miðvikudagur, maí 25, 2005
Today's topic is Music and Age.
I recently applied to my old music school to start my singing studies formally (been taking private lessons). I was accepted with no problems. However, 5
other guys were not. The reason? They were too old.
It had nothing to do with their background, their proficiency, or money. They
were simply too old.
This struck me as a little odd, so I did some digging around. Apparantly it
has to do with the fact that music schools here are supported by the City. So
they don't want to support older people. Fine. Allow them to apply anyway,
just make them pay full price.
But no, that's not allowed in Iceland, because everything is supposed to cost
the same for everybody. So music school for the older people costs the same,
they just can't buy it.
Hmm, anyone else see a double standard here?
So anyway, these people are told pleasantly to go apply to the music college,
where (I gather) there is no age bias. Problem is, when they go there, they
are told they do not have enough background to be admitted. Where can they get
the appropriate background? Why, in the original school, the one with the age
bias, remember?
Catch-22
When people raise their voice about this blatant discrimination they are either
told "go take private lessons" or "what the hell do you want to start learning
music for at your age? You should be ashamed!". Let's discuss the issues those
2 comments raise.
Private lessons are fine. However, they do not replace a full music education.
You do not explicitly study the literature surrounding your instrument. You
do not partake in any group activities. You do not get to absorb the culture
surrounding your instrument and its relatives. You do not get to meet other
people who play your (and other) instruments, and do not get to play with them.
These aspects of music education are collectively MUCH more important than
private lessons.
Now we come to an issue which I feel is so absurd it borders on being absolute
gibberish: the bias people instinctively have towards grownup beginners. This
is apparent in many other fields, I'm sure, but I want to talk about music.
Let's take an example:You go to a concert at a music school, let's say a young relative of yours is
playing. He plays well for his age (maybe only 10) and you are proud.
Following him is a 50 year old man, playing the same instrument, and does so
better than your relative, but still only at a beginner's level. What is your
immediate response?
Disdain, disgust, embarrasment, shock, etc.
For some unexplainable reason, people think there is something "dirty" about
this situation. "I mean for god's sake! This guy MUST have some ulterior motive, right?
Nobody in their right mind would begin music studies at the age of 50, let
alone put themselves in a position of ridicule like that, would they? I say
he's a child molester, let's ostracize him."
People, get your heads out of your asses.
Whoever said learning is only for the young? I have had people (whom I
otherwise consider enlightened) answer this with "of course it's not just for
the young. But those older people shouldn't show themselves like that, and
they definitely shouldn't be playing with the children. I don't care if they
study music, as long as they keep it to themselves." This sounds like someone trying to be liberal about something he thinks is vile and despicable. "I don't care if that person takes part in domination games in the bedroom as long as he keeps it to himself."
This is plain and simple, unfounded discrimination. There is no "grey" about
this matter, it is quite black-and-white. Just imagine what would happen if
someone were to act as shocked when seeing a person of a different skin color
studying music; or a different gender. Hmm, are we back in the 19th century
yet?
A final note: whether or not you have the potential for music proficiency at ANY age, has nothing to do with this argument. I will discuss that in a future post
I recently applied to my old music school to start my singing studies formally (been taking private lessons). I was accepted with no problems. However, 5
other guys were not. The reason? They were too old.
It had nothing to do with their background, their proficiency, or money. They
were simply too old.
This struck me as a little odd, so I did some digging around. Apparantly it
has to do with the fact that music schools here are supported by the City. So
they don't want to support older people. Fine. Allow them to apply anyway,
just make them pay full price.
But no, that's not allowed in Iceland, because everything is supposed to cost
the same for everybody. So music school for the older people costs the same,
they just can't buy it.
Hmm, anyone else see a double standard here?
So anyway, these people are told pleasantly to go apply to the music college,
where (I gather) there is no age bias. Problem is, when they go there, they
are told they do not have enough background to be admitted. Where can they get
the appropriate background? Why, in the original school, the one with the age
bias, remember?
Catch-22
When people raise their voice about this blatant discrimination they are either
told "go take private lessons" or "what the hell do you want to start learning
music for at your age? You should be ashamed!". Let's discuss the issues those
2 comments raise.
Private lessons are fine. However, they do not replace a full music education.
You do not explicitly study the literature surrounding your instrument. You
do not partake in any group activities. You do not get to absorb the culture
surrounding your instrument and its relatives. You do not get to meet other
people who play your (and other) instruments, and do not get to play with them.
These aspects of music education are collectively MUCH more important than
private lessons.
Now we come to an issue which I feel is so absurd it borders on being absolute
gibberish: the bias people instinctively have towards grownup beginners. This
is apparent in many other fields, I'm sure, but I want to talk about music.
Let's take an example:You go to a concert at a music school, let's say a young relative of yours is
playing. He plays well for his age (maybe only 10) and you are proud.
Following him is a 50 year old man, playing the same instrument, and does so
better than your relative, but still only at a beginner's level. What is your
immediate response?
Disdain, disgust, embarrasment, shock, etc.
For some unexplainable reason, people think there is something "dirty" about
this situation. "I mean for god's sake! This guy MUST have some ulterior motive, right?
Nobody in their right mind would begin music studies at the age of 50, let
alone put themselves in a position of ridicule like that, would they? I say
he's a child molester, let's ostracize him."
People, get your heads out of your asses.
Whoever said learning is only for the young? I have had people (whom I
otherwise consider enlightened) answer this with "of course it's not just for
the young. But those older people shouldn't show themselves like that, and
they definitely shouldn't be playing with the children. I don't care if they
study music, as long as they keep it to themselves." This sounds like someone trying to be liberal about something he thinks is vile and despicable. "I don't care if that person takes part in domination games in the bedroom as long as he keeps it to himself."
This is plain and simple, unfounded discrimination. There is no "grey" about
this matter, it is quite black-and-white. Just imagine what would happen if
someone were to act as shocked when seeing a person of a different skin color
studying music; or a different gender. Hmm, are we back in the 19th century
yet?
A final note: whether or not you have the potential for music proficiency at ANY age, has nothing to do with this argument. I will discuss that in a future post
