Week 4

This week was a good reminder of how well we generally have it when it comes to technology in the music education classroom.  Even though there may be limitations to what we can use or have access to, developments in free materials on the internet make things even more reachable than ever. 

The text discussed a variety of programs that are available, most of which I have the ability to use in my classes.  Music notation software, SMARTMusic, YouTube, Metronomes, Tuners; these things are used regularly in many schools across the country.  Something as simple as a metronome/tuner is considered technology, even though it seems almost "silly" to think that. 

Although I did not make mention of this program in my discussion post this week, we also use a piece of online software called "Rhythm Bee" in our beginning band classes.  This is something that does cost money and must be renewed each school year, but is accessed through the internet and provides a multitude of lessons about counting rhythms.  I am not sure if this is being used outside of Texas, but we have been using it for the past three years, and it does seem to be effective.  I would like to see it used past the beginner level, but to my knowledge, there is not an upper tier set of lessons. 

The project for the week focused on using Audacity to create remixes of sound files.  This program is simple enough for a novice to use with a little bit of training, and while not entirely expansive with production tools, certainly provides adequate means to be creative.  I have used similar programs in the past to write/mix/produce electronic music with some colleagues, but those were far more advanced and required a lot of tutelage.  But with the experience that I have, I was able to quickly manipulate the files to produce my project(s).  In the Lynda chapters, there was lot of information that was certainly geared toward some of the more advanced vocabulary.  Understanding sound waves and frequencies is not exactly the easiest thing to do, but having a basic grasp of how to look at those on the program is definitely needed. 

Ultimately, we have a wealth of performance-based technology at our fingertips.  Some of it is free, some of it costs money, but ALL of it is educationally valuable.   

Week 3

This week was an interesting topic - these technology driven classrooms.  I am a traditionalist by nature; I want students in my ensemble(s).  As the director of a band program, it is my priority to see students through middle school and into the high school band program.  While I can appreciate the use of technology to reach these "other 80%", it irritates me to no end when many of these students should still be in my classroom instead of some kind of alternate music classroom.  I feel this is causing an uphill battle to reach higher altitudes, instead of helping with recruitment and retention.  This is actually a possible "out" for students to bypass the workload of being a traditional music student and providing an alternative.  I want them to keep playing their horns.  We keep an open door to teach anyone who wants to commit to becoming a performing musician - just come talk to us, we'll do the work if you'll commit. 

Regardless, the online program was fun.  I have some experience working with electronica, so there was some familiar territory to tread here.  However, there was no musical structure to learning how to use the program.  If anyone were to venture into this, the products would most likely be by chance.  If this were to be utilized in a setting for a music theory class or something similar, the students would actually begin to grasp musicality, theory, form, style etcetera.  To just use this as a teaching method would be ludicrous, and in a sense blasphemous to those who came before us in the field. 

Ultimately, I want students to become advocate as well as performers.  If they can appreciate the art form at a high level, much can be gained.  Using technology as a means to an end is not right, and it will be the demise of traditional programs.  Most districts don't have the money to make this possible anyway - the ones who do, are VERY lucky. 

Link

Here is the link to NoteFlight score:

http://www.noteflight.com/scores/view/c9f0d0276ff66d58026e0f98b6ba5e340a77cc17

Week 2

This initial post is coming from 37,000 feet.  Thank you Southwest Airlines!

Week two and it's focus on improvisation was enlightening.  The material provided in the text about  improvisational methods (by list)  was a new way to categorize the approach to teaching this technique to students.  As a high school student learning to improvise, I once studied a book that focused on the whole-brain/thought process.  I saw a lot of similarities between that book and the Kratus list in the reading.  As I posted on the discussion board for the class, I drew the parallel between the two methods and came to the self-assessed conclusion that the Kratus list provides a broader spectrum in which all of the activities would fit within. 

The online programs are interesting and can be useful, but I am not connecting the technology to improvisation.  This appears to be geared toward arrangement, open creativity, and things of this nature.

Week 1

It was interesting to learn that there are technology standards in reading the text.  Each year in our district, we complete what is called a Star Chart which assesses our use of technology in the classroom, what kinds of technology we have available, and what kind of training we have received.  However, it has been difficult to implement technology into our daily classes because of gaps in what is there.

The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) set also has technology requirements, but are not easily met for the same reasons. 

I also enjoyed the program that we used to complete the composition component of the week's assignments.  It was a lot of fun creating different combinations and eventually recording the final mix.