[CAUT] CAUT credential vs. academic program?

[Jeff Tanner]

On Nov 8, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Fred S Sturm wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 12:07:55 -0700
>  Jim Busby <jim_busby at byu.edu> wrote:
>> Fred, Jeff,
>> Here's a theory that bears repeating;
>> Stephen King, the author, claims (I'm paraphrasing) "There are  
>> about 5
>> levels in any art or craft. Level one is someone who can't do it well
>> and never will, no matter how much training. Level Five is a genius
>> level that one is basically born with. The Michelangelo's, Mozart's,
>> etc. No matter how much you strive, work, etc. most can never achieve
>> this level and those born with it do it almost naturally. All others
>> fall in levels 2 - 4. (He considers himself a 4) One with a certain
>> amount of talent and a lot of hard work can progress upwards in  
>> the 2-4,
>> and that's' what we do".
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Fair enough as far as it goes. But, in fact, Mozart was not born  
> knowing how to play the Klavier, nor how to compose. His father  
> taught him. (Yes, he learned very young, and very rapidly, but HE  
> LEARNED. It wasn't there at birth, and had he not been exposed to  
> music, I think it is safe to say he would not have gone in that  
> direction). Michelangelo was not born knowing how to use a hammer  
> and chisel to sculpt, nor how to paint. He apprenticed for years.  
> Regardless of innate talent, skill, "genius," or whatever you want  
> to call it, a process of learning has to take place. I would say  
> that those levels 1 to 5 are simply variations in capacity and  
> "speed." It may take a 5 less time to get there, but less time is  
> never no time at all. Same for effort required. More or less  
> effort, but definitely some effort.
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
>

Hi Fred,
Yes, I absolutely do consider you as a friend, and cherish that  
friendship.  The fact that we are disagreeing no way affects this.   
It enhances it.  I tend to feel more free to debate ideas with my  
friends.

What you are saying above is exactly what I am saying.  None of these  
attended college.  They learned through a path that was even more  
effective!  In fact, if you look at the history of your institution,  
you will see that music degrees are a relatively new idea in  
collegiate studies.  Music hasn't always been taught in colleges, and  
one could easily argue that the composers and musicians we so look up  
to were composing and performing before music instruction became  
commonplace among colleges.  In fact, this conversation has caused me  
to ponder whether the dearth of wonderful music like that which  
preceded music instruction in colleges could be a result of just that.

The college system is just that -- a system.  It is a structured  
method of learning.  I have not said it was worthless.  I described  
the method it employs for learning.  It is the same for music as it  
is for business.  A college teaching system has to work within the  
parameters that the system can understand and reward:  Instruction  
and testing.  That is all the system can comprehend.  Music has to be  
turned into a format which is compatible with the system.  What comes  
out on the other end has little to do with a student's aptitude or  
talent, and lots to do with how well he/she functions in that  
system.  A marginally talented individual can come out the other end  
with a 4.0, while an exceptionally talented student just doesn't  
function well in the system and come out with a 2.5.

The main point I was debating, though, is that there are other  
alternatives which, for our purposes, are just as effective at  
teaching what we need to know to be good piano technicians and  
communicate with pianists.  For our purposes, a college degree is a  
resume filler.  What I want to know about a piano technician is  
something completely unrelated to what he learned in Music Theory 101.

But I would completely disagree with anyone who thinks that the  
college system is the superior system of instruction of the study of  
music.  It is a system and it is a generally accepted system.  But  
neither Mozart nor Beethoven nor Liszt nor Tchaikovsky learned music  
this way.  They could have taught our instructors by they time they  
were teenagers.  And I bet if you polled a few of your instructors,  
you'd see they would rather teach music via a different system.

But that wouldn't provide a steady income and a benefit package.

Best Regards,
Jeff