saying that "despite that everything changes, it all stays the same." Perhaps I am showing my pessimistic side with this thought, but let's look at our music industry as a case study. We go back to Tin Pan Alley and they are big businesses attempting to sell sheet music, which means that they, in a way, determined who would be famous and who would not as a song writer by whom they chose to publish. "It was the publishers who turned the creations of songwriters and lyricists into commercial properties."

This can be seen as we move into the era of records and radio (although, Tin Pan Alley did themselves in by not embracing the means of recording their hits when they had the chance, which hurt them drastically in the long run). This can be seen to further extent when see records and radio converging. Not only were the record companies controlling who had the ability to be recorded, but the DJs were making decisions on who heard those recordings over the air. This led to the whole idea of Payola (or pay for play) that got a bunch of people in trouble at one point.

What point am I trying to make. It is the business men who have made the determination of what "good music" is or at least decided regardless of the music, that they could promote an image. It is not the public at large who has make people or decided who would be the next biggest thing...that is perhaps until American Idol came on the scene, and even then, while the public decides, they are greatly limited in their choices by three people who think they are the end all be all of music. Where does that leave someone who thinks they have the stuff to go all the way in the music scene? Maybe what has finally changed is that ones only recourse is not hitting the rode playing a bunch of sleazy backroom bar gigs hoping that they are accidentally found by some grand record producer. Thinking about technology and how it has influenced music, I think that the internet at the end of the day may end up having the greatest influence of all. Not in the fact that celebrities can promote themselves as we discussed earlier, but in the fact that now we have a medium where a person can make themselves into celebrity by getting the public at large interested in what they are doing. As much as I hate to say it, look at someone like Justin Bieber. Using technology perhaps against the record labels and their management to force them into taking a look into what he has to offer to the musical world. Like I say, I don't know personally that it will be much if anything that he offers, but it is refreshing to see that technology can affect the outcome of ones musical career and not a bunch of "suites" as perhaps in the past.

So, having said all that, where do I want to go from here? I think the biggest reason that I read this chapter was because of the inception of radio round about 1920. The idea that we can market something to a broad range of people is appealing to me. I don't find it odd necessarily, but interesting that radio had this internal struggle between "classical" music or "high culture" and "popular" music. It seems to me a no brainer that at the end of the day, regulations and all, that it would head down a more populist avenue. Unless your goal is to force a specific music on the public (say classical in this case) for the purpose of spreading culture, the medium is bound to be headed for a populist view point. I mean, this is a great deal of what made jazz come as close as it did to becoming a popular music...not an easy feet considering that origins that it held.

Did they envision back then that radio would become what it is today? How about records or just recorded music in general? Could they see the vast influence that both of these mediums would have not only on music and determining what the latest greatest music was, but on news broadcasting, the outcomes of elections? Did they for see that other technologies might actually take the power of "creating" an artist out of their hands? Perhaps more important, with the large conglomerates having so much control, how was a newcomer supposed to break into the scene?

I guess another, and perhaps more disturbing, topic is that of sheet music. As the technologies of the day developed, the need for sheet music and the ability for people to read music in general diminished exponentially. It moved music from being a popular art form that was PRODUCED in the home, to something that was merely listened to in the home. In fact, many of the musicians today in the popular world can't read a note of music. Now I realize that popular rock and roll is devised from the aural traditions of African music, and I would never suggest that we would want to forget the roots. But, it seems to me that, with the populist bent, music gradually began to dumb itself down, and I think that may be in large part due to the radio and the record album. I mean, Jazz is an aural tradition, and look at the complexity that exists there, but its heyday ended at the end of the Big Band era as a "popular" music style...and at that time the Big Bands were reading a lot of their stuff. The popular music of today are 4...maybe 5 chords and some words which is a far cry from someone like say Gershwin, and an even further cry from say Brahms who was not all that much before Gershwin.

I guess the point I am trying to get at is that with every advance that we have in technology, there is a shortcoming that seems to follow. We record music, and suddenly we do not need to play it and, as a result, in my opinion, we do not know how to be good musicians and interpret music. Let me hang on this thought for just a moment. It is not that perhaps we don't know how to interpret this music, but we have changed from ACTIVE listeners of music to passive listeners of music. The fact that I have students who say they only time they listen to music is in the background because they don't want to have to "think" about it is rather appalling to me. Music is one of the most primitive connections we have to our brains. It can move us, inspire us, etc. and we have chosen to turn it into something that is just "there" because we don't want to have to think about it, or worse, allow ourselves to be vulnerable to it. Continuing on...we get computers and it seems that people lose the ability to write things out by hand or do math with anything but a calculator. We lose the ability to work "manually" for lack of a better term. How many people have had the internet go down at work and all of a sudden everything stops...or worse, it goes down and the entire lesson you were going to teach for that day is lost because you didn't have access to your materials any longer. On the flip side, the internet now allows us to see the Justin Biebers of the world and catapult them to stardom.

There are some questions to ask in the development of popular music styles however. What happens to popular music if we don't have the radio or the sound recording? Do we continue with the Tim Pan Alley style popular hits that we are used to hearing from the day? Does rock and roll ever develop? Or if it does, does it develop the popularity that it has now? Does parlor music continue to be the form of entertainment in the home or does something else come along to replace it? What about music and the movies?

I feel like this reading has simply inspired me to get on my proverbial soap box once again, so...for the final time I will descend from my pulpit and try to think about what this means to me in education. It means that music is now disseminated quickly. It means that the way we look at the world changes instantly. It means the landscape of our nations ultimately changes with media as the focal point. It means that "the only thing that stays the same is that everything changes."

#1: This assignment could be used for a music appreciation course of any type.

You could begin with a discussion of good vs. bad music. What makes them good or bad? What criterion do we use to decide if a piece of music is good or bad?

Have students read:
• How to Review a Concert (Classical) http://www.bachtrack.com/youngreviewer-how-to-review
• How to review a Concert (Jazz/Popular) http://www.ehow.com/how_4514634_review-concert.html
• Concert Goer's Guide (General) https://paris.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073122130/student_view0/concert_goer_s_guide.html
• How to Write a Great Album Review http://www.ehow.com/how_4800853_write-great-album-review.html
• How to Write a Good Music Review for Money (eHow) http://www.ehow.com/how_5898226_write-good-music-review-money.html

Have students get into small groups and articulate what criterion they should use when rating a performance. This can include a numeric scale of some type if desired, but should also have a place for them to articulate a "why" type response as well.

Gather these from each group and design a "rubric" for rating a performance/album, etc. This can be sued by students when they attend any concert performances that may be required for the class.

#2:

Have students attend a concert (if there are no concerts available, perhaps a CD of a performance of a particular work would suffice). Students should fill out the "rubric" as completely as possible...making sure to articulate the reasons they are assigning there specific scores and an over all impression of the performance.

Now, they should take their "rubric" and write a 2 - 3 page concert review making sure that it: speaks about the music/performance/album with an informed voice (intelligent), they argue their point in a persuasive manner, and they write it keeping their target audience in mind (more than likely the youth population).

Students should remember to use a variety of adjectives that articulate their point (as their reading suggests, they should keep a thesaurus handy)

For class discussion:
Does look at a performance with this "rubric" in mind change the way you listen to music? If so, how? Does it change your perception of the various types of music you have listened to? How?

#3 Assignment for American Government and Politics Class

Looking at the music of political campaigns and their effectivenss.

Listen to some songs of years past that were used in political campaigns (both pre modern era and current). Discuss with the class what makes them effective in delivering their message and swaying the electorate. Attempt to determine what makes them effective tools. Identify criterion that they can listen for to put in conjunction with the message of the campaign to determine if it is effective. A few might be:

• Campaign message vs song message


• popularity of the song being used


• demographic the song will target


• ability to put a candidates name in the public

Throughout Ben Folds' long career, he has tried to infuse his own brand of humor into music that reflects many of real life events occurring in his life. His album release of Way to Normal is no exception to this history. In particular, Folds' song "Effington" is a fun depiction of perhaps an unpleasant moment in his life.

"Effington" is in reference to a town in Illinois (as is the "Normal" of the albums title). Folds here creatively and effectively uses "Effington" as a double entendre for both the location described above, but also a place in which people "do it too" implying that perhaps one of the problems towards the end of his most recent marriage was a lack of relations between he and his estranged wife.

The original version of the song is quite fluid. It opens with a nice a cappella rendition of the bridge "If there's a God he's laughing at us, and our football team" and transitions into the opening verse with piano, bass and drums. The simplicity of the instrumentation allows the text of the song to speak for itself. Folds is not "electronically" contrived, but rely a great deal on the piano as the fundamental "sound" of his group.

However, this is not the version of the song that I would recommend. On his album University A Cappella Folds actually makes his own a cappella arrangement of "Effington" that I think listeners will find to be far superior to the original. The fact that all the accompaniment and percussion is contrived via the voice gives the song a very unique sound. Also, the fact that this version was contrived by Folds gives one a unique perceptive into the creative mind of the song writer when deciding to branch out into other areas previously owned by groups like Inside-out and Tonic Sol Fa. The use of vocal percussion gives the song a driving beat that the percussion of the original cannot match. Folds is able to make a play on the original opening of the song by having children try to sing the opening lines. They are unable to make it past the word "God" before they begin to laugh, which in a way is very representative of the song as a whole. Also, the creative use of text to keep the accompanying vocal textures interesting allows Folds to emphasize portions of the song that were not necessarily done in the original, bringing perhaps a more important meaning to the original while enhancing the comedy and playfulness that Folds to keenly is able to incorporate into his music.

The playfulness of Folds is most apparent in the text of his songs. This can be seen in the opening lines of the song where he shows us the blatant use of the double entendre by stating "Effington would be a wonderful Effing place". He is also able to creatively express the dilemma he is facing when he says "I could change my name, grow a beard, start a family, Or I could just keep on movin' on till I get to Normal" Folds shows us the ultimate issue with his estranged wife and their lack of intimacy when he finally comes to the realization that "that's what 'Normal' people do...'Normal' people do it too". One of his more brilliant moments in the song, is his ability to point out how absurd we all are when it comes to the most unimportant parts of our life saying "If there's a God he is laughing at us and our football team". Here Folds is insinuating, and correctly so, that God has far better things to do than trouble himself with mundane things such as the outcome of sporting events. Perhaps this also speaks volumes to the relationships he is referring to in this song.

Ben Folds fan or not (which I most assuredly am not) one still has to respect the ability of this musician to bring everyday issues to the forefront through his use of music and real life experiences. It is no wonder that this album topped out at no. 11 which is the highest any of Folds' albums have been able to make it on the Billboard charts. "Effington" is a playful look into the soul of a destroyed man looking for answers...a look that is worth a listen!

#1: For the "History of Rock and Roll"

Looking at how celebrity was developed and maintained in the 1960s as compared to the 21st century.

Begin with a discussion of what celebrity is: What does it mean to be a celebrity? What are student's looking for in a celebrity that they follow? What maintains celebrity?

Let's look at the Beatles from the 1960's. How was their celebrity in the United States achieved?
• Marketing strategy of "the Beatles are coming"
• Appearance on the Ed Sullivan show
• Subsequent concerts and life

Compare that with someone like Kerry Underwood
• American Idol
• The ability to learn "who they are" through the course of a TV show and vote for them
• The use of modern internet forces to solidify their "real" or "personal" selves

Write 2 - 3 pages about the effectiveness of each of these methods. Which of these is more effective? Why do you believe it is more effective? Do you think a campaign like the Beatles would work today? How does the use of Face book and Twitter allow celebrity to maintain their popularity? Is it effective in your opinion?

#2: For "American Government and Politics"

Looking at the "consolidation of power" using celebrity as a way to look at politics.

Begin with a discussion: What is the goal of a celebrity today? What tools do they use to maintain their celebrity status? Are they effective?
• Make sure to bring up the idea of the public image vs/in conjunction with the "personal" image.
• Does offering a personal image help their celebrity? Why?
• The use of Twitter and Face book to offer fans a way to have a personal connection or a "buy in" to the celebrity.

Celebrities now days use the lure of offering a piece of their person selves as a way to maintain their hold on their celebrity and/or expand their celebrity...to "consolidate their power" so to speak.

How do politicians "consolidate their power" or create their image of celebrity? Do politicians use Face book and Twitter in the same way? Do they attempt in campaigns and while they are in office to reveal portions of their personal lives that might get people to relate and side with them? Is it effective?

Just as celebrities use their fame to inject themselves into politics, do politicians use their political clout to inject themselves into the world of celebrity? Does it make sense to you that politicians and celebrities will team up for political causes? How about political campaigns?

Write 2 - 3 pages discussing the role of celebrity and it relates to politics and politicians. How does the disclosure of their "personal" side help or hinder their ability to "consolidate power" amongst the electorate. Is this "personal" side "real" and does it matter if it real or not? Are there other factors that should be considered?

To start, I would like to begin by saying that I find a great deal of truth in what Marshall is saying. In fact, I think that the introduction of the internet based medium have benefited celebrity a great deal. Not just in the fact that they can have more exposure to the public, but in the fact they now have more of an ability to control that exposure. The tabloids are attempting to capture their "real" personas in as much as they would love to see all the dirt that is a celebrity's life. However, with Twitter, Face book, You Tube, etc. celebrities now have the ability to control both their "professional" persona and what they would like people to believe as their "real" or "private" persona. The truth of the matter is that it is as fake as ever, but the perception of reality only bolsters their image, and, at the end of the day, that is what this is really about is being able to sell their image. Why else do we pay an extra $50 for a pair of jeans with their name on it (or because they wore a pair just like them in the latest movie they were in).

But I digress slightly. I find it interesting that the majority of celebrities sighted in this article were actors. Not to say that there weren't musicians, but those musicians that were mentioned I think were not so prevalent in the modern musical scene, but rather from years past. Their creative output has long since ceased which leads me to my first thought.

I find this concept a little less relevant for a musician like Ben Folds. There are a large number of musicians that do not write most if any of their own material now days, to which medium like Twitter and Face book become more important for the dissemination of the "personal" side of them. However, someone like Ben Folds, who write all his own music, has an advantage to the actors and other musicians in the fact that his music already reflects that personal side that others are trying to show in their controlled manner. Folds uses his songs to discuss the events that are currently going on in his life. He has written songs about his two children, dedicated an entire album to his latest divorce, and discussed his past three marriages all through his music. We talk about music being one of the most primitive natures of man. We talk about it being an insight into the soul. With the music of Beethoven and Brahms we are able to get a better glimpse into the specific events that were affecting them at any given time (take Brahms Symphony No. 4 for example). I know I rail against the "lack of music" in today's music, but if we look at from a music and text standpoint (which we must with all popular music) when dealing with a song writer we already have a glimpse into their collective soul...a look into their personal life that is in many ways the same or deeper as the controlled look into the actors life we get through a medium such as face book or twitter.

This does not mean it is not necessary for a musician such as Folds to use these other medium. However, they are many times going to use it more as a public relations and marketing tool. In many ways it is a brilliant public relations tool. You look at a website for a musician and in order for it to really be effective you have to get your listeners going to that site. To get new people there you have to hope that those who already visit the site "spread the word" for you. However, with something like Face book, you get your 200,000 fans or so to sign up as a "fan" or as a friend (depending on how you establish your page) and many times anytime you send out something to them, it also gets disseminated to every one of their friends. You have this exponential growth of the people who will see your material in one way or another. You still have the ability to control your message, control your image, but introduce new people to that "message".

Something like Face book or MySpace, etc. can serve as a way of two way communication even when the celebrity doesn't necessarily mean to have a meaningful two way conversation. Look at one of Ben Fold latest projects "University A Cappella". This was started because a college group took one of Folds' songs and turned it into a completely a cappella format. They then proceeded to send it to him via one of the various modes of internet communication. Folds saw this and began a dialogue which ended with a nationwide search for the best a cappella arrangements of these pieces which he recorded and released in 2009. Through the use of this medium he did two things. First, he was able to create a meaningful communication with some of his fan base. He made them feel like he cared by listening and responding (when in previous years this may have been sent to him via CD and might have ended up in the trash with a form letter). Second, by taking their idea and expanding upon it, he created an environment where college a cappella groups were interested in his music because they might have the opportunity to be on a CD performing one of this songs. What a great marketing tool. It actually led to a video on his MySpace page about the making of the CD and talking about the various groups that participated. He has maintained his "down to earth" appeal, show fans that he cares about what they have to say...in a meaningful way actually, and created a project with their help. He has created new fan base for life through the use of these internet based medium. (He created his own "reality TV" show so to speak)

Folds uses Twitter as well as a part of his arsenal following in the vein of Oprah Winfrey in that he has a following but does not follow anyone. The Tweets are fairly bland, discussing "a big ass birthday party" or "Gracie (his daughter) in a mask". Just enough personal information to keep you interested but nothing that is actually all that revealing or all that important for that fact.

At the end of the day, what are we talking about when we talk about celebrity? Are we talking about selling an image? Are we talking about an overblown popularity contest? I think the answer to these two questions is "yes" personally. In a day and age when people are on the web 24 hours a day and the news cycle runs the same way, it only makes sense that celebrities would want that same presence. As I said earlier in this post, what it comes down to is control. People want to know the "real" celebrity so celebrities now a have a way to show their "real" selves...the self they want the public to think they are. The problem is that I think people are smarter than that. Many people I think might follow these things for their novelty (or in order to get updates on events that may not be as publically advertised). However, we know that people's real lives are often fairly dark with many secrets or personal issues that a celebrity would not readily share (which is why they have to be careful in their Twitter posts ala Elizabeth Taylor). As a friend of mine said to me yesterday "it is not really about the dissemination of information, it is about the consolidation of power". Perhaps all this really is is a grand marketing strategy...

As I said earlier, however, the advantage that I think listeners of music have (when their artists are actually the song writers) is that they perhaps give away more than they intend through their musical outlet. Their music in combination with the other forms of communication solidify their "realness" for us and only make them that much more attractive.

With this assignment I want to both get them thinking about the idea of censorship and what it means to the and also help to develop critical thinking skills or skills in formulating an argument.

#1
First, introduce the topic of censorship. Start from the vantage point of government censorship. What is censorship (various ways of looking at the topic)? Where have we seen it used in the past and for what purpose?

Next, students should write 2-3 pages for the following class discussing what censorship is and if there are ever and times where censorship is permissible.

#2
For the next class period I would like to bring up the topic of censorship in terms of the private sector. Have students read "Crash into me, baby: America's implicit
music censorship since 11 September" by Eric Nuzum and "Musical responses to September 11th: The list of allegedly 'banned' songs."

Begin with a discussion regarding the list of "banned" songs from September 11, 2001. Discuss that the list was not "banned" but rather a suggestion for sensitivity that DJs could use their best judgment to play or not to play. Which of these songs do you think are appropriate for a list of this type? Are there songs that you think are inappropriate for this list? Why do you think they are there?

Second, in Nuzum's article how does he define the idea of censorship in relation to music? Is there a difference between the government "banning: or "censoring" a particular type of music and a business "deciding" not deal with a particular type of music? When radio stations do not play songs from a "suggested" list of "do not air" songs, are they truly censoring the music or making a business decision? Is there a difference?

This topic I think would be fairly contentious. Ideally, I would divide the class up according to what there belief in censorship is when it comes to the private sector. Depending on how many take each position, it may mean that I would need to divide them up more evenly that the natural distribution. Have them work in groups of two to prepare for a debate in the subject against their counter parts. Give them 15 - 20 minutes to formulate the ideas that they would like to pursue to convince their classmates of their position. Then...inform them that they will be arguing the other position. Give them until the next class period to research and prepare an argument and a rebuttal to present in an in class debate.

The hope here is that by learning about the other side of the argument more in depth, it will not only inform the position that they have taken, but also help them learn how to argue their position more effectively.

#3
Finally, take a look at songs like "Cop Killer" by Body Count, "Suicide Solution" by Ozzy Osborne, "Let Me Put My Love Into You" by AC/DC, and "We're Not Going to Take it" by Twisted Sister.

Why do you think the PRMC would think these songs should carry some type of a warning label? Are they justified in their concerns? Is the request to put warning labels on various music types regarding content a good thing or a bad thing? Is it censorship? Are the movies different from the music industry in this regard?

Write a 2 -3 page argument for why you believe this is a good idea or a bad idea. Address the concerns regarding censorship regardless of your position.

In the readings for this week, the authors discussed censorship as they potentially see it within the context of the twentieth century moving into the twenty first century. The article "Music Censorship (part 1) : A Brief History" by Kelly Sparrow seeks to identify over the past 60 years or so a number of instances where they have seen the "censorship" of music. These range from radio stations choosing not to play certain works to the attempt of congress to form an oversight committee to determine if songs were appropriate and perhaps even recommend (or in fact uniformly) change lyrics before they are offered for sale to the public. Our text book spends a great deal of the discussion regarding censorship discussing the role of PMRC and the "conservative" religious fervor as an element of this censorship of music.

These thoughts have led me to my own question...what is censorship? If we look in the dictionary, censorship is "1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively". We might ask to go further then and see what it means to censor. According to our dictionary, to censor is "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable". So now that we know what censoring is by definition, the next question I want to ask is what does it mean to have something censored? Who has the power to censor something? Is there a difference between censorship and choice?

We can look to our classrooms to begin our discussion. How many times have we cut off a student in the middle of a thought because they were heading on a different track or they were espousing their own belief in something that we did not feel was "appropriate" for the discussion or school for that matter? If we look at censorship in its truest form, are we not censoring the thoughts of our students and not giving the other students in our classes the right to consider those thoughts and make decisions for themselves? Or are we exercising good judgment as teachers, keeping our discussions to relevant topics and thoughts, and making sure our classrooms to not become havens for profanity because students don't have the vocabulary to necessarily express what they would like to say?

Take the individual who listens to music. Four people are driving in a car and someone wants to listen to a specific type of music. The driver does not allow that type of music in their vehicle the other occupants of the car are never allowed to hear it. Is the driver committing a true act of censorship or expressing their preference for their own type of music while in a vehicle that is under their control at the time?

May be those first two examples a bit nebulous, so perhaps we can discuss the radio industry for just a moment. Radio stations that are formatted for specific types of music...are they not committing an act of censorship by not allowing the playing of all the other varieties of music, or are they simply reacting to the market forces of their primary listenership. Is there a difference then between a company making a business decision that it feels is in its best interest, vs. actually censoring the music?

To me true" censorship" comes when a much higher power puts the "kibosh" so to speak on a form of communication. To me this usually insinuates the government. For example, if a radio conglomerate makes a recommendation to its djs that they should avoid playing a specific type of music due to a national event (this happened around the time of 9/11 if you recall) is it truly censorship? Can you not find the music you would like to hear from another source (the record store, YouTube, download from iTunes, etc.)? It is not as if the government has come along and declared that these songs cannot be played on the radio and should not be sold in stores and should be removed from the internet. That to me is true "censorship" as it were. When a higher power comes along and makes it impossible to get your hands on legally, that is when we have a problem here.

I think back to the readings in our text about the PMRC. Were they trying to "censor" something? Perhaps when they began their hearings before congress they had lofty goals in this direction, but initially they were looking for a rating system. I find it funny that we rate movies but due to the "quantity of music" we don't think we should be looking at the appropriateness of the music that our children can get their hands on. Even the FCC reserves the right for the "common good" to restrict the amount of foul language and explicit material that we are exposed to on television...why do we find it a violation of the first amendment then when we consider this with music? I realize that we find our selves coming down the slippery slope with interpretation, etc. As someone who is all in favor of metaphor in music and the higher thinking of music, why not keep it simply to material that uses foul language and explicit discussion of sex (take lil' Kim for example...a bit of both that I would not like my daughter getting her hands on without my knowledge).

Our book also references any number of court cases in which an album or a group was brought to trial for obscenity or something of the like. I think these are horrible examples of censorship...perhaps attempted censorship...but at the end of the day our justice system should be applauded for WORKING. These were not censored but rather declared the free speech that it truly is.

There are a few moments in history when censorship has been a huge problem. For example, when we ban certain books from public schools because we don't like content. Here, students can still get their hands on the material, but in a way the government is telling them that this material is unacceptable for their education and therefore bad. I believe the FCC position in 1971 bordered on censorship when they were threatening to revoke the licenses of radio stations for playing songs about "drugs". Even during WWII, censorship from the government occurred in radio because they feared that the information might help their enemy...perhaps justified...but still censorship to me.

There are any number of examples in these articles that I think are horrible examples of censorship, but rather business decisions made by companies who have the right to protect their interests. The 1955 example where the radio station stopped playing a particular song due to protect from its listeners...they actually listened to the consumer and we accuse them of censorship? 1968 when a Texas radio station "banned" or as I would say "made a choice" not to play Bob Dylan songs because they could not understand the lyrics...a CHOICE.

I think another thing I find funny here is that we lay the blame completely on the record labels and radio stations. These are businesses that make decisions like this all the time. Artists understand this going in, and if they don't they should not be allowed to use "ignorance of the law" as a way to blame the industry they have VOLUNTARILY gotten into bed with. Yes, they made their bed, they signed a contract with s record label relinquishing a certain amount of power and authority in their music making process if the label so chooses so why do we accuse the labels of censorship when they exercise the power that was granted to them? An artist can make a choice to sign elsewhere, form their own label or just be independent. There are any number of groups that strictly put thing out via the internet to avoid the record labels making decisions about their artistic visions.

Another thing that I find funny is that by avoiding what I might call an overreach in what censorship is, we may actually be censoring those we are accusing of censorship. Well, that was perhaps a bit nebulous so let us take our 1980 example from Sparrow's article. The reference is to a youth minister that "organizes a group of teenagers who publically burn records for the Beatles, Ravi Shanker, Peter Frampton, etc". Is this an act of censorship? I would argue that these people are exercising their first amendment rights to protest against a particular topic of public interest, in this case music. If we stop them from doing this are we not violating their first amendment rights and censoring their speech? Do they not have the right to express their opinion about this music, even if it is not shared by others? Isn't that what they are accusing the "conservatives" of doing? Seems to me that this is a two way street here.

So, in short, the question is not if censorship actually occurs...I think we all know that it does. The question is simply if every choice that is made that "limits" or "changes" the music is actually an act of censorship? There are other issues at play, for example, does changing the music or putting a warning label on that music only interest the population you are trying to "protect" more? Are their times that censorship of something is actually acceptable? Where does the line of making a business decision end and censorship begin? Is there a line and if not, isn't everything censorship at the end of the day? The material we chose to teach or not teach, the music we decide to record or not record (should every Tom, Dick and Harry have the "right" to a recording contract then since not having one would be to censor their music?), the opinions we listen to and chose not to listen to, etc. When you open up censorship as broadly as people like Eric Nezum would like, it seems that there are no choices you can make that are correct.

As with many of the things that we do in my courses, a great deal of it revolves around discussion and presenting them with questions to guide their thought and allow them to explore the issue. These are no different.

#1: This assignment is for a jazz literature and appreciation course.

Let us take a look at "jazz" music through the lens of authenticity.

Questions:
What does it mean for music in general to be authentic?
What is "authentic" jazz?

Since most students do not come into this course with knowledge of jazz music(s), lets being the discussion with what it means to be authentic in the popular music that they encounter in their everyday world. What is the difference between a music developing and in turn becoming less authentic?

Read: "Authenticity Within Hip=Hop and Other Cultures Threatened with Assimilation" by Kembrew McLeod

Here the author discusses what makes Hip-Hop "real" or "authentic". Music that does not conform to these criterion are therefore considered "fake" forms or perhaps even commercial forms of the music. Is the move of a rapper like Will Smith to more "commercialized" Hip-Hop truly a move away from "Authenticity" or is it a move in the development of the Hip-Hop medium?

Think back to early jazz and the definitions that were used to describe this music. Was Louis Armstrong correct when he insinuated that Bebop was not "authentic" jazz music because it did not conform to the early jazz forms that he had grown up playing? Why or why not? Does your view change with artists like Herby Hancock who used jazz to cross over into the popular music market? What is the difference between these two types of "development" within jazz? Would you define one as "authentic" and another as "Fake"? Is there a difference between "development" of a musical genre (in this case jazz) and the commercialization of that genre?

Write 2 - 4 pages explaining to the best of your ability what "authentic" jazz is and offer examples of "authentic" versus "fake" jazz forms. Touch also on the difference between "development" and "commercialization" of jazz.

#2: This assignment is aimed at my voice students and class voice students. However, I think it may even be applicable to music appreciation as well.

Opening Questions:
Thinking about authenticity in performance and in music...what makes a performance authentic? What makes it more than a performance, but rather makes it an experience that is shared by all, performer and audience member alike?

Music today focuses so much on the performer and their perceived "authenticity" which is in fact their image...and the performance of that music as well. But is that what makes the music...the fact that someone who has a name or an image is performing the music?

Read: "4 Real: Authenticity, Performance, and Rock Music" by David Pattie

Looking at the idea of "Authenticity" in performance from the perspective of rock music, what do you believe provoked the response or the "experience" to the concert the Verve performed in this article? How do you think that correlates to the attribute James says the performer must have under heading "Two" within the article?

Is the "experience" that was created due to the fact that the Verve were the ones performing the music...i.e. is it there image that created the experience or was it something greater?

Is the "Authenticity" or "truth" of the performer and their image the important part or is it the fact that the performer found the "authenticity" or "truth" in the music and was able to present that truth to the audience?

Write 2 - 3 pages (or more if necessary) discussing what you believe your role as a performer is in terms of the music and the audience you are performing for. What does it mean to search for the "truth" in music? Why is that "truth" important to you as a musician?

Or for music appreciation

Write 2 - 3 pages (or more if necessary) discussing what you believe you role as a listener is in terms of the music you are hearing? What do you expect of the performer of that music? How do you assess if the performance of that music was an "authentic" or "truthful" performance? How does the search for authenticity in the music and the performance of that music inform the way in which you may chose to listen?

The authors here take two different, yet, I might conclude, similar approaches to the issue of authenticity in music. Pattie argues in large part that authenticity has to do with the musical connection that a performer or ensemble has with their audience. What makes the group and/or the music authentic is the fact that the music and performance is transformed from a performer/audience perspective to one in which the performer and audience have an experience together revolving around the music. Contrary, McLeod takes a much more "scientific" approach o looking at the issue of authenticity within Hip-Hop music. He comes to the conclusion that authenticity has to do with a number of factors that can be attributed to all music types: Social-psychological, Racial, Political-economic, Gender-sexual, Social location, and Cultural. Within the Hip-Hop world, those who are "authentic" are those who remember the roots of the music they sing, remember where they came from, and worry more about accurately portraying who they are and the life they lead (and writing music to that effect) as opposed to "selling out" by trying to adapt their music to a more popular market.

These two concepts are seemingly different, but I would argue that they are perhaps the same. One might argue that for a performer and audience to have the chance to have an "experience" with each other that the music itself (and the performer for that matter) needs to be authentic. And according to McLeod that means that they stay true to the musical genre and the meaning within that genre...they don't change their image to market themselves...they don't change the music to be more marketable or "popular".

I have to admit that I have never really heard of "authentic" versus "fake" before in the musical world. I have heard of a similar debate which I am sure has been raging on since music and art were first invented...what makes "good" art. The issue here is that what makes art "good" is in the eye of the beholder that looking/listening to that work of art. I have a feeling that the same thing is true with what makes art "real" or "authentic". It depends on what perspective and criterion you are using to define a musical genre as an "authentic" one. Taking for example McLeod's work, he narrows down to very specific categories what makes Hip-Hop authentic. What gives his argument credence s the fact that he is looking to those who were perhaps originators of the art form or part of the underground that writes in the same vain as those original founders to determine what it means to be "authentic". One of the issues that I see here is that it doesn't leave room for the development of an art form. Hip-Hop began on the streets, but does that mean that it can't evolve into something else? I can see us saying that something has an "authentic" sound but it seems that putting a series of categorical restrictions on what the "authentic" music can and should be holds it in a very stagnant pattern that doesn't allow the music to grow. Also, the fact that race is one of those categories that determine if a music is "authentic" or not is a little disturbing. That is like saying there is no white person ever who grows up on the streets and has similar experiences and can write and perform music about them in the same style and manner of a black person.

I see a potential issue with that of Pattie as well. Just because there is an "experience" that occurs between performer and audience does that mean that the music is "authentic" or "real" or does it simply mean that the performance or shared experience as it were is "real" or on a different plain? I liken this to a solo song recital. There are many works that I love to sing, that I connect with and that I perform exceptionally well because of that fact. However, as a performer, I take special pride in being able to communicate the message of a song and bring my audience into a performance regardless of the work that I am singing, the amount of life experience I bring to it, etc. I think that is part of being a great performer. And one other aspect that is perhaps ignored (or that I perhaps overlooked within his argument) is that it takes a special set of circumstances for one of these types of performances to occur (and in fact I believe he does mention this). Does one of these performance make the music all the more "authentic"...I would argue that it makes the performance at that moment in time more "authentic" but that is a reflection of all the elements coming together. However, it could be argued that a great performance cannot occur with bad music...or at least an experience such as the one being described. Food for thought...

I guess one of the questions I would ask is what are we trying to be authentic/real to? Am I looking for someone who is authentic to the genre, to a culture, to themselves? The Fresh Prince for example...many Hip-Hop artists get on his case for the fact that he "sold out". His music has moved to a commercial vain and that he has lost touch with his roots. I can see this argument, but I would ask if the music that he performs now is more of a reflection of him now? Is it who he really was the whole time? Where should his loyalties lie in this vain? Is it better to be true to who you are or to the genre you began in? Would his music be as good as it is if he were trying to force himself to stay "authentic" within the genre he is writing? Could we ever get to the concert "experience" if he didn't believe in what he was singing about?

I guess this leads me back to the very beginning...what is "authentic" or "real"? How does one know that what they are hearing is "authentic"? Do we need someone to tell us when we have heard this music? Does the market determine it? Is it only people who are inside this music that really know if the music is "authentic" or not? At the same time, how do we ensure that all the music we listen to doesn't end up as an empty shell...music that is far more concerned with obtaining an audience and making the almighty dollar rather than actually saying something...being that "authentic" music that broke in in the first place?

There is no doubt that record executives will latch on to the latest, greatest thing and try to water it down to be a marketable commodity. Country music, for example, has been mainstreamed with a "pop" music type sound. Many people have said that these artists have sold out. One might argue instead that they have brought the genre to a new group of people. Regardless, while there are still elements from the original country sound, the music is not "authentic" as it were if we compare it to Hank Williams Sr. for example.

It is definitely a tough question to determine regardless of how you view it...

I have a hard time with the second part of this assignment as I do not listen to all that much "popular" music. The only lens that I can look through this question is with art song recitalists, which is, I am sure, exactly where you would not like me to go with this post, so I will try to look at country music, which I used to listen to long, long ago.

Back in the 90's when I listened to country music; I used to listen to the likes of Tim McGraw and Collin Ray. The first question is would I define either of these as authentic? And the first question I would ask back is authentic compared to what? If we are looking at the old country music of Hank Williams Sr. and the like I would definitely say that they are not authentic. But if we are looking at the country rock genre that has developed over the years I would say that they are fairly authentic representations of this genre. A genre that has taken a number of the elements of country (the steel guitar, the country "twang" in the voice, and a great deal of the subject material) and added a more rock undertone to them. However, I don't think this is what people mean when they ask about "authenticity" in the sound so...it is a bit of a catch 22.

The more important question, weather we are discussing authenticity or what makes for "good" music is how do you prove it to someone who does not feel the same way? The simple answer for me is that I have no idea. You can bring up all the great artists of the past who established the genre and try to show the comparisons between them and your artist. You can try to discuss the elements of a particular genre and show how the artist uses these elements within their music. You can try showing them artists within the genre that defiantly are not authentic as showing them how your artist does not compare with them. Regardless, at the end of the day, it is a matter of perspective and attempting to bring them to yours through education..."there are no right or wrong answers in music...only more educated ones."

As a classical musician I find that I both appreciate and detest the idea of "Art Rock" in the late sixties and early seventies. I appreciate the concept for a number of reasons. First, I am glad to see classical elements coming to the forefront as part of the history of rock and roll in America. The inclusion of the Style of Bela Bartok for example in Emerson, Lake & Palmer. I also get the impression that it was not only about the inclusion of style or the orchestra (which groups like the Moody Blues used to great effect), but they also attempted to incorporate portions of actually classical songs within their music as well. While that disturbs me a little bit (which I will attempt to explain below) part of me takes the attitude that it is a great way to expose individuals to the classical repertory that would not normally come to it of their own volition. I also find that the use of this so called "Art Rock" can be useful tool in a course like Music Appreciation to set up various topics like opera for instance. I think in an earlier post I had referenced Queen for this very purpose, but perhaps the Who and their rock opera would be a better approach. Also a synthesis can really be seen between literature, art and music through this genre as well which can open student's minds to how the varying parts of the humanities affect each other throughout history.

On the other hand, I find this music to be a little disturbing. For one, the insinuation that this music was elitist gives me the impression that some critics of the day felt this music to be trending towards "high art". The fact that this music would be seen anywhere near high art is, quite frankly, a bit disturbing to me. In my humble (and as my wife would say, hoity-toity) opinion, this music tracks nowhere near where high art does. The inclusion of some classical elements, an orchestra, or adding a rock beat to a classical tune does not high art make. And perhaps I show my arrogance as a classical musician, but I find it rather insulting that this music would even be considered in this vain.

The second thing that disturbs me (at least with some of the groups considered in this category such as The Who) is that it seemed to be far less about the music they were producing and far more about manufacturing an image that would sell. Fast forward into the modern era and I think we have the same concept of manufacturing and image to sell a product on crack. I think it does music, both classical and popular, a disservice to worry more about image than content...especially since we seem to be heading down the track of dumbing down Art Song, which is my performance art. Perhaps not in the same way, but with the idea of aiming at the lowest common denominator and allowing those with minimal or no talent to be successful in the field through gimmick instead of talent, work ethic and artistry!

On a personal note, I will say that I find it rather ironic in a way and insightful in another that the groups that I have tended towards listening in rock music tend to be "Art Rock" groups such as the Moody Blues or groups that incorporate classical instruments and style into their music such as Ben Folds.

Moving onto my second topic of the plight of the African American in the popular music world, I guess I find it very ironic that an industry that produced so many singers in the sixties who were at the forefront of the social protest movement was actually ding their level best to separate themselves from the very people they were protesting for. Now perhaps that is not a fair assessment. After all the record companies were not the ones protesting, they were just reaping the rewards (after they caught onto the concept anyways). But the fact that white musicians were trying to separate out the contributions of the African American on the art of rock and roll and begin to attribute their influences to themselves (can we say Eric Clapton and his comment about playing like a white man) is perhaps a bit disheartening. It was almost the ultimate in being hypocritical. Perhaps I am mischaracterizing this a bit, but I believe the sentiment is in the right place.

Disco music (which had the dancing elements that so many wanted) had a difficult time making it onto the radio. Although this eventually turned into a very popular music of the seventies, one cannot think that the universal dismissal of the music all together was, as the book noted, racially motivated. Also, the fact that it needed white groups such as the Bee Gees to popularize the music (and Saturday Night Fever to put it over the hump for record labels and radio stations) it follows the same paradigm of the early seventies where white musicians "annex the territory" which finally brings the music to prominence when perhaps it should have been there all the time. What makes this perhaps more interesting is that fact that disco served to bring people together across racial and sexual lines, so it seems ironic to me that a music that would bring the masses together was on some level scoffed early on by the industry.

The anti-disco sentiment that followed from the rock based radio stations only seemed to fuel the flames of the social divides that exist within our country. As Garufalo points out, "While rock radio could have demonstrated the connections between hard rock and black music for its listeners, it fanned the flames of the racism instead." To be fair, however, the blanket statement from the rock community that "disco sucks" does not intern mean that all people who hate disco are racists. In fact, while there are similarities to the music, they are both different forms with their own unique following. I also have a difficult time calling everything racism just because it is a black vs. white issue. I know that the previous statement may sound like it coming out of left field, but say both disco and the rock of 70s were born of white musicians and the rallies were still held and radio stations waged campaign that said disco sucks. Would we still hold the same view? Is it narrow minded of us to think that just because there are black and white people involved that it is a racially motivated issue? (Is this perhaps a good springboard into a discussion on race relations in a college political science course?) What of Louis Armstrong saying the Bebop was a fad and like Chinese music? Since he is a black musician speaking about another predominately black art form we call say it perhaps a choice of his to hold the opinion. If he was white, would we then automatically say that it is racially motivated and that all who agree with him are racist? Why can't we hold are own opinions even when they have color involved without being deemed racist? Why can't reasonable people disagree? (My apologies for the tangent) Having said all that, with the way the music was promoted (or the lack there of) perhaps there was a bit of a racial divide being created by the labels that trickled down to the radio stations. For the DJs perhaps a lot of the disco sucks movement was less about race and more about protecting their turf!?! Good topics for discussion...

The trend carried into the 1980s as well. Look at MTV for example and their reluctance to include black artists. As a matter of fact, we can look at MTV and their apparent reluctance to include American artists all together. It took the power and foresight of an artist like Michael Jackson to finally break the barrier and even that was with a great deal of reluctance. It seems that in the modern era that black artists have found their own groove and popularity with hip hop and R&B, but the fact that we seem to base everything off of the white middle class demographic for so long was a bit misguided...at least in my opinion. At least this offers us the opportunity to look at racism in the last 30 - 40 years (or perhaps "social justice" as new found academics and media refer to the cause today).

Punk musicians of the 1970s...I am having a hard time first seeing music anywhere in this form. But let's put that issue aside because that is a different debate all together. However, their intent to be the "anti" everything movement I think took things way to far when they started to incorporate swastikas, Marxism, etc. Robert Christgau states in our text that these antics were certainly rock parody and should be considered as such. I couldn't disagree with him more on this point. This is no where near parody and I would say at minimum is rock insensitivity and at worst...well...I will leave that one alone. I guess what makes things worse for me is the fact that the music itself used these anti-Semitic tools, concerts were promoted by them (for example "Special Extermination Night"). Now I realize that the idea of rock and role, and especially that of punk is not to appeal to the norm and be socially sensitive. The idea for many of these musicians was to show injustices (such as music in the 60s) or to be anti-establishment. However, as our author points out "that fine distinction, which is rife in punk's recapitulations of itself, over-look the importance of historical meaning". It is the one thing that we talk about as individuals, groups, and nations...those who forget their past are doomed to repeat it. In this case it is not about forgetting their past, but ignoring the significance of that past in order to fulfill their anti-establishment needs. Seriously! They were trying to be satirical using one of the worst losses of human life as their backdrop. Did the drugs get to their brain and truly make them that dense? The only other conclusion that can be made is that Christgau is absolutely wrong. These people new exactly what they were doing with these images. I understand the need to create controversy...but there are rules of decorum (which these groups were completely against, this I understand) or how about just sensitivity and understanding. If those are out the window...well, it seems to me that it goes against the very nature of what music is (which perhaps explains the entire Punk Rock movement completely). Regardless, what a bunch of flippin' idiots!

Finally I would discuss the music video and the influence it has had on music over the past 30 years of so. That fact that most early music videos were done by ad based producers explains a great deal to me, but does not alleviate the problem that I have with them. Perhaps rock music has turned into a complete performance art. I do not mean the rock concerts themselves (although those are so choreographed it is hard to distinguish at times), but rather the fact that all music now days seems to have a need to be accompanied with a video. The texts (in my opinion) have been dumbed down enough. There is no metaphor in many of them, and, if there is, it is so weak that it doesn't take someone who is overly bright to put two and two together. But to make matters worse, we have music videos that it seems everyone relies on for the piece de resistance...half of which have nothing to do with what is actually being said in the song (and has made me wonder for years how the industry has survived). It seems to me the art of music is far less about music and far more about visual appeal (weather in video format or on stage). My how the mighty have fallen so...although, if I look at modern through the lens of a performance art, I think it is remarkable successful at what it attempts to do (both in practice and in capitalist terms). I think there is a place for this music...and in education for that fact...the question is where and how and what is it the means to an end of (I would hope it is not a means to the end of itself).

Assignment in Pro-war vs. Anti-war music

"Viewed as an original historical source, popular music reflects the diverse attitudes of the American public at different times in history. Music presents insights and multiple points of view as well as an emotional impact which other historical documents, particularly written, often lack. Through music, history comes alive and students can connect directly with people and events which may otherwise seem remote to them. As such, rock and roll can be a particularly powerful tool to introduce recent historical events and issues."

The objective of this assignment is to look at wars of the 20th and 21st century and the sentiments that existed through the lens of popular music. Popular music has been used to voice viewpoints the public had of every war during this time frame.

Objectives:
To give students an overview of the popular music used as forms of social protest and/or support.
To have students look into the text of a piece of music to determine what the sentiment of the song writer/performer truly is.
To recognize opposing points of view...that reasonable people can disagree and how those people present their message.

Materials:
Audio recordings (CD, mp3, YouTube clips) that are from the time period or as historically accurate as possible. Copies of song lyrics that the class should look at more in depth.

Time frame:
2 class periods, one to focus on the pro-war movement and one to focus on the anti-war movement.

Procedure:
Using the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a spring board, begin a discussion of music that students may be familiar with that voice an opinion of these wars. Play a few examples of songs that are reflective of these two wars as a way to begin the discussion.

Begin a discussion of these songs in WWI playing various examples through the Vietnam war (and perhaps a few more from the current time). Discuss with the class how songwriters and performers used the music and the text in each varying time period.
Is it effective in delivering the message?
How did things change from WWI - Vietnam and later?

As part of the above discussion, look at one or two songs of each type in depth and discuss how the text is used.
What makes the text and effective (or ineffective) tool?
Does the music work to support the text and help deliver the message?

Evaluation:
Pick a piece of music and ask the students to decide whether the point of view of the song in pro-war and anti-war.
What in the song indicates that it takes this particular position?
Is it effective in delivering its intended message?

One of the pieces I think would work well for this assignment is "Travelin' Soldier" which was remade by the Dixie Chicks. The song is rather nebulous so there is not a right or wrong answer...only a very well supported answer. One of the things I would stress is forr students not to view s music video since it may persuade the way they view the song. The video is one person's representation and they should use the song itself (music and text) to determine what their point of view is.

The problem for me is that my focus tends to be in higher education since that is where my duties as a teacher lie for the most part. Many of the lesson plans that I was able to locate are more specifically for 6 - 8 graders with 9 - 12 coming in a somewhat respectable second (however, I am sure this number would even out with a little more searching).

There were a few sites that I found to be of use to me and, I suspect, would be very useful (at least to a degree) to any number of 6 - 12 teachers and perhaps even younger. The first of these sites was the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame where it appears that they have had an initiative for a number of years to collect lesson plans from teachers who have found the incorporation of popular music into their teaching to help students understand topics from music al form to the civil rights movement, to poetry, to social protest, to war, etc. There are 52 lesson plans currently on the site with more being added to it as teachers submit them I would suspect. While the lesson plans are designed for 6 - 12 use, I think they could be adopted and modified to work for the higher education purposes that I might find to be useful.

http://rockhall.com/education/resources/lesson-plans/

Another site that I found useful gave a lesson plan for discussing poetry with popular music as the spring board. For students who may not have much exposure to straight poetry I find that this would be an effective approach to introducing them to this medium and perhaps the tools that poets use in their writing. The only drawback here is that there is only 1 lesson plan.

http://curriculalessons.suite101.com/article.cfm/teach_poetry_through_rock_music

There were a number of articles discussing popular music and education (and higher education) that I found might be useful in beginning to try to put together a lecture in a course, etc. I have included the links to these articles here as well.

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/jan/Popular-Music-Has-a-Place-in-the-Classroom.html
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/teachers/issue26/primary/features/Powerofpop_Primary/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/is-music-policed-and-controlled-933831.html
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/pop-music/
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/chan0496/education/

In addition to these sites, there are about a dozen others that I tagged into my bookmarks that I can refer back to. Many of them are just general k-12 lesson plan websites that have some material incorporating popular music and/or popular culture into various activities in the classroom. Here are just a couple of them.

http://www.lessonplanspage.com/Music.htm
http://www.lessonplanet.com/directory/Art_and_Music/Music
http://www.corndancer.com/tunes/tunes_lesplan.html

Have we really come a long way? I would say it more like this at the moment..."What the hell?" I could begin by railing against the music video industry in the first place. There are many videos from the 80s through today that have nothing to do with the "music" they are conveying. They are merely there for the purpose of shaking ones "booty" and trying to sell records. I can perhaps understand that to a degree but what the heck has happened to the music? What has happened to a person's self respect and self worth? What has happened to the idea of innocence in general?

Let me discuss music first. I am not a k-12 teacher but rather a college professor. I like to try and "pick a fight" at the end of my semester of "Music Literature and Appreciation". I do it partly for giggles, but more to see what they have learned in the course and also to see how well they can create an argument for what they enjoy listening to today. Essentially my argument is this...most popular music today has not progressed; but rather it has regressed...and to the lowest common denominator.

The lyrics of songs no longer really hold all that much in the line of imagery (take our Lil' Kim song for example). Perhaps this is because our audiences believe into the notion of the \ instantaneous gratification factor and don't have the attention span or the desire to actually have to think about a piece of music. To quote one of my students "I work hard all day, the last thing I want to do is go home and put on a piece of music that will actually make me think...force me to interact with it on a deeper level. I want something superficial that I can just put on in the background." I think that is all fine and dandy, but why is it the musical arts that are the ones that we seem to want to have to think about the least? Why does every facet of the music industry produce the same carbon copy of things...my educated guess would be because life in the music world is not about the music, but about how fast one can make the almighty dollar.

I can go deeper into the rabbit hole. What does the music of today's popular music actually say? That is to say, let us take away the lyrics of today's popular music and see what we have left. In many cases a song will contain three...perhaps four or five chords, many times being played away in one of any number of standard rhythmic concoctions. Perhaps a nice beat is established to go along with it all as well. The trouble is that you can find ten, twenty, a hundred songs that all use the same chords in roughly, if not exactly, the same way with the same beat and even with similar melodic lines. To take this point further, how many times have you been listening to the radio thinking, by the introduction to the song, that your favorite song is about to come on only to find out that it is not your favorite song but one that sounds very similar to it? What does the music actually say? What is it attempting to convey, if anything? Or is it merely a convenient backdrop to put words over the top of with no care as to how varying harmonies and rhythms may affect its meaning? The "music" in today's culture means hardly anything, it is only the words that audiences are interested in...as far as the music goes. It seems to me more like a glorified poetry reading with chordal accompaniment going on in the background.

Next comes the inevitable question from my students. "Well then what would you suggest? And not music that is only instrumental. What music that has words does what you are saying ours doesn't?" My answer is to look at art song of the 19th century. Take the Erlkönig of Schubert for example. The text tells a compelling story of a child being tormented by a supernatural being as his father attempts to get him home in order to save him. But more importantly, the music that Schubert writes to this text emphasizes that text and becomes a part of the story itself. In many of the art songs of the 19th century, one could pull the text from them completely and the music would stand alone as a solo work and actually have relevance.

How have we fallen so far that music has become so much less about the music? Has technology progressed over time? Sure it has. I bring this up only because this is the logical step that people take to show the progression of music. So we have progressed in music to the point where you don't need to be able to play the instrument (or at least well)...the computer does it for you. You don't need to be able to sing on pitch...the computer will be able to fix that for you. It seems to me that all you need is perhaps some half way decent lyrics and a good body to go flaunt in public.

I suppose this leads me to my second point...we have moved to a society that is about sexual appeal...and by sexual appeal I mean how little can you wear, and/or how much can you shake your "money maker" so to speak. This is evident in the music videos of today, and especially the live performances of today. It was one thing when music videos didn't make any sense back in the 80's or they played out like completely unrealistic mini soap operas. We have transformed into a society where the videos need not make any sense to what we are singing (which can range from sexually suggestive to downright sexually explicit) as long as you show as much skin as possible. It is more about the moves than it is about the music...or at least what little music actually remains. We appeal only to the most primitive aspects of people and leave any type of sophistication behind us.

I think a good reference to this may be the movie "Music and Lyrics" which came out a few years back. The movie opens with the band "Pop" and their poorly constructive and overly fake music video to their hit song Pop Goes My Heart which is definitely in the vain of the mini soap opera. Conversely we have the young pop singer in Cora Corman whose opening song is Buddha's Delight which is humerous only in that it is a meal on most any Chinese menu. The video that she is making when we first see her is for this song and, in truth, has nothing to do with the lyrics, but rather it portrays sex and shows her shaking her thing. In fact, when Alex Fletcher writes her a song at her request, his co-writer suggests that her addition of sexually explicit music and dance moves is perhaps inappropriate for the type of song she is singing to which she replies "they like it when I dance". I realize that a fair chunk of the music business is selling records...I realize sex sells...but where in all this did we lose the music? Further more, where in all this did we lose our self respect...

"We've come a long way from Leslie Gore to Lil' Kim to, well, Lady Gaga at the moment!" I disagree with this statement in many respects...in fact I would say "how did we come so far only to digress and have music become the simplistic music that it is today?" I realize that popular music is important to our youth (and yes I listen to popular music as well...I am not a classical zealot). But it seems to me that one of the issues is that so many of the big money makers who shape the musical landscape...performers and businessmen alike, have no idea about the history and, more important to me as a stuffy, classically trained singer, have no idea about what the music is saying...the MUSIC...we have lost the MUSIC. As long as it makes a buck who cares about the music. There was a time when we revered "the music". Now we only revere those who get up on stage and perform what is left of "the music".

On another note...I realize that it is a bit ironic that I am taking this course on using popular music and culture in the class room when I hold such opinions. The truth is, that as much as I disdain where we have gone in many respects, I find myself using popular music and culture as a way to bring students into the deeper forms of music and to help them explore varying topics regarding our society. You don't have to like something to know that it can be an effective tool and to have a desire to use that tool in a better way...

To illustrate my point, I would like to show two examples of where this approach may be relevant. First, I will discuss the application of music and pop culture within an American History course. Second, let us discuss how the use of pop culture may be used as a way to expose students to music history and repertoire.

What is American History and how does pop culture interact? Let us take a simple example...presidential elections. Every four years (and if you think about the way our primaries work in the modern era, you can say perhaps even every two years) we elect a president in the United States. Yet, how many students know how we do this, why we do this or, in many cases, even bother to pay attention to elections at all except to spout off the current talking points about the candidate that they "support". How do you interest a student in a topic like this...a topic that they need to understand as it is vital to our society? What if we were to approach it from the music that various candidates use in their campaigns?

Each candidate that runs for president, beginning back with the primary elections, has a slate of "popular" songs that they use at every campaign stop. In addition they usually have one or two songs that are their "theme" songs for the campaign. Many of the songs that are used are songs that they know...songs that they listen to on the radio on a daily basis...songs that they have heard because their parents currently listen to them and have listened to them from the time they were little children. The use of popular culture here can open a door to American History and "critical thinking" to coin a term that they may well not have had a way into...a way of accessing. It opens the doors to questions that students need to interact with and can use to improve the basic reading and writing skills you so desperately want to improve. Questions like...why do candidates change their campaign music when they travel to various parts of the country? Why do the "theme" songs they use change over time? What does the music a candidate uses say about the message they are attempting to relay to the voting public? This in turn opens the door to reading further on the subject of presidential elections and how the electoral process works. It leads to exercises in writing about presidential campaigns that force them to think about the process and the tactics used in our electoral process. When a student has interest in a topic, they are more likely to read about the topic and are more likely to take interest in their own attainment of knowledge.

This is not the only application within the topic of American History. We could look at the pro and anti war movements, the civil rights era, messages to, for and/or about presidents or politicians in general, or the idea of censorship through the lens of popular music and popular culture.

As an educator in the musical arts, I find it especially important to find ways to interest students in music not only of their present, but also of their past as well. This leads me to my second example of bringing students closer to the music and the history of what has come before them.

Most students look at "classical" music as something of a bore. Perhaps many of you do as well. Music without words puts them to sleep, art songs are many times written in languages that they don't understand, and opera, well, what more do I need to say than the word opera. How do we bring students to this music of the past...music that is not archaic, but rather music that serves as the foundation of the very music that they listen to today?

Let us take the topic of opera for example. We can approach the topic from popular music taking Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" as a microcosm of opera. The song, after all, was written for the group's album A Night at the Opera and is most often classified as a rock opera. The idea that an entire story (or in this case a nightmare) can be told completely in music...no dialogue to speak of...is exactly what opera composers have been doing since the days of Caccini and Monteverdi. What a great vehicle to use to open their minds to a world of musical thought that had previously been closed to them through stereotype and more than likely lack of availability (as we all know, we listen to what our parents listened to in a sense).

Why is this important to the functions of our students? Well, I could site study after study that indicates that students who listen to classical music tend to have more active brains and do better in course work and on exams. After all, what you put in you tend to get out. This is not to say that popular music is by any means inferior to that of classical music. However, one might argue that the advantage to classical music (and perhaps to the brain when listened to regularly) is its complexity and the wide variety of materials a composer brings into the process. To quote a great mind: "If I can write the songs of the nation, I do not care who writes the laws" (Plato). Plato emphasizes my argument. Music is powerful. It informs the mind. The higher the art you put in, the higher the result you get out.

On the same level, music has been a powerful influence on the lives of our students. Ignoring that is a mistake because it is as if we say to them that their music is no good, the messages they have learned are no good, and, perhaps worse, we do not give our students credit for the knowledge that they have already attained. There is no better way to deflate and uninspire a person than to ignore and give no credence to what they have learned before they have gotten to you.

Why do I write my justification with two examples of popular music and culture being used in the classroom you might ask? It is because popular music and popular culture are not getting in the way of providing students with a good education and the ability to read and write critically. Popular music and culture are the vehicles to open the minds of our young students to read and write in a critical way. Thomas Regelski notes in his article Reconnecting Music Education with Society that "schools as educational institutions are organized around conception of basic subjects - the traditional disciplines - that are largely taught for their own sake and that students thus see as 'merely academic'....most teachers and school administrators are unconcerned with whether lessons learned in school even have tangible applications - concrete counterparts - in personal life and society." Bennett Reimer makes a similar point in Comprehensive Education, Comprehensive Music Education: A New Vision saying "A great deal of schooling, for a great many students-perhaps most schooling for most students-is regarded by them as being largely or entirely unrelated to the realities of their lives outside of school. Their learning, therefore, is saturated with a sense that it consists of hoops to be jumped through, expectations to be met, disconnected from everything else in their lives that matters to them." To bring a student to the point where they have the desire to learn more than just wrote facts they will forget over time, and even perhaps by the time they take a standardized test, they have to have a vested interest in what they are learning. They have to find relevance and meaning in the knowledge and skills they are working to attain. And they have to have a way to approach the knowledge from somewhere that they understand. Popular music and culture are not the enemies of education, but rather they are the ways by which we can bring that education to our students and better prepare them for the lives they are working to achieve. Through popular music and culture, we can teach them to read and write critically, to comprehend, and to find relevance in the material we give them in the world the surrounds them so they will not only learn the material, but remember what they have learned and be able to apply it to their everyday lives when they are called upon to do so.

To conclude, popular music and culture are not the enemies of our educational system. They are not the reason why our students do not succeed in the areas that we find they are lacking in the most. If used properly, popular music and culture can bring the joy of life long learning to our students...and with true learning comes true synthesis and application of the skills necessary to be life long learners. I urge you to consider using this tool to the advantage of the school and our students rather than abandoning what our students know and can relate to for a system that they will have difficulty finding connection with as learners.