I found an interesting article:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2008/08/sh...orced_to_l.html

Thoughts?

'Forced' is perhaps too strong a word, but basically: yes. It's really not that hard. I completely agree with Albarn's line: "If you don't learn to read music then there's a whole tradition that becomes very exclusive and shouldn't."

It may not be the panacea of music that it can be made out to be, but if we specifically mean 'children', I don't think there is any harm learning notation in their study, even if they abandon it later on.

Forcing should not be necessary. Their previous experience and education should have so enthused them that you couldn't stop them from learning to read musical scores if you tried.

Children read don't they? I always say that learning to sing (and the same would apply to an instrument) without reading music is like wanting to be an actor and not being able to read your lines.

No, children should be taught to read music, in the same way they are taught to read words and numbers.

The real question should really be At what point should we teach children to read (words, numbers, musical notation...)?

I so agree, AnnC - I'm always telling my students that they can't read music until they can hear the line in their head - telling me 'that's a c' or 'that's a d' doesn't mean you can read music - no more than knowing the letters of the alphabet makes you able to read a book.

It should be natural, just like reading a book is.

I'm just getting the skill of doing that. It's taken to Grade 5 practical and theory. It is so useful. I can't believe that students in my eldest daughter's GCSE class can't read a note. When she wanted to notate her composition, the teacher said it was being over the top
Bev.

When I was a small child it was explicit in the expectations of my parents (to the point where my sister was told it in words of very few syllables) that, whether we liked the idea or not, we would learn to read & write English, we would learn to count and do arithmetic and we would learn to read music. Once we had learned, what we did with it was up to us.

BAH .




Hooray!

Somehow I don't think of GCSE candidates as "children"! Anybody who is taking music as an academic subject should learn the academic skills of music.

For younger children, "reading music" seems more like a continuum than a particular point along the road. I agree with rosfrog, the ideal is "hearing" what you read; "seeing" what you hear.

I certainly can't read music to that level myself, but the skills I have are useful to me, even if they don't add up to fluent reading. A teacher once said that she thought few children had really good music-reading skills before the age of 11 or 12, and since that's the age we expect a bright child to be reading adult-level books with understanding, that sounds reasonable to me.

On the other hand, I somewhat regret following the teacher's advice and insisting that my son read the notation while he played or listened to music - he learned to read music "indifferently well", but seems to have lost his ability to remember and reproduce music at the first hearing. Though maybe practice and confidence would rebuild that ability

As a bystander, I wonder if emphasizing the acquisition of really fluent, sightreading-speed reading of notation could safely be left until after 10?

Nonsense - there are plenty of fantastic singers out there who can't read a note of music - the two essentially have nothing to do with each other.

Same goes for playing an instrument - do you really think it's impossible to play an instrument without being able to read music???? What about the gypsy virtuosos? Have you ever listened to Django Reinhardt? If not then I suggest you do.

Having said all that. I do think reading musical notation should be taught along with learning to read. It's a skill everyone should have and is so easily learnt when young.

It's possible to be an actor and learn your lines without being able to read them, it would have nothing to do with your ability to act. For the purposes of acting, it's helpful to be able to read words.

For the purposes of playing music, it's helpful to be able to read music as you can then reproduce what someone else has written without having to listen and memorise it.

Improvisation and playing by ear are other useful skills. Certainly you don't need to be able to read music if that's all you want to do (and I realise they cover a lot). Just like if you want to do stand-up or improv comedy you don't need to be able to read words.

Being able to read music is a useful skill, and it's not that difficult to learn. I have no truck with musicians who claim their inability to read music as a badge on honour. It's nothing of the sort, if they're too busy to learn and can't see the point, that's fine - I'm too busy and can't see the point of learning to play the piano, but that doesn't make me a better musician than someone who can play the piano (nor does it make me worse).

In short, children should be taught to read music. But of course in a sound before symbol way. Very few people are really tone deaf / amusical so I reckon most people would be able to get to Grade 3 Theory level of music reading (in terms of rhythms/key signatures / vocab) by the end of compulsory music lessons at 14.

It seemed to me that the blog was missing the whole point really. Some of the comments underneath were far more insightful.

The whole point of GCSE music is to be inclusive. Now as the vast majority of school music lessons I (and many others) have experienced have been a complete waste of time, and contributed precisely nothing to my musical education, it is a simple fact that many students who might wish to sit GCSE music would not have ever had the chance to lean to read it. That is more an issue with the state of music education in schools (something we've discussed to death!) than the syllabus writers. GCSE's are not supposed to be difficult academic qualifications: They're supposed to show that you've gained a level of knowledge in a subject that everyone ought to be able to get to after 5 years at secondary school!

Aside from that, surely it should be possible for the syllabus to cater to those who would rather sit down and create compositions in programmes such as Garageband to do so? Surely those self-taught guitarists who have only ever worked out stuff by ear, or played from tab, should be entitled to sit the GCSE and do okay? If there is too much emphasis on instrumental and note reading skills, then you really are creating a syllabus that means only those who have had private music lessons can do really well, which isn't fair at all.

I think I would struggle to find many students who have completed the GCSE without being able to read music, but I still feel there is no harm in it being possible to do so. The course is, after all, in music. Not western classical music / music theory / sheet music comprehension.

This is interesting.

I don't think you need to be able to read music to be at GCSE level. I also don't think that you need to be able to play an instrument, or to use a particular type of software. I definitely don't think that GCSE Music should be restricted to those who can already read music, unless it has been taught in Yr 7-9 music lessons.

The difficulty comes when you look at the level above. At A-Level or BTEC National Standard, I do think that you should be able to read music. So that means that if you don't teach it at GCSE level (regardless of whether it's required) you are doing people a disservice.

One of the reasons that I think it should be taught to more people is so that it would lose it's mystery. It's really not that difficult. At it's essence, it's simply that this shape on the page means this sound which has this name. People are unduly impressed by the ability to read music.

At my children's school anyone who wants to take GCSE Music has to pass grade one theory first. How hard can that be? It's hardly social exclusion. The lessons and course materials are paid for out of school funds and parents are asked for the exam fee. Children whose parents don't/won't pay get their exam paid for by school too. The music teacher feels it's worth giving up his time for a theory club as it makes his working day so much easier if the pupils can read music.

Perhaps I'm decades out of date, but how could anybody pass their O-level/GCSE Music without being able to read music?

Surely that's like taking a french exam without being able read any french.

I only started learning music after leaving school. Actually learning to read music was probably the easiest part - certainly compared to the hours of practice, ear training etc.

I agree with Violinia that you don't necessarily have to read music to play an instrument.

But neither do you have to be able to read in order to make up stories or poetry.

Sorry, but the idea of anyone studying music without being able to read it is simply mind-boggling!

Steve

When I did GCSE music, granted it was about 17 years ago we had to submit notated compositions and perform solo and in ensemble.

Is this no longer required?

Just wondering as we pretty much had to read music

I took O level as an adult 20 odd years ago. It wasn't necessary to play (it was basically an all theory exam) but there's no way you could have passed without a pretty good ability to read and write musical notation. I would be amazed were that not still the case.

Not reading...but moves are/were afoot to enable you to pass a language GCSE without speaking any of it: see here!

No. You don't have to be able to read music to either pass, or get a good grade at GCSE music. You need to be able to perform (solo and ensemble), compose, and I think there's a listening exam and music history/analysis but you can do it all without being able to read music. Naturally it is a distinct advantage to be able to read music.

Now, you might think that this is not providing a suitable music education but this:



is IMHO worse. Whilst there are many good musicians around the place who cannot read music, not many can neither play not sing. I would say that a music exam that could be passed without being able to actually make music is a poor general qualification.

Although I like the language analogy myself, it's slightly misleading. From a practical point of view, it makes life extremely difficult if you cannot read a language you can speak. But, written music is only strictly necessary in western classical music, helpful in western popular music, and of little use in some other forms.

This GCSE music without having to read music is pretty stupid in my view even though I don't think being able to read music is necessary to be a good musician. Obviously it isn't, as a lot of amazing folk and jazz musicians can't read a note.

However, if you take GCSE music without being able to read music then you're a lot less likely to go on and do A-level music because the idea of having to learn to read music all of a sudden is going to put you off. The result will be A-level music being offered less and less as a subject until it does out altogether, which would be terrible for the future of music teaching in this country.

I see no reason why theory shouldn't be taught to all children from Y7 as a matter of course, unless it would mean other parts of the curriculum being ditched as I suppose they would have to be to make room for the teaching of theory. However, I think these days so many kids come out of Y9 with so little real understanding of music that the whole music curriculum should be rethought anyway. Yet again, it just isn't really working for the vast majority of kids.

It's a bit like the dropping of grammar in language tuition, which I think has been a TERRIBLE mistake. When I was at secondary school in the 60s we learnt French and German grammar by rote and it has always stayed with me. I can still hear my old German teacher going:

Der, die, das, die - den, die, das, die - des, der, des, der - dem, der, dem den. Every time I go to a German-speaking country I use it constantly - these things really can stay with you for life.

Music has NEVER been properly taught in schools in this country; the curriculum was hopeless back then and it's pretty hopeless now but in a different way. When my mother was at school in Vienna in the 20s and 30s they learnt to read music as well as leaning all the intervals. Every child left school being able to read music and why not? Why do we in Britain see this as an unattainable goal?

That's a fair point of view. I play melodeon for morris dancing and would look a complete plonker with a music stand in front of me. I do, however, read music, and amongst other advantages I find it very useful for learning pieces. I take it it's no longer necessary in GCSE to be able to write answering phrases, fill in harmony or write down aural tests? What theory is required (if any)?

In reply to Violinia, one of the replies on the Guardian webpage makes a good point:

"Still, the function of GCSEs and A levels is academic - to prepare students for further study in those subjects if they wish to pursue them, and any syllabus that actually makes that impossible - relying on privately-funded tuition to make up what they fail to teach - is slack and inadequate. Schools would not dream of inflicting such a dysfunctional syllabus on maths and language students - why should music be treated as a subject not worthy of proper academic focus?"

That's a lot of the problem, I think. Music is 'fun', 'not a proper subject'. In some ways I admire the GCSE exam boards for getting away from the Western-classical, theory based focus that there used to be, but they have thrown the baby out with the bath water. You can learn about all kinds of musics, and *still* be able to read it, the two aren't mutually exclusive! (And of course, the best school teachers know this.)

This comes quite a lot down to low expectations of what some kids can do, which I personally find appalling. Yes, Jonny might come from a disadvantaged background, but he still has ears and a brain, so why can't he do exactly what Hugo from the private school down the road can do?!

Yep. I'm struggling to think of a subject which it's possible to have a thorough (ish) knowledge of without knowing the language (maths, physics, etc. etc.).

In music, how would I demonstrate my grasp of rhythm, melody and harmony without being able to write down examples?

Oh for Pete's sake! We have to start from basics. I regard being able to read music as very basic. THEN, and only then, we can study other music.

So tell me, would you be willing to give your money to a trainee bank clerk who explained that he didn't know much about UK banking, but he'd done a project on 'Mongolian currencies'?

We need to be less patronising and give the kids real knowledge and qualifications that allows them to develop ideas further and will get them a job, not make them the laughing stock of our european neighbours!

Steve

They are not the laughing stock of your European neighbours. The situation here in France is far worse.
The vast majority of pupils in junior schools and colleges (ie the first four years of secondary education) get virtually no music teaching, with or without notation. In the lycées the equivalent of A Level music is laughable.. There are some notable exceptions for the well off or initiated. Jean-François Zygel ( a so called music educator) even went s far as to say in a television interview that he thought music should not be taught in schools but only in the conservatoires. (Let's keep it nice and cosy for the rich)

I think I had better stop ranting about music in French schools before I go too far off topic!

However, I think it is total rubbish to think one can teach music without teaching notation. I am fully aware that some very fine musical cultures do not use notation. Good for them. But in Western European schools we are supposed to be teaching Western European children and I fail to see how they will ever appreciate other cultures if they are not well versed in their own.

Musical notation is not difficult to learn if it is taught with care and sufficient attention to the age, ability and other musical experiences of the pupils concerned.

I suppose the next thing will be a suggestion that we teach literature without bothering to teach children to read. And some bright spark will defend this by quoting any number of oral traditions dating from before the dark ages.

Gets of soap box and continues the day’s work on preparing recorder lessons with notation for a group of very young beginners.

I remember chanting Latin conjugations and declensions endlessly - I actually quite enjoyed it!!! (Plus French and German verbs etc.....- a very grammatical way of learning, but I was able to construct sentences from all the bits....my sister learned in a totally different way and really struggled to understand....)

Couldn't agree with you more, Claire.





Sorry but in spite of what I said in my previous post, I strongly disagree with you that reading music is 'basic' to musicianship. What would this tell blind musicians? Take Stevie Wonder, for example, or Ray Charles - both musical geniuses in the view of any sane person. Reading music is only basic if you want to play Western classical art music - many people don't, yet still manage to make careers out of music.

However, I do still think notation should be taught to all children because it's an extremely valuable skill. But this view and the view that there are many superb musicians out there who can't read music are not mutually exclusive!

Not "forced", but yes, taught. If it was properly taught from a reasonably early age then almost all children I reckon could get a reasonable grip on it.

I have read the article in the BBC MM that was quoted and found a lot to agree with. Even when I took GCSE music it wasn't, IMO, a very good preparation for A Level, and that was over a decade ago - and I was about G5 in theory, working towards grade 6 violin, playing flute at approx grade 4-5 level, had grade 3 piano, and a lot of other musical experience (choirs, orchestras, etc) at this point, so I had a lot of background knowledge. The transition to A Level was still more difficult than in any of my other subjects, and even though I did eventually get a B in my A Level I don't actually even think the A Level would have been great preparation for studying music at uni.

Basically, this is handicapping anyone who doesn't have the resources to study away from the classroom, no matter how much they want to learn music.

What other subject assumes that, to actually have a chance of studying it at higher ed. levels, it will have been necessary to have spent years and probably hundreds of pounds outside the school education system? And yet a fairly basic part of classical music (and something that crops up in various other areas) isn't necessary for gaining a qualification in that subject? That'd be like giving a GCSE in French to someone who couldn't construct a simple written sentence in the language. We'd consider that ridiculous, even though obviously a good chunk of learning a foreign language is understanding and reproducing it without recourse to the written language, so why is it acceptable in music?

Frankly, it shouldn't be an issue at GCSE because it should be something kids have learned to do (even in a fairly basic way, I'm not saying every child will have an in depth knowledge/be fluent) long, long before it becomes an issue at that level.

I don't think that being able to read music is necessary for being a great musician in all areas of music, but it's 1) not THAT hard if taught properly, I have seen kids with quite severe learning difficulties manage it fine, so why do we assume that it's an extra, something for the privileged few who are clever enough to manage? and 2) a prerequisite more or less for a lot of musical pursuits, and something that if kids were properly taught it could open up to them a whole new world of possibilities as children or later in life as adults.

edit: having just read the article about orals being axed from language exams... I give up. How ridiculous.

I am not musical but I can still name the notes on the basic stave as we were taught in High School. It was something I quite enjoyed but we never got any chance to transfer them to an instrument so it was all made a bit pointless. I think the opportunity to learn Music should be more widely available and learning to read notaion is important.

Personally I think for GCSE Music then the candidates should be able to read music. I just don't see the point in studying a subject when you don't understand it's basic language. It's even more absurd if someone is able to follow the course without being able to play an instrument or sing.

Music should be inclusive but in it's current form GCSE Music doesn't really cater for anyone. I know this has been covered before but there should be a practical course and an appreciation which are quite seperate. I think until this happens school music will continue to have little impact on those who study outside the corriculum. In it's attempts to include those who lack basic skills it is becoming exclusive of those who have musical development.

Until educationalists learn to think outside the box and develop their imagination nothing will change.

I'd be inclined to agree except that I think what would be better still would be if musical education actually enabled the majority of the kids choosing GCSEs to have enough basic musical knowledge to be able to complete an exam which was a reasonable music GCSE, a decent qualification, and a suitable preparation for A Level if they were inclined to study the subject.

No doubt there would still be some disparity between those who have had a lot of extra-curricular music and those who have not, and there will be those for whom for various reasons basic musical literacy will be the least of their worries, but it should be possible for a child to end up at GCSE-choosing stage able to take that GCSE and have it be of a decent standard if they want to, just as a child who is interested in languages should be provided with the tools to be able to do a GCSE in that language and have it be a reasonable qualification without needing years of previous experience. That is the kind of inclusive it should be; available as an option for everyone, absolutely, because they've been taught to a stage where they'd be OK to do the course not because the course has been designed to be barely a music course any more.

(It's not just about reading the music either - even when I did GCSE music, and when I was invigilating for others doing it a few years back, the listening skills required did not in any way balance out the reading skills that weren't required: We're not talking about musical literacy vs fantastic aural skills as you might find with skilled folk or jazz musicians, but musical literacy vs cluelessness. Not that all of the candidates were clueless but that the exam papers just didn't, IMO, require the kind of knowledge and ability that would provide a qualification to be taken seriously or a good basis for further study)

I do think the listening/appreciation parts of the GCSEs would have value as part of the qualification, but IMO the current requirements are not enough to be taken seriously as a qualification or to provide a decent basis for A Level.

In my experience, NONE of the subjects I or my friends took at GCSE was terribly good prep for A level - but music was by far the worst offender. Several of the people in my A level class (and this was a decade ago when the GCSE still did require a fair degree of musical literacy) who were doing AS struggled horribly with the requirements, and had to work very hard just to get within reach of a decent grade, not because they were stupid or unmusical but because they had not been at all prepared to study and analyse music in the way that was expected of them. They'd all achieved the expected grades at GCSE to say they would be OK to take the study further, and they all had had tuition outside school lessons for some years and had all done extra-curricular musical activities; a degree of outside preparation and help that the average MFL or science teacher can probably only dream about in their students.

The practical music vs music appreciation would probably solve the current problem, but it wouldn't address the underlying issue which is that being able to read even the simplest piece of music is considered unimportant for all but a few, and that music GCSE is catering to the failure of music teaching to teach the basics of reading music, rather than seeing that most kids can't read music and doing something about that instead.

If GCSE music was made into a qualification that better prepared students for Alevel, then it would just be shuffling the 'gap' problem back two years. Those students who had only ever had 1 hour a week of school music lessons from Y7-9 would find the GCSE impossible. This would be a far bigger problem for music education.

At least those taking it at Alevel are more likely to want to study music at a futher level i.e. uni and play an instrument formally. GCSE music must however remain an enjoyable and accessable qualification for everyone, including those who don't play instruments and have never had the chance to learn to read music.

This idea has been taken up in France. Pupils can do the music option as part of a general baccalaureat. It was thought that in order to be egalitarian the syllabus should not favour those who had had private music tuition.

The first result is that students who have spent time and money on their musical education are now the ones who are disadvantaged. The syllabus has become so far removed from the average musical experience of these "priviledged" students that they are fast deserting the music option and choosing something else (even when they could get into one of the rare lycées where the music option is on offer.)

The second result is a completely incoherent syllabus because if you can't read music, how can you be expected to study (and I quote from recent set works) a Beethoven string quartet, comparative arrangements of tangos by Piazzola, a composition by Xu Yi, film music and contemporary organ music.
Candidates pass an oral exam (there is no written paper. ) They have to compare an extract from any one of the set works with another extract which may or may not be from a set work. The have to be able to talk about the instrumentation, form, style and character of the music. They may or may not have to refer to the score (very vague). They also have to present a piece of vocal or instrumental music and then sing or play it. They can do this either individually or as a class.

The third result is that music teachers are increasingly opting out of teaching this option. It is presented as an "open to anyone" option but in fact requires pupils to be musically literate. Teachers are faced with an impossible task.

I have been involved in teaching this option because some of my pupils have been in lycéees where there was no music and so have presented this part of their baccalaureat as a "candidat libre" and I have worked on the syllabus with them.

I couldn't possibly have taught any of the set works without being musically literate and my pupils certainly couldn't have succeeded without being able to read music and follow a score.

I would be interested to know what on earth one could put on a music syllabus designed for non-readers.
What would they study, how would they study and what kind of assessment could be used?


French students are also marked in sport. No one has yet suggested that those who have belonged to sports clubs outside school have an unfair advantage. You can even do surfing as an option but no one has suggested that it isn't fair to those who live miles inland.

I've just come home from an amazing week on a jazz course, and at various points the reading/not-reading music issue cropped up. I think all the horn players and pianists could read music to some degree, a couple of the drummers could read, one bass player couldn't and the vocalists were a mixed bag of could and couldn't. Speaking as someone who can read at a reasonable level there were times when those who couldn't read were at a disadvantage, mostly at being able to pick up the form and rhythmic / harmonic patterns of the pieces quickly - the written music (and in jazz it's often simple lead sheets) acts as an aide memoire. There were plenty of times we only had 20 minutes to rehearse something that was to be performed that evening. If we'd had an hour or two per piece it would probably have been OK. However, there was also a lot of focus on learning to use and trust your ears. I agree that at GCSE music some level of music reading ability should be required, as long as some ability to use your ears is too. My musical education at school was too much of the musical typewriter approach - press these buttons in this order and the tune will come out.

One of the tutors told a lovely anecdote about Chet Baker, who famously didn't read music or know any theory at all. The story goes that his bandleader was asked "How come your trumpet player plays such amazing solos when he doesn't know anything about chords or harmony?" the answer was "My trumpet player knows everything about chords and harmony, he just doesn't know what it's called"

Why do they need to be separate?? Sorry, I'm not being antagonistic, I just don't understand your reasoning. If someone hasn't been able to have private lessons to learn an instrument, they can still sing.



Then why not teach the years 7-9 properly then?!

I think I mentioned singing as well as instrumentation not everyone can sing adequately to use voice for their performance element.

I do think there is room for two GCSE's in Music. I wasn't thinking of appreciation based on written scores as such. The agrgument seems to be coming back to keeping things the same. The syllabus as it stands disadvantages those who have private music lessons and in some schools has been taken over by those who don't read and have done very little theory.

The problem in my opinion is the lack of imagination in devising a syllabus. After all not all art courses are the same so why do the music ones need to be? I don't think there should be a watering down just another option which may or may not involve performance. Maybe there needs to be more oportunity at Secondary level for the pupils to explore music making. In my daughter's school there tends to be a lot of time spent on music making but it's not always successful as some members of the class can't do it. Frustrations creep in as many of them would really like to be achieve yet there isn't the support.

I do agree that years 7 -9 should be taught properly. I would like to see music teaching featuring in Primary education more strongly but there's probably little chance of this happening.

GCSEs shouldn’t have any pre-requisites that require people to gain qualifications and awards outside of school. There is still the possibility of failing grade one theory even if you think that it’s almost impossible. Does that mean that that person cannot take GCSE music? If you believe that music is revolved around written notation then I guess the answer would be yes. But I feel that music is about so much more than just the ability to read music.

I agree that basic music theory should be taught as part of the curriculum but it most certainly isn’t the foundation of music or music education nor is it as important as some might think it is. Surely having a good ear is more important in music than being able to read it. Music did not come from written notation. Written notation came from music and we must remember this. Sound is the basic language of music – not staves and crotchets. Music is quite an abstract form of beauty. Some people feel the need to write it down because it isn’t something that can last like a painting and it cannot be felt like a statue. Notation makes music more tangible and understandable but that is taking away the nature of music. It is the way most of us have learnt music but it is the not the only way and it cannot teach you everything about music. Creating the illusion that it can by pretending that reading notation is the most important thing in music is wrong.



Like many other things in this world, music knows no boarders or barriers. Just because we live in Europe it does not mean that we must learn European music. We can learn music from the East or from the Americas or from Africa or anywhere else. I don’t see how children here cannot properly learn about music from other cultures without first learning Western European Classical. I’m guessing then that Indian musicians have to learn about classical music from Europe first before they can fully understand their own music.

GCSE music isn’t about producing music academics that can analyse scores and pick apart symphonies by looking at the music. By treating notation as if it’s the most important thing in the subject you’re limiting yourself far more as you fail to recognise what music really is and you start to think that everything in music centres around the ability to read and write in notation. So what if you can read music? Yes, it’s important but it doesn’t mean that you can compose or be musical or have an innate sense of rhythm. All it means is that you have a key to unlock some of the wonders of Western Classical music but it doesn’t unlock everything about music. Most of the wonders of music are unlocked by listening and playing and experiencing anyway.



I don’t understand how lessons being “taken over” by those who cannot read music is a bad thing. That almost has a whiff of snobbery about it! Poor little kids, can’t play a duet because those non-theory people are always in the way. If only they weren’t there so that they could carry on talking about Beethoven. Who cares if they’ve had a head start? Who cares about the fact that not everybody can get music lessons? Pop music? That’s not music at all!

I don’t think that GCSE music disadvantages those who have private music training. By giving them advantages you will be disadvantaging those who haven’t had any private training. GCSEs are meant to be open and equal to everyone so they must focus on things that nobody has a head start on. Nobody has an advantage; you’re looking at it wrongly when you think that somebody does (or should).

By the way, has anyone actually thought about making music WITH the non-theories and showing them what you know about music? It can be quite fun. You can do jazz piano while they can bang on a drum or sing over it. Even the one assigned with the drum banging can have heaps of fun when everything is sounding good. THAT’S what music is really about.

I'm suggesting that ideally music tuition should be improved so that the "gap" no longer exists. So that a child who has got to GCSE choosing stage would read enough music and have enough musical literacy to be able to tackle it, instead of dumbing down the GCSE for those who haven't been taught well. It might be hard work, they may have some catching up to do, but at least they wouldn't be starting with nothing.

If the structures and priority was in place to teach music basics to children then by the time GCSEs rolled around there wouldn't be the huge divide between those who'd had private lessons and could read music/understood the basics, and those who hadn't and were clueless. Sure, those with the private lessons would still have an advantage, and there's no getting away from that unless instrumental and vocal lessons are made available again to the less privileged, but those who didn't have that background wouldn't be so far behind and would have picked up some basic singing and probably keyboard skills from those lessons... something on which to build.

I realise this is an idealistic option but surely it should be what music teachers should be aiming for.


Exactly - and the years up to year 7.


No indeed, they should not - because the kids should be taught properly IN school...


I think few if any people are suggesting that notation is the most important thing in music. And I haven't seen anyone suggesting that having a good ear is somehow of less worth. Personally I think ideally the two should go hand in hand. But as I have said before, this isn't really about ears vs notation... it's about being taught the basics. If the kids who couldn't read music all had fantastic aural abilities to make up for it, that'd be one thing, though personally I think that having that AND the ability to understand the basics of notation would be better. If the kids understood the basics aurally then applying that to notation wouldn't be so difficult. (It's more or less how I was taught - I understood, could recognise, and could repoduce the basic intervals of the major scale long before I would have recognised them on paper.) But most musical education in schools isn't giving that aural understanding either... I learned it in my violin lessons.

However, a basic grasp of musical literacy is a prerequisite in many areas of studying/playing music, and it is a basic part of the western music tradition. Yes, kids can learn about lots of musical traditions without that basic grounding in their own, but why should they miss out on their own? And the fact remains that a GCSE with so little grounding in western music and knowledge of notation is incredibly poor preparation for music study at A level and beyond. If GCSEs are dumbed down in this way (rather than the musical education being improved so that the GCSE can contain the basics of the areas which students will need later on) then effectively you are making sure that no child will be able to study music unless they have a serious amount of outside help and tuition in terms of theory and so on on top of private lessons.

Already, especially given the severe lack of support these days for kids to learn instruments affordably, it is becoming more and more difficult for anyone who doesn't have the money or some kind of outside support to get themselves into a position to study music to a high level.

Making sure that GCSEs are so "accessible" that they are nigh on worthless as a basis for further study, making more outlay on extra-curricular study necessary, just makes serious music study that much more elite. Fair enough, all children should have a chance at studying music to GCSE, but in my opinion,it would be far, far better if that was because they have been properly taught so that they take into that GCSE study the basics they will need, the foundation on which they can build, NOT because the examining boards have done away with the requirement for those basics and left them with a qualification that won't actually serve them well except as a letter on a piece of paper.

Yes, music can be fun, but it's frankly condenscending to the breadth of music to suggest that as long as it's fun no one is missing out. Banging a drum whilst your classmates play tunes is fun, but playing a Tchaikovsky symphony in a half decent youth orchestra or singing Carmina Burana with the local choral society or improvising a jazz solo with a band is even more fun. (And no, reading music is not necessarily 100% vital to all those aims, but it sure helps, and the knowledge and understanding of the aural and theoretical basics will too)

Frankly as a kid I would also have found it condescending if I was taught not really taught much in ANY subject because "we were having fun instead". The best teachers I had in all subjects were able to inject fun into lessons where we learned a LOT. And sometimes the most fun bit was the learning of something new. The best teachers were also those who knew and who could communicate that sometimes the learning was just plain hard work, but that it was worthwhile. Most things worth doing, and I would certainly include music in this, will involve hard work and discipline at some stage. To pretend otherwise is dumb.

Why not aim to equip kids to be able to aim a bit higher and be able to understand and appreciate music a bit more rather than deciding it's not important enough to be taught properly? Learning to sing Frere Jacques in French or Stille Nacht in German can be fun for kids, but would it hold water if we said that was enough for a child who wanted a GCSE in the subject? Why should music be the poor relation? Fun can coexist with learning the necessary basics, after all. It's often the best way to learn and music probably provides more "fun learning" possibilities than many subjects.

Having a GCSE that is such lousy preparation for A level is like having an English GCSE where one was never expected to write an essay, or a language GCSE which didn't expect the ability to conduct a simple conversation in the target language. (Clearly, the QCA seem to think the latter is reasonable, but frankly that just shows you that some of their decision makers aren't that bright IMO) GCSEs are a qualification in their own right, but they are also the on ramp for A levels which are the prerequisite for further study. As such, they are not doing their "job" in many areas, and music is one of them.

Children shouldn't be "forced" to read music any more than they are "forced" to count to ten or read and write. They should be properly taught in the first place. GCSEs should be less about trying to get a certain number of kids through the "grade A* to C" hoop and more about actually teaching them about the subject. And that goes for all of them IMO. It says something really depressing about education in this country that grades seem to have become way more important than whether pupils are learning something that might be useful to them

I agree that proper teaching is key to improving everyones learning experience in music. I'm not sure that there is the same desire to change thing by educationalists or that they are even aware of the problem.

a good way of sparking interest in music would be to have lots of fun learning in Primary school. Some schools are shameful in their approach.

I have first hand experience of someone who has private music lessons in High School and is bored silly of school music even the teachers pathetic attempts to run an after school GCSE. In their determination to make everyone the same my youngest is still a 4a in Music (latest report just before the end of term).

The focus of schools is no longer the A*-C in our experience it's merely trying to get everyone 5 GCSE's. Schools are achieving this by any means possible, that includes refusing to mark or re-mark work by puipls in some subjects in favour of pushing those who've done no work for 2 years. Our education sysrem is shameful.

My first choice would be a proper musical education for all but I can't see it happening in the near future. I think the athletes returning from the Olympics have done an amazing job and I would love to see young peopple encouraged to take up more activities. I do wonder though if on the back of this success the little interest in Music that has been emerging will be sidelined and the funding re-focused.

There are some on this thread who think that. Arguing that children should definitely be able to read music suggests that it is a vital aspect of learning music if not one of the most important aspects. It is a vital aspect in the serious study of Western Classical music but not music in general. I agree that basic theory skills should be taught and taught well in school and I said this in my previous post. I just wanted to remind people before they got carried away that notation isn’t the only language of music.

You’re saying that the state of music education in schools is poor. Agreed. It’s almost useless sometimes.

However, maybe we should first decide on what we want schools to teach. Is it supposed to be the same as private music lessons? Maybe not. If you want children to receive classical training then I think that it has to be done through other means. Maybe a state-funded system where people can learn for free may be an option (that’s just the first thing that came to my head – don’t shout at me if it’s actually a bad idea!!) but that’s for another, much bigger debate.

GCSE music right now gives people an opportunity to make music and understand it a little better but not everybody wants to play in a youth orchestra. Some people want to play in a guitar band and some want to rap. Many kids feel that that sort of music is their own and do not want to learn how to play in an orchestra just as how some do not want to make an R n B song. For these, music theory is not as important. It’s more important for them to understand how to use cadences rather than knowing what each one is called. That is why I disagree with some who feel that reading music is a requirement to take GCSE music.

But what about those who want to go on and study at A level and are interested in the more academic side? I realise that there is a gap between GCSE and A level music and that it’s hard for those with no extra help to make that jump. We have to ask whether the current GCSE music course should be a stepping stone to A level music. At first the obvious answer is yes but maybe having two types of music GCSE can be an option as someone else has already suggested. One could be a course that is similar to what GCSE music is now and one could be centred on a more serious study of classical music that can lead nicely on to A level. Of course, it would help massively if children were taught a lot earlier on about basic music theory as you say so there is no gap but we should respect that not everybody wants to learn about the academic side of music. I’m assuming that you think GCSE music should teach something that better resembles what we’ve learnt through private lessons and be more academic. We should give kids the skills and tools to learn classical music, etc. but we must respect them if they choose not to and we must accept that they want to learn slightly different things. I think we probably agree that children should be taught theory early on but we shouldn’t discriminate against those who want to write rap songs by encouraging them to play in an orchestra.

This isn’t dumbing down a subject; this is just changing it to cater for people. Making pop songs, learning its history and understanding it isn’t always easier. It’s just different.

Schools should prepare students for A levels but they are not an actual preparation for them as you have said. The things being currently taught aren’t worthless but perhaps another subject needs to be created instead that can act as a real ramp to A level. Basic theory should be taught to children and maybe two types of music lessons should be in schools. One would focus on more classical music and require some theory knowledge and the other would focus on things not too different to what music in school focuses on now. However, we have to remember that not all music requires being able to read it and not all forms of music work with notation and respect those who wish to study that kind of music.

Sarah, I didn't want to quote your whole post, but I just wanted to say that I lost count of the number of times I shouted 'YESSSS!!!!!!!!!!' at the pooter screen while I was reading it !!!

And, yes, I DO think that notation should be taught alongside aural awareness and a host of other musical skills. Of course notation is not all that music is, any more than the alphabet is what language is - but if you are going to study literature you would not expect to do so without being able to read - and the same applies to music.

And, again yes, notmusimum, our education system IS 'shameful' .

BAH.

not learning how to read music at GCSE level, just doesnt make sense. I would say that is one of the biggest things in music, actually being able to see music, aswell as hear it, and in two years, it should be able to fit in somewhere.

I think it's a dangerous road to go down to teach kids what they WANT. A lot of them probably don't WANT to be in school in the first place. A lot of them don't WANT to learn english, maths and science, which is compulsory up to GCSE.

Also, part of the problem, it seems to me, is governments' (plural sic) general obsession with *skills* and *business* - ie. kids should come out of school ready to fit into the employment machine. Rather than school being there to make well-rounded and intelligent human beings. As long as that view of education exists, music will probably always struggle.

Sarah, I'm with Cyrilla - lots of 'yeses' from me too!

So am I

Thank you Sarah. I sat down and wrote a long post saying some very similar things. When I tried to send it my system went down for the umpteenth time and I hadn't the mental energy to start again. So I was hugely cheered to read your post.

I was psyching myself up to write a long reply and found that sarah had done the job for me !

BAH to 'dumbing down'!!!

GOW

I think it's valuable to think about how we learn spoken langauge and its written representation, as it's an almost universal model. Of course we learn to make the sounds and words first, discovering intuitively how to join all the sounds together to get the result required. (I probably ought to read up on the acquisition of language in infants to understand it better.) Later on, written representations of words the child already knows are introduced. As time progresses, the child (one hopes) learns the principles of written language so that he/she can make sense of more and more complex words and sentences/concepts. The image I have is that the written word skills start after and lag behind oral skills, but eventually overtake those oral skills (for most people, the complexity of construction of their written langauge will surpass their oral langauge construction.) I, for one, think that the level of detail in English in the National Curriculum in primary schools is crazy - that they have to learn the technical terms for elements of speech before they can even speak/write fluent & correct basic English seems to be a 'putting the cart before the horse' way of learning language. But that is one of the pitfalls of being a literate society - we tend to forget that the written representation of the words/sounds are merely that - and imperfect/incomplete representations at that.

I think that the interesting question is, when do people's skills in the written word overtake their oral skills? Put another way, when does the ability to understand written langauge allow a complexity of thought that would not be possible with just oral communication? This does have direct ramifications for music - how do we encourage and help learners develop independent understanding of notated music, and at what point should we be looking for that 'crossover point', where their literate skills allow them to understand music independently in a way not possible with merely aural/oral skills?

And me.

I didn't realise until reading this thread that what my sons are taught at school must go beyond the requirements of the national curriculum. Last year in year 7 my younger son's music lessons included a certain amount of theory work as well as studying rhythm, tone, different instruments etc. Theory homework comprised working through set sheets covering note reading, clefs, terms etc. It's not given greater priority than anything else, but it is definitely there. Obviously boys who have read music for many years have a head start in that particular area, but this way when it comes to options in year 9, the boys who started school with no formal musical learning experience at all will be in as good a position to know whether they want to go on with music to GCSE and beyond as they will be as regards history, geography, DT etc, and will have a much better understanding of the subject as a whole. Of course some of them hate the theory side and don't want to do it. My sons dislike various aspects of a number of subjects, even those that they enjoy as a whole, but they get on and do the work, because that's what's required of them.

"Some"/"few" - and I have to say I still disagree, I think a lot of people are saying it's important - which it is - not that it is THE most important thing. You are reading people's comments saying it's vital for study of many aspects of music and assuming people think it's the be all and end all. Very few people think that.

As Cyrilla says, it needs to be learned alongside (possibly more-or-less after, in terms of each particular note and symbol etc) all the aural and practical sides of music, but few would attempt to study literature without learning to read. I don't think I have read any posts that have suggested the writer has got "carried away" or believes that Western notation is "the only language of music". I certainly don't, and it's clear to me reading through others' posts that most people writing here don't. It is, however, just as foolish to get "carried away" and dismiss notation and musical theory as unnecessary. Notation isn't merely the preserve of those who wish to study musical academically. Of course there is more to music than notation, but it is useful - why do we insist on throwing the baby out with the bathwater?


No, you wouldn't expect children to be taught the same as in private music lessons, as private music lessons are usually taken with the aim of learning an instrument: not usually practical in a class of 30 except with an exceptional teacher.

(Though of course there are strong arguments for the teaching of basic musical education and understanding prior to getting one's hands on an instrument, and that is certainly something that can (IMO should) be taught in school. Pre National Curriculum, I was lucky enough to be at a school as a toddler and youngster whose teachers recognised the value of "musical education" away from the study of an instrument, and who had the freedom to teach something they considered important. Although I probably had only a couple of years of the benefit of that, benefit I most assuredly did... singing and "music and movement" and so on were all great precursors and additions alongside the instrumental tuition I received)

But one does expect students to be taught SOMETHING, and for that something to be of real value. IMO, most school music lessons in my experience and, bar a few exceptions from exceptional schools, teach very little at all up to GCSE level, teach some stuff of value (but ignoring huge chunks of the wide world of music) during GCSE, and then struggle to catch up at A level. A considerable part of our A level classes were spent on people being taught the things they IMO should have been taught long before even GCSE.


Excuse me, but why does classical music "have" to be taught through other means? Why on earth should it only be available to an elite, or only be available as an "add on" outside school? Of course we shouldn't discriminate against the kids whose main interest is in popular music, but why does that make it OK to discriminate against classical music??? Rather inconsistent, don't you think?

And classical music is far, far from the only arena where an understanding and ability to read musical notation is a useful skill... just because that is where it developed into the system as we know it today doesn't make it only applicable when studying that school of music.

One has to say it's not JUST about GCSE. I know of people who never got to study O Level because they didn't have the requisite requirements. To me, that is a failure on the part of the music teachers to get the students to a standard where they could take that course more than that the course is "too hard". And I think that failure for most kids reaches back a lot further than the GCSE choices at the end of year nine, which is a great shame when I do believe that most children, given the opportunity, could learn something really valuable even if they never took the subject for extra study.


A lot of those kids don't want to do those things, granted, but some of them have never had the chance to find out if they might actually enjoy doing them if they had the option. Better teaching earlier in the school curriculum would actually give those kids a taste of formal Western music, (and indeed other musics, why not, but why should they be denied the chance to experience and understand classical music?) AND a far better basis and understanding for any other type of music they should choose to study. Personally I think that it's fine to study other areas of music as part of GCSEs.

As it stands, unless they have tuition outside of school, for many children the avenue of classical music is firmly closed. And frankly, you need more thorough understanding of music (written or otherwise) to play in a band than most (heck, almost all) children receive from music lessons in schools.

I also disagree that musical theory "isn't important" to people just because they are more interested in R n B or rap. Knowing how to use cadences IS musical theory, whether formally taught or not - and what is rap about if not pulse and rhythm??? Yes, you can learn to understand those things without notation, but not without theory, whether that theory is something learned in the classroom or from spending hours playing with more experienced musicians. (And by the way how many kids have that opportunity to make up for the rather lacklustre teaching in school, hmm? Ideally, all children would have an opportunity like that even if just to see if it is something they want to do, and the chance to learn to read music, et cetera. In reality it's unlikely. But the things that can be provided should be.) Saying that's it's not theory because it's not taught in a classroom is, frankly, simply wrong.

Being able to read music, even if not especially fluently, opens up a whole new range of possibilities, whole new areas of study, and could even spark an interest in something that would otherwise appear a closed book. Some kids will take to it, some won't, but why shouldn't they all get the chance to try?

A significant chunk of my GCSE music listening was writing down impressions and descriptions of a piece of music - we used to compete as to getting certain buzzwords our teachers liked into our descriptions. It didn't teach any of us how to analyse the music, anything about harmony, how to be more effective musicians or composers ourselves, anything about the history of the music we were studying or how to know which era/tradition it came from; it taught us how to waffle and get marks for it.

I believe things have improved on that front, but the last set of GCSE papers I saw still required a good amount of work that was, more or less, waffle, and was too airy-fairy for the ability to complete the questions to actually be of any serious use/value.

And at the risk of repeating myself, it would be a different kettle of fish if the choice we had was between a bunch of kids who could read music vs a bunch of kids with amazing aural ability and understanding. In my experience, that is a long, long way from reality. It's not really about notation vs aural understanding, and reducing it to those terms utterly misses the point.

If children were taught well and earlier, then they could both be able to learn the basics of reading music and have a reasonably good aural understanding and ability long before GCSE options came along - enough for them to pursue the subject if they wanted to (and this, frankly, is where choice comes in for most children, and rightly so - just as most children do not decide to become authors when they grow up before they can read... it could be argued that even this is too early for some).


That is a sticking plaster on the problem, and makes formal music education into even more of an elite for those who have had the outside help necessary to take on the more practical GCSE. (You argue against elitism and yet endorse a system that would make musical education even less available to those without the money or support to pursue it - please, think about what you are saying!)

My point is that it would be a heck of a lot better for children to all be given the basics (I'm not expecting all year nine students to be grade 5 equivalent in theory, but far too many kids get to that level with essentially no understanding of pulse/rhythm, not even a basic grasp of notation, and so on) so that they 1) had the choice, the chance, to go on to study music (any kind of music!) in a more in depth manner if they wanted to and 2) had a foundation that they could build on if they wished to sing in a choir, play in a band, learn an instrument, and so on. Why should only the kids who had the outside help to be able to take a more serious GCSE be given that chance? Why should they be made to make, at the age of 13 or 14, the decision as to whether they might want to study music seriously in 3 or 5 years' time? (A level/uni)

We don't expect children to choose between: a French GCSE which attempts to give them some measure of understanding of grammar, an ability to conduct simple conversations in French, some ability to read and write the language and pick up the gist of spoken French; and a French GCSE which aims to have them speak a few sentences that they have learned by rote and be able to differentiate between French and Chinese and say why French sounds different from Chinese. "French Appreciation GCSE" anyone??! Maybe they should offer Maths appreciation as well, where one can describe the difference in appearance between two different equations. Ridiculous suggestions, yes - but why is it suddenly OK to suggest this when it comes to music?

Yes, having two streams of GCSE would solve the immediate problem. I don't believe it is a solution to the underlying issue of bad or nonexistent musical education, or that a "solution" which basically recognises music as a second class subject where it doesn't matter if one cannot be bothered to do the hard work instead of DOING something about it is anything anyone who loves music should see as a good thing.

We expect teachers to try and teach them something genuinely worthwhile, useful, and applicable, that will enable them, if they so choose, to study French or Maths or whatever to a higher level (even if there will, inevitably, be a gap in real life between the subject as one is taught to get through the exam and what will be required to study to A level and beyond).

There are schools out there that attempt to do this for kids studying music, but they have less and less motivation to give children even the basics when the exam boards decide that these things aren't important enough for GCSE students. The message is there that music just isn't as important, valuable or interesting as another subject.

(How effective the French GCSE is is of course debatable but that is another story: The aim is, at least, a good one)


You're assuming things that I have not said. I don't actually think that ALL of what current GCSE syllabi teach is useless/worthless. I do think that it is hopelessly weighted in the direction of "let's make it accessible" ignoring the "let's teach something worthwhile".

As others have said, there are a lot of kids who would rather not learn the academic side of _anything_ - but certain subjects are compulsory, and in others there are accepted standards that are considered reasonable, and worthwhile working towards. We don't consider that to be unfair or unreasonable. But in music it seems that if it's too hard to do without some hard work and some discipline, then it is abandoned.

It's all very well saying "they don't want to" - how do you know that when a large proportion of children have never been given the chance to, never been given the tools to?

And as for respecting what children do or don't want to do - I'm sorry, but in that case why don't we make all education optional? After all, not all children want to learn to read, so why should we discriminate against them??! Think about what you are saying!

As I have said in previous posts, the fact remains that most things that are worth doing at all, will require some hard work and discipline at some stage. School music as it stands lets a minority study music to a level where they have the knowledge, tools, appreciation to say "I want to play jazz/classical/study the violin/learn to play a drum kit" because they have had outside help in some form, a talented few who don't have the support to dive in and manage without much help, (and both those scenarios rely on a level of school/county/local extra-curricular activity that is not available to all children) and the rest hardly have a chance to even find out if music is something they might actually enjoy. I find that an extremely sad reality.


Sorry, I'm just going to have to say this here - yes it is, and you are wrong.


Again - I never said there was no value to those things. As for catering for people, there are a lot of kids who either don't do music, or do it under duress, because the way secondary music lessons are structured and taught these days isn't teaching them what they want to know. What about those kids?

And there so many people who discover music later in life and rue the fact they are starting from scratch... they didn't know music was fun or that they were capable of being part of it because they had not been taught the basics that would enable them to explore it. What they had learned from school lessons was that music was pointless and difficult, and that if they didn't have outside help then they had no chance of being any good at it or of getting any enjoyment from it. Isn't that sad?? I don't understand why that doesn't make anyone who loves music absolutely furious. Wouldn't it be better if school lessons had taught them that music was hard work, but also extremely worthwhile, and a lot of fun to boot?

I also find it really weird that anyone would consider it's perfectly OK to chop out one musical tradition, but chopping out another would be "discriminating"... - I'm repeating myself, but please, THINK for a second before typing...

I don't know, nor do I pretend to know, how one would go about improving musical education so that all children got a stab at it. But you only have to read Cyrilla's posts to see that it's possible for all children to be given a basic understanding and appreciation, if the people in charge of educating them think that's a worthwhile aim.. Read about the otherwise ordinary children given a wonderful start in music in Hungary, and how talented and capable their choirs have become, giving those children the best possible start if they want to play or sing in any musical tradition, and a wonderful ability to read and sing music for their whole lives even if they don't pursue it formally; then look at the majority of schools in this country where most kids aren't even given the chance, and tell me that the UK's kids aren't missing out.

Forgive me if I sound cross about this subject. It's because I am.

Cyrilla, Claire, Aquarelle, Crotcheymum - I'm glad it's not just me!

GOW and not ashamed.

Sarah, you are so right. I make no claim to being a brilliant teacher. All of my work has been very run of the mill and most of my pupils very average. But I have had a fairly wide experience. I have taught music from nursery school up to O Level as it was back in the eighties in England and maternelle to baccalauréat in France.

I say this simply to underline my belief that the written language of music can and should be taught to every age group from about the age of five. I am 100% with the kind of thing Cyrilla says about sound before symbol and the enormous importance of singing, movement and all the other ways of getting young children to internalise music. But just as the reading of words can be taught at an early age so can the reading of written music. I know there are people who raise their hands in horror at the idea of early reading but my experience has been that the majority of children are ready to read quite early.
My experience with a maternelle class in France where the teaching of reading is frowned upon before the age of six plus has done much to convince me how wrong it is to delay. It isn’t a question of rushing to be first or to be top but simply a question of responding to the natural curiosity of young children.

The same can be said of reading music. But it absolutely must be at the level of the children. My five year olds learn quite simply that music can be written down. We look at large pictures of notes, talk about which way up they are, draw faces on them, colour the treble clef sign and talk about notes climbing up and down the ladder of the stave etc. By the time they are six we play games placing buttons on large staves, clapping flash card rhythms and so on. By the end of their CP year (six to seven years) they can read and play the notes BAG on the descant recorder, and recognise simple rhythm patterns using crotchets, quavers, minims, dotted minims and semibreves. The singinging, movement, listening etc continues. The school is very limited in equipment and I am limited in time but I send them up to secondary school with a playing and theoretical knowledge round about Grade 1.
I’m afraid it mostly stops there which causes me considerable pain but that’s how it is. I have never been able to land the music teaching job in our local college and when my former pupils come back and tell me what they have done – or rather not done - in their music lessons it makes me very sad. Obviously for the ones who stay with me for individual lessons or go on privately to learn an instrument I don’t teach the story is different.

I, like you, unashamedly don my GOW hat and bemoan the lack of intellectual courage in our various systems of education.