A Comparison of Music Education Philosophy 1

A Comparison of Music Education Philosophy

Nicole Hunt
Stephen F. Austin State University

A Comparison of Music Education Philosophy 2


The study of music education philosophy in North America has been primarily divided
into two major tenets, the aesthetic philosophy of Bennett Reimer, as outlined in his book, A
Philosophy of Music Education(1970,1989,2003), and the praxial philosophy of David J. Elliott,
as outlined in his book, Music Matters(1995). As one of the oldest educational philosophies in
music, Reimers music education as aesthetic education or MEAE has until recent years
been the primary philosophy used by practitioners (Elliott, 1995, p. 28). Elliotts text presents
itself as a fundamentally opposite axiom that has been embraced by some contemporary
educators (p.14). Seemingly different in their ideologies, Elliott and Reimer contrast on the
views of what music is, the place and value of musical education, and the curriculum of an ideal
music education practice. This paper will seek to identify and explain the educational ideologies
of both philosophies and discover what possible practical applications in the music classroom
may be gleaned from each.
The study of aesthetics in general concerns itself with the perception and nature of the
senses, which eventually developed into a term that loosely defines itself as the study of beauty
and the arts (Elliott, 1995, p. 22). A concept arising from the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, aesthetic education has a varied and continually evolving philosophy that has been
used extensively in the western world (p.22). While Bennett Reimer is not the first philosopher
to synthesize music education and aesthetics, Reimer was the first fully realized music
education philosophy to become effective on a grand scale (p. 28). Bennett Reimer has
reformulated his philosophy twice since its inception in 1970. Bennett has since provided a more
praxial approach to aesthetic education in the 2003 edition of his book (Maattanen, 2003).
However, for the basis of this comparison, his 1970 and 1989 edition texts will be referenced.
Reimer provides a definition of music as a type of cognition (Reimer, 1989,p. 11) , that is
separated from other forms of cognition by its intrinsic value and expressive qualities. In
accordance to this, Reimer deems the value of music to be its ability to aid the process of
A Comparison of Music Education Philosophy 3


human feeling that is specific to music alone(p.85). This definition of music greatly informs his
educational philosophy, which is chiefly based on the aesthetic philosophies of John Dewey and
Susanne Langer (Reimer, 1970, p. 102). Both ideologies regard participation in music as an
aesthetic experience (p. 102).
Reimer defines an aesthetic experience as the interaction between the perception and
reaction of the expressive qualities than an object embodies, which in his philosophy would be a
musical work (Reimer, 1970,p. 107). Reimer believes that the basis of music education should
be built around this concept of aesthetic experience (p. 109). Thus, MEAE philosophy involves
the development of aesthetic perception through specific musical works, rather than
performance based musical learning (p.108). Musical works are objects to be observed, and
elements such as melody, timbre, rhythm, and harmony are seen as aesthetic qualities that aid
in the observation and aesthetic understanding of musical works (p.108). Through the process
of aesthetic perception, aesthetic sensitivity is attained, which is deemed essential to aesthetic
experience (p.109). Reimer encourages the instruction of musical perception by trained
practitioners, or musical experts, using music that is deemed as good or expressive, the
most noted of which to Reimer is Western Art Music(Reimer, 1989,p. 97).
Therefore, an aesthetic educational experience in music involves an autonomous
musical object, which is to be perceived aesthetically using aesthetic qualities, and will have a
reactionary result of an aesthetic experience (Reimer,1970,p.109). In the classroom, in my
opinion, this will usually be linked to listening and theoretical concerns. Music theory analyses
the structural elements or aesthetic elements of a musical work so that they may be
understood. Another example is the study of music history uses listening to historical works to
understand the various musical elements that lend themselves to a particular time period. This
is seemingly the method used by the majority of American classrooms until Elliots philosophy
became available.
A Comparison of Music Education Philosophy 4


Elliott positions his educational philosophy as the opposite of Reimer (Elliott, 1995, p.
14). Whereas Reimer is concerned with the aesthetic experience which involves distanced
perception, Elliotts philosophy centers on the action of music making (p. 22). In turn, Elliott calls
this philosophy praxial as it concerns itself with the action of music making in specific
contextual practices ( p. 14). Elliott defines music as a distinctly human process, cognitive in
nature which is diverse and multi-dimensional and based on context (p. 52). Elliott derives
music value from the experience of music making that he believes leads to the human values of
self-knowledge, self-growth, and optimal experience (p. 128). Elliott characterizes musical
experiences by the involvement in musical action, which he refers to as musicing, and listening
(p. 129). These experiences are qualified by musicianship and music challenges and are
cultural and multifaceted in nature (p. 129). Musical works are not necessarily objects in his
philosophy but products of the action of music making in a situated cultural context that can
contain multiple dimensions (p. 129).
Elliott suggests a curriculum that encourages musical development through
knowledgeable action (Elliott, 1995, p. 242). This is built through Elliotts concepts of
musicianship and several other types of musical knowledge and ways of knowing. Elliott
proposes a pedagogy that employs reflective practitioners steeped in musical practice and their
apprentice practitioners, or students, and the process of music making (p. 260). Elliott believes
that the process of performance informs other aspects of the musical experience including
listening, composing, and conducting (p. 33). The author also encourages the teaching of
musicianship, on which he has placed a specialized focus (p. 53). Praxial philosophy also
calls for a multicultural education, utilizing music from a variety of contexts, deemed appropriate
by the practitioner in practice (p. 207). No one practice or type of music is the correct type of
music for education. Praxial philosophy sees music education as a musical experience derived
from musical actions in specific contexts (p. 129).
A Comparison of Music Education Philosophy 5


In the music classroom, this can have several practical applications. For instance, the
voice teacher that models for and performs with his or her student would exemplify this music in
action relationship. The relationship could also be seen in the general music class that employs
the use of guided instrument play and contextual observation. As a participant in the music
making process with the students the practitioner serves as a model of musicianship in multiple
facets for the students. The students may also be involved in the observation of a diverse set of
musicians performing music based upon their own cultural contexts; this would also seem to fit
in with a curriculum based upon praxial philosophy.
While the philosophical differences are prominent between these two factions of music
education, there are also similarities between the two. Both philosophies acknowledge the
cognitive nature of music and that its inherent value is based upon its unique interactions with
human beings (Reimer, 1989, p.11) (Elliott,1995, p.52 ). Also, both philosophies seem to focus
on musical qualities that they place in a position of importance (Elliott,1995, p. 84). Whether
these qualities are deemed artistic or aesthetic seems irrelevant since the qualities are
important to both philosophies.
Musical elements such as timbre, melody, and rhythm are important to music as a
whole, regardless of culture or type. In the study of music, whether through action or
perception, these qualities will always demand thoughtful consideration. There also seems to
be a lack of complete understanding of the philosophical ideologies on which each educational
philosophy is based (Panaiotidi, 2003). Music, as a creative human entity, would be
underserved by one method alone. Reimer encapsulates this in the title of his book; a versus
the Philosophy of Music. There is not one philosophy that is the perfect philosophy. Music
philosophy is a continuous process that will inevitably change and develop as a culture
develops. Along these lines, the manner in which educators think about their music practice will
also change, and adjustments will consistently have to be made.
A Comparison of Music Education Philosophy 6


Even though Reimers philosophy can be limiting in its cultural scope of music, there are
instances where the aesthetic experience could serve the classroom well. For instance, the
process of evaluating music through critical listening can greatly serve musicians who seek to
understand the nuances of performance at a level they themselves or their educator have not
achieved. Or perhaps, a distanced perspective of music could help those students of novice
musicianship to acclimate themselves to musical experiences. Because of this, I do not believe
aesthetic sensitivity of music to be an inefficient skill for a student to attain. However, Elliotts
performance based curriculum holds weight as well. Performance is truly a skill that is greatest
served in the doing than in the observing. Also, the incorporation of multicultural music is of
great importance to my practice and any philosophy that emphasizes the importance of the
social and cultural constructs of music making will win my favor as a practitioner. Thus, in my
opinion, it would probably serve most students to have an education rooted in both
philosophies.
As identified and explained here, the ideologies of Bennett Reimer and David Elliott are
an interesting dichotomy. While their beliefs about music are different, they both present
relevant positions on music in the classroom. Whether an instructor utilizes the aesthetic
approach of Reimer(1970) or the music-in-action approach of Elliott(1995), they will inevitably
find philosophies that cater to the individual student's need for musical knowledge and self-
awareness. Each philosophy presents unique opportunities for practitioners to explore music
and music making with students. For the sake of advocacy, these dialogues can only help the
continual process of establishing the value of music education in modern society.


A Comparison of Music Education Philosophy 7


Bibliography


Elliott, D. J. (1995). Music matters: A new philosophy of music education.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Maattanen,P. (2003).Aesthetic experience and music education.Philosophy of
Music Education Review, 11.1, 45-62.

Panaiotidi, E. (2003).What is music? Aesthetic experience versus musical practice.
Philosophy of Music Education Review. 11.1, 71-89.

Reimer, B. (1970). A philosophy of music education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.

Reimer, B. (1989). A Philosophy of Music Education. Second edition. Englewood Cliffs, N]:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.