An Interesting Idea

Recently, I was having a conversation with a retired band director and he told me he could identify the moment that music programs, specifically band programs, started losing numbers. He recounted how, early in his career, many “5A” bands in the Denver Metro area were marching 180 to 240 students. And some of those were not marching freshmen classes of close to 100! There was a very strong band community that is not present now and had a theory about why this happened.

Now, before I let you know what his theory was I want you to know that I don’t believe there was any bias associated with his comment. I don’t know him THAT well, but from what I do know of him, I think his comment was not motivated by anything other than an interpretation of the forces that played out at this time. OK, with that little disclaimer out of the way – here’s his theory.

He believe he could trace the decline in music program enrollment specifically to the enactment of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The crux of the law is that there shall be no discrimination based on sex (I understand that to be biological gender, but I may be wrong) under any educational program receiving Federal financial assistance.  His opinion was that schools interpreted this law to apply mostly to sports, though athletics is not specified in the law.  That interpretation caused a ballooning of varsity and jr. varsity sports, especially in the fall, from “three to eleven.”  He also lamented the ancillary result that coaches of those sports further occupied the student-athletes’ time with extensive conditioning routines when their sports were not in session.

It was an interesting assertion and I don’t know if it was true or not, but for the sake of discussion lets assume he is correct.  It implies there was something provided by athletic programs that was not provided by music programs, and that extra something caused the students to choose athletics over music.

A woman in the discussion offered that the extra something may have been parental encouragement.  Many parents encourage their children to pursue athletics in hopes of financial success – either through collegiate athletic scholarships or lucrative careers in sports.  She is probably correct – though it is quite easy to demonstrate that outstanding musicians receive handsome music scholarships and the likelihood of a career in professional sports is less likely than a professional career in music.  However, perception is frequently not related to facts – so I’ll acknowledge parental encouragement toward athletics had some roll in the declining music program enrollment.

The Question Begged

And yet, I think there is something else that was much more important.  I believe that athletics provided students with a thrill, a charge.  Students got their jollies from participating in athletics that music did not provide and therefore left music for athletics.  And I think the heart of the “jolt” that motivates teenagers so well is competition.

I understand how competition became vilified in music education.  I heard too many jazz ensembles working the same three contest pieces for months, polishing their performance for the festivals they hoped to “win.”  Too many bands rote learning pieces so they could earn a “I” at competition.  And I understand how directors became motivated to pursue this path – sometimes for the sake of saving their own jobs!  All that time spent and very little music learned – and the experience very frequently resulting in young musicians who did not continue participating in music.

However, the reaction to these abuses was frequently an over-reaction of removing all forms of competition from the educational experience.  Competition in music was made into a dirty word – and yet as a professional musician I know that competition is always present in my professional life.

The misconception is that musicians compete with each other as we perform music – that we are trying to “win” a performance as if it were a sporting contest.  Musicians don’t compete with each other as we play.  However, we do compete to have the opportunity to perform music together.  This distinction needs to be made and needs to be present in our educational programs.

There are many benefits to competition, most obviously competition motivates young musicians to work harder.  Competition highlights the aspects of our technique or musicianship that need improvement and therefore is a brilliant pedagogical tool.  And the success of gaining the higher chair, the opportunity to play a solo, or the coveted chair in the top ensemble provides that thrill that athletics also provide.

How to Construct Positive Competition Experiences

Before continuing I need to stress we must make a strong distinction between competing TO perform and performing AS competition.  We need not reinvent the wheel, there are several practices that can be revived within this new context:

Chair “challenges” – providing opportunities for young musicians to advance to a higher chair.  This will help in many ways, one of the most obvious is an advanced level of ability that will save much more rehearsal time than is taken by hearing occasional “challenges.”

Regular auditions – the prime arena of musical competition in the professional world.  We should make regular auditions part of the educational experience, and those auditions should occasionally be conducted in a “blind” environment.

Jazz Jam sessions – can have that “cutting session” quality that brings all players to a higher level. They also let truly motivated and advanced players shine and provide them with an opportunity to judge their abilities.

Many other positive competition experiences are possible but it is crucial that the positive benefits of competing TO perform are always distinguished from the negative effects of performing AS competition.

It is true that music, by large measure, is a communitarian and cooperative activity.  But musical growth can be encouraged through competition.  And who knows, if music had “competed” with athletics for the hearts of youth in 1972 we might have a different present than we see – and more importantly hear, now.