[CAUT] CAUT credential vs. academic program?

[Fred S Sturm]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:15:19 -0600
  "Leslie Bartlett" <l-bartlett at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Isn't it lovely how we can hold contrary opinions and 
>yet the whole group
> seems always so pleasant.   Interesting, by a strange 
>series of
> catastrophes, I ended up in an accredited Master of 
>Music program after only
> 1.5 years of musical training. 
Hi Les,
     Yes, you are right. Virtually any categorical 
statement can be challenged at least in part by some 
example or other. However, I think I would still stand by 
the notion that the bearer of a music degree has more 
imprinted within the psyche than the bare trace of 
regurgitated and unremembered material. I think you would 
probably acknowledge that this is true for you, even while 
stating that in at least some of your classes it was often 
the case that you didn’t really digest all the material 
you were tested on.
     And I would also stand by my notion that in general a 
person “off the street” with no musical background at all 
could not be turned into a BM in instrumental performance 
by a music department in four years. Possibly with 
considerable personal application and some outside help 
such a thing could happen, but I doubt it very much. You 
yourself were not “off the street” but had an admitted 1.5 
years of training. I would strongly suspect some 
additional background, at least on an informal basis, in 
singing and reading music.
     I guess I would also have to concede that voice, 
particularly male voice, is an exception in the field of 
music (also male dance in the dance world). The male voice 
really doesn’t start to mature until graduate school in 
most cases, so previous formal training is often not 
particularly necessary or all that useful. For female 
voice this is also true, but to a lesser extent (female 
voices tend to mature a little earlier than male). 
Practice in breath control and training of the ear in 
intonation carries over, but much of the vocal production 
techniques can’t be learned until the instrument has 
matured. Classical training of the voice is largely 
"development of the instrument. And, actually, all of us 
have "practiced voice" in some degree from the moment of 
our birth, unless we are mute. We have learned how to make 
and imitate all sorts of subtly different sounds and 
pitches, especially during our earliest years.
     Other instruments, however, are far different. No way 
you could get into a bachelors, let alone masters program 
in piano with a couple years experience. Same for 
virtually any other instrument besides voice. The 
complexity of technique for classical performance is 
simply too great to be mastered in a short period of time. 
It requires an extended period of organized time and 
persistence to "align all those neurons." Perhaps you will 
want to come up with some extraordinarily exceptional 
example to “prove” me wrong, and perhaps you can – but 
only under very special and extraordinary circumstances.
     Are there differences in ability and intelligence, 
which make periods necessary to accomplish things vary 
from individual to individual? Of course there are. No 
argument from me there. You apparently have next to no 
respect for either music degrees or for certification in 
piano tech skills. There, we part ways (though I share a 
degree of your skepticism). I find it interesting that, 
though you claim to scorn the skill/talent level 
represented by RPT and by MMus, at the same time you are 
obviously proud of your accomplishments in both areas, 
piano tech and music. And you advertise your RPT and MMus. 
I guess I have to interpret all that as meaning that you 
think the bar should or certainly could be higher in both 
cases. And I would agree with that: that is precisely what 
we are trying to accomplish.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico

  My original intent was
>in the mechanical and
> aviation.  I had no particular talent, and when I found 
>myself up to my neck
> in things about which I new nothing, I feared every day 
>that they would
> discover me and kick me out.  I ended up with a 3.5 gpa- 
>so one cannot say I
> was an academic failure, but I can say with some 
>authority that I exactly
> regurgitated a whole lot of stuff on exams, much of it 
>being way beyond my
> comprehension.  I can say Jeff is right........  The 
>only thing that saved
> me is that instead of the requisite 12 or so recitals 
>required each
> semester, I attended 40-50, and I leanred a great deal 
>of music by osmosis.
> I will further say, that I felt before taking RPT exams 
>that one could pass
> those and know virtually nothing about a piano, and 
>having passed them with
> high scores, felt the same way afterwards, and 15 years 
>in the business has
> not changed my mind a bit.   If I am a musician I am so 
>because I spent
> years and years afterwards attending everything I could 
>to help me along, as
> I do with PTG conventions, still studying fundamentals 
>to shore up weak
> places.  I have had a successful career in both church 
>music and in piano
> work.  Oh, I have a fairly long list of literal 
>monotones, who I turned into
> soloists- so one absolutely can take a nobody right off 
>the street and make
> said person musical.  I've proven it at least half a 
>dozen times.   
> 
> Sorry, I have to speak up, because I am one of those 
>"off the street" people
> myself. When, a couple years ago i told my (now retired) 
>major professor my
> story, he, the quintessential southern aristocratic DMA, 
>and a brilliant
> one, said to me, "There is absolutely no way you should 
>ever have been able
> to complete that degree course. It seems totally 
>impossible in every way."
> I am perhaps one of the exceptions which proves the 
>rule, but  I have indeed
> done what couldn't be done, and did the same by 
>completing a two year piano
> tech program in one year because they were being closed 
>down, having no more
> intelligence about the innards of a piano than the local 
>butcher.   Mr.
> Sturm, check my website, please, and see if it "stacks 
>up".
> www.bartlettpianoservice.com ..........         Tuning 
>for a highly reputed
> school district, and having teachers with "music 
>degrees" who have actually
> told me they can't tell if a piano is in tune or 
>not----------------   well,
> certainly that speaks of little talent with a piece of 
>paper to prove
> it..........
> les bartlett
> 
>  _____  
> 
>From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] 
>On Behalf Of Fred
> Sturm
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 9:08 PM
> To: caut
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] CAUT credential vs. academic 
>program?
> 
> 
> On 11/5/07 3:00 PM, "Jeff Tanner" 
><jtanner at mozart.sc.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who holds a music degree has merely demonstrated 
>that they can
> absorb material long enough to regurgitate it on an 
>exam, and that they have
> shown some degree of incremental improvement in musical 
>ability over a 2 or
> 4 year period, that they have attended a certain number 
>of performances per
> term and have been present and accounted for in at least 
>one performing
> ensemble each term.  It has not made them musical if 
>they were not already. 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Jeff,
>    I was planning to sit this discussion out and let it 
>die a merciful
> death, but your ever more outrageous and ludicrous 
>claims have finally got
> to me. The above statement is mostly pure and simple 
>crap. I'll grant the
> point that a person has to have a degree of innate 
>"talent," or however you
> want to put that, to become a musician. I would describe 
>it as a combination
> of a good sense of rhythm and melody, an emotional 
>connection to musical
> sounds and phrases, with a necessary admixture of 
>physical dexterity
> (ability to learn complex and subtle physical actions of 
>a number of kinds)
> and an ability to concentrate and focus. In addition to 
>this "talent" mix, a
> future musician needs "desire," which includes the 
>obsessive wish to be able
> to make music, and the persistence and self-discipline 
>to pursue it.
> "Talent" without "desire" doesn't get very far. And 
>there is another equally
> important element: training. You cannot become a 
>classical musician (I'll
> leave aside other genres, as most of our institutions 
>concentrate on
> "classical") without a very fine training background. 
>Period.
>    Now a music department can't take just anyone off the 
>street and make
> that person into a musician. Nor can a math department 
>do the same and
> create a mathematician. You have to have talent, desire, 
>and training even
> to get in the door. Once you are in the door, you are 
>subjected to a
> rigorous four years of very hard and tightly directed 
>work (speaking only of
> a bachelors degree). To give a small example, our basic 
>two year theory
> program (freshman and sophomore for all music majors) 
>consists of five days
> a week for the entire two years. Two days of written 
>theory and analysis;
> one day each of sight-singing/solfeggio, ear 
>training/dictation, and piano
> skills/harmony. Everyone goes through this. And let me 
>tell you it is not a
> walk in the park. You have to work your butt off to get 
>through, and at the
> end you have definitely learned a lot.
>    That is one small element of our four year program, 
>which includes a
> fair amount of music history, additional theory and 
>analysis, performance in
> both solo and ensemble, etc. etc. Along the way, the 
>student is repeatedly
> tested and required to produce. Juries each semester. 
>Degree recitals.
> Ensemble performances. Papers. Quizzes and exams.
>    As far as I am concerned, a bachelors degree in music 
>from UNM means a
> great, great deal more than your dismissive statement 
>above implies. I'm
> sure programs vary, but I believe there is enough 
>similarity to make that
> statement for any accredited program. Are all graduates 
>fine musicians? That
> is arguable, depending on taste and definitions. But 
>they have done far more
> than the "merely" you claim.
> 
> Regards,
>Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico 
> 
> 
>     
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.22/1112 - 
>Release Date: 11/05/2007
> 7:11 PM
> 
>