international journal of music education 2000 hebert 14 22

7/22/2019 International Journal of Music Education 2000 Hebert 14 22

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/international-journal-of-music-education-2000-hebert-14-22 1/10

http://ijm.sagepub.com/ Education

International Journal of Music

http://ijm.sagepub.com/content/os-36/1/14The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/025576140003600103

2000 os-36: 14International Journal of Music Education

David G. Hebert and Patricia Shehan CampbellRock Music in American Schools: Positions and Practices Since the 1960s

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Society for Music Education: ISME

can be found at:International Journal of Music Education Additional services and information for

http://ijm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ijm.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ijm.sagepub.com/content/os-36/1/14.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 1, 2000Version of Record>>

at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 15, 2013ijm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ijm.sagepub.com/



http://ijm.sagepub.com/content/os-36/1/14



http://www.sagepublications.com/

http://www.isme.org/

http://ijm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://ijm.sagepub.com/subscriptions


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://ijm.sagepub.com/content/os-36/1/14.refs.html


http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


http://ijm.sagepub.com/content/os-36/1/14.full.pdf





http://ijm.sagepub.com/content/os-36/1/14.full.pdf


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav



http://ijm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://www.isme.org/

http://www.sagepublications.com/





14

Rock Music in American Schools: Positions

and Practices Since the 1960s

David G. Hebert and Patricia Shehan Campbell

University of Washington, Seattle, USA

The challenge that rock music has historically faced in achieving widespreadacceptance within American music education can be attributed to six common

arguments: 1) Rock music is aesthetically inferior; 2) Rock music is damagingto the health of youth; 3) School time cannot be spent on the vernacular;4) Music teachers are not trained in rock; 5) Rock music encourages rebel-

liousness and anti-educational behavior; and 6) Rock music curriculum is

difficult to acquire. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these six claims

is herein analyzed, and the authors’ conclusions discuss the potential benefits

of rock music studies.

Popular music as such need not, must not be taught in the public classrooms.This music will carry itself. The music educator’s job is to perpetuate Western

art music and to open doors to its perception in the minds of the children of the

nation (Anderson 1968, p. 87).

Imagine Simon Anderson’s surprise, were he to discover that at the entry to

the twenty-first century American school teachers were more inclined to associ-

ate with rock singer Jim Morrison (at the mention of ’doors’ of ’perception’)than with the exclusionary sentiments voiced in the quotation. It is indeed a

new era in music and education, now several generations removed from Mr.

Anderson’s voiced opinion. His statement echoes views that were common

among teachers in the 1960s and that were only beginning to be challenged at

the 1967 Tanglewood Symposium of musicians and educators. The Tanglewooddeclaration called for a greater representation of folk and popular music genreswithin the school curriculum - music that was

representativeof children and

youth, their communities and their mediated musical influences (Choate, 1968).Teachers of the time took note of the declared principles, pondered the possibil-ities, and depending upon who they were, what their training and experiencehad been, and who constituted their student population, pressed on with the

design and delivery of music in schools - either with transformation in mind

or as they always had done.

Much of the curricular revolution that ensued in the United States over the

following three decades can be traced through articles published in the principal American practitioners’ magazine, the Music Educators Journal. In November

of 1969, a collection of articles entitled, ’Youth Music: A Special Report’,included ’pro-pop’ articles by Wiley L. Housewright, Emmett R. Sarig, Thomas

MacCluskey, and Allen Hughes. These pioneering essays advocated the use of

popular and rock music in classrooms, even as FBI director J. Edgar Hoover

continued to

carrythe

largersocietal view, that such music ’is

repulsiveto

right-thinking people and can have serious effects in our young people’. Music

educators, closer to youth and their interests than statesmen and politiciansgenerally were, now suggested that Bach ’be given a sabbatical’ in the curricu-

lum, that Beethoven needed to roll over, and that a new era was emerging that

would break away, at least partially, with the past view of school music. An








15

impressive number of articles were published by teachers in the 1970s and

1980s on the infusion of popular music into the curriculum. A special issue of

the Music Educators Journal entitled ’Popular Music and Education’ included

a particularly insightful article by Dick Thompson (1979) discussing techniquesfor incorporating popular music into junior high school music programs.Relevant articles published in the 1980s included rhetorical essays, such as

’Born in the USA: Vernacular music and public education’ (Scholten, 1988),and practical pedagogical papers, such as ’Using rock videos to your advantage’(Cutietta, 1985). A ’focus issue’ of Music Educators Journal was again released

in 1991, addressing the theme of ’Pop Music and Music Education’ from its

place as a study unit in a general music class to its establishment as a performingensemble (see Cutietta and Brennan, 1991). More recently, selected articles have

suggested the utilization of karaoke machines to enhance the singing of pop-ular songs in the classroom (Wagner and Brick, 1993) and popular music in

traditional school ensembles such as band and orchestra (Bloespflug, 1999).The sustained interest in rock music, as evident over thirty-plus years, can

be attributed to a variety of factors. The recording industry became part of

corporate America by the early 1970s, when specialized labels like Warner-

Reprise, Electra-Asylum, and Atlantic joined hands in lucrative commercial

mergers. Internationalization, caused by widespread capitalism, rapid travel,

and information technology, resulted in the evolution of a global popular musicindustry far beyond the USA and the United Kingdom (Burnett, 1996). Yet

despite the widespread presence of popular music in society, much remains to

be examined and developed with regard to its placement in the schools. The

impact that popular music performance and listening analysis may have uponthe identity of students is one vital concern for consideration by teachers, which

makes the case for rock music’s inclusion as not only a musically valid subjectfor study (which we believe it is) but also as a component in the formation of

the self-image of adolescent students.

While American music educators once advocated an active stance againstrock music for what was seen as an impinging threat to the study of Western

art music, today it is the rare music teacher who is incapable of at least

appreciating some form of rock music. However, while teachers today may

typicallydescribe their musical roots as

includingthe sounds of the Beatles,

James Brown, Blondie, or the Backstreet Boys, many still draw a line between

the acceptance of rock music at home and in the school curriculum. Music

education historian Michael Mark (1984) proceeds with caution on the subject,writing that ’After more than 25 years of experience with popular music, we

should question whether music education has been improved because of it’

(p. 81). However, Mark affirms that ’This is not to say that there is absolutelyno place in the curriculum for popular music’ (p. 81). This begs the issue, then:

,

What is the role of popular music in the schools? The intent of this discussion

is to examine issues relevant to the curricular inclusion ofrock music, includingimpassioned pleas for its presence or exclusion, and scenarios of its practicalapplication as a genre (or series of sub-genres) in performance and listeninglessons.

Six Critical Issues in Popular Music Education

A number of critical issues have emerged in the literature regarding the use of

rock music in American K-12 schools and collegiate programs of music. On the








16

heels of the influential Tanglewood Symposium, Charles Fowler (1970) ident-

ified three central arguments made by North American teachers against rock

music’s inclusion in school curriculum:

1) Rock is aesthetically inferior music, if it is music at all;

2) Rock is damaging to youth, both physically and morally;3) School time should not be expended teaching what is easily acquired in

the vernacular. (p. 38)Expanding on Fowler’s observations, we have identified three additional issues

as reasons for rock music’s rough ride into curricular consideration:

4) Traditional teacher education has not provided substantial training in

rock music;

5) Rock music is viewed as rebellious and anti-educational, characteristics

that problematize its appropriation by teachers;

6) Effective instructional curriculum for rock music is relatively difficult to

acquire in the United States.

These statements provide a framework for examining philosophical stances and

the practical playing-out of these positions in the content of the curriculum.

Rock Music is Aesthetically InferiorFrom the perspective of a tradition of musical aesthetics that has based itself

entirely on the development of Western classical music, rock music must appearinferior. Yet no philosophically grounded thinker would conclude such an

assessment to be meaningful or appropriate, considering the incommensura-

bility of the domains being compared. Western art music has within its repertoirea remarkably sophisticated set of genres and styles that are melodically and

harmonically rich and colorful. On the other hand, rock music is rooted in a

dynamic rhythmic charge that can be traced to the expressions of African and

European folksongs. Rock’s assimilation, the melding together of the expressionsof different ethnic and regional strands, has come to define it as an egalitarianand emancipated genre. Whether psychedelic or soul, metal, grunge, or hiphop, an American spirit is embodied in the roots of rock, maintained even as

it is appropriated and rejuvenated within the musical creations of other nations.While an ever-increasing diversification, in terms of sub-genres, has led some

scholars to go so far as to suggest that ’the rock era is over’ (Frith, 1988), this

unifying spirit may still be evident at the core of rock’s more recent permu-tations. For Americans, rock music is a critical signifier of themselves-as one

united people, in one all-encompassing genre, but who have the freedom to

accentuate their diversity as well in its many sub-genres. Among all of the

activities humans possess as means by which to create such a powerful sense

of identity and community, music may be among the most personal and the

most meaningful. As Simon Frith (1996) has noted, ’we absorb songs into our

own lives and rhythm into our own bodies’ (p. 273).The aesthetic dimension of various rock genres has been systematically

addressed by a number of scholars, revealing levels of musical complexity that

correlate to unique systems of musicianship, creativity, and evaluation (see Keil

and Feld, 1994; Frith, 1996; Walser 1993). Such findings present a serious

challenge to those who have long advocated the position that rock music is

inferior. With this in mind, we suggest that the assumption of rock’s aesthetic

inferiority may often be attributed to (a) elitist attitudes regarding the putativeachievements of bourgeoisie ’high art’ versus that of ’the masses’, (b) naivet6








17

regarding the values of rock musicianship, and (c) a lack of historical conscious-

ness, particularly with regard to the natural process by which most inadequatecreations are eventually discarded, failing ’the test of time’. These positionscannot be justified within any public education system, or research community,that values a post-positivist diversity of worldviews and seeks to provide equalopportunity for the production and access of knowledge.

Rock is Damaging to Youth

The moral corruption of youth by rock music continues to be a concern of

parents, teachers and school administrators. In the United States, the Parent’s

Music Resource Center took this position to its political extreme in 1985 bysuccessfully lobbying to have warning labels placed on all recordings that theydetermined to be inappropriate for youth (Chastagner, 1999). Tipper Gore, wife

of U.S. Vice President Al Gore, led lobbying efforts in 1987, describing the

message of rock music as ’past repulsive - it’s deadly’. It cannot be denied that

popular music lyrics address topics that are typically avoided in schools,

including the explicit portrayal of deviant forms of sexuality and drug use. No

argument here: theseare sensitive

and complicatedissues that do not

easily’fit’ school programs intent on developing thoughtful young people who will

follow in socially acceptable ways the mainstream lifestyles of America’s citi-

zenry. However, a policy of avoiding these topics may only serve to reifyexisting social problems and popular music might, to the contrary, be utilized

as the ideal forum for initiating meaningful discussion of such issues.

Furthermore, the position taken by the Parent’s Music Resource Center regardingthe control that rock music lyrics allegedly assert over young listeners is both

simplistic and misleading, and is most certainly not based on scientific research.

It is inaccurate to conceive of the reception and consumption of popular music

in terms of a ’hypodermic syringe or direct effect model’ by which consumers

are incapable of critical assessment and reinterpretation of cultural forms

(Longhurst, 1995, p. 198).There are also countless cases of lyrics that address vitally important human-

istic themes that are too often overlooked in the classroom-themes of fear,angst, friendship, rejection, self-respect, and loss. Aretha Franklin’s R-e-s-p-e-c-t offers one of the boldest challenges in the history of song ever to be made

toward men by a woman. Simon and Garfunkel’s Bridge Over Troubled Water

and Billy Joel’s Just the Way You Are portray the complex themes of friendshipand respect in loving relationships. Both versions of Elton John’s Candle in the

Wind express the theme of loss, dedicated to the memory of Marilyn Monroe

and Princess Diana. Sting sings of confusion and obsession in Be Still MyBeating Heart, and Tori Amos’ album Little Earthquakes presents themes of

male chauvinism, fragility, and the strength of friendship among women. The

hit song, Creep, by 1990s alternative band, Radiohead, expresses the feelingsof self-loathing and inferiority often experienced by contemporary youth. These

are powerful sentiments frequently felt by adolescents that deserve discussion

and analysis within school classes in music, English, and social studies.

The lifestyles of popular musicians in relation to their veneration as rolemodels has been another concern of teachers, an issue particularly exacerbated

by the high incidence of substance abuse among successful rock musicians.

Identity is also an issue that concerns many teachers when addressing musicians

who are openly homosexual, or who advocate controversial political views such








18

as animal rights, feminism, or anarchy. However, as Keith Negus (1996) has

noted, the relationship between identity and music is a deceptively complexone:

[There] is no straightforward or intrinsic link between the lives of fans, the

meanings of musical texts and the identity of a particular artist. Songs and

musical styles do not simply ’reflect’, ’speak to’ or ’express’ the lives of audience

members or musicians. A sense of identity is created out of and across the

processes whereby people are connected together through and with music.

(p. 133)

While performer identity is an issue of relevance to most any music lesson,some hypocrisy may be evident in the degree to which this topic is emphasizedin rock music. The identities of classical musicians, in contrast, are seldom

subjected to the same type of scrutiny. In fact, the lives of Western art musicians

are quite rarely profiled; we know Yo Yo Ma and Murray Perahia through their

music - and we leave it at that. But if classical performers and composers were

ever to be examined for the sexual orientation or their political inclinations,some of the best known works, war-horses of the repertoire, would be censored

(Struble, 1995). Controversial aspects of the personal habits and private lives

of Hector Berlioz, Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky, Francis Poulenc, Benjamin Britten,

and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart have hardly been an issue of concern to musicteachers. On the other hand, recent cases from the hip-hop genre present a

unique challenge to even the most open-minded of music teachers. When

’gangsta rap’ performers such as the Notorious B.I.G. and Tupac Shakur rise to

the top of the pop charts with songs and videos that explicitly portray the

details of daily life as a professional criminal, only later to each be brutallykilled in actual gang battles, teachers draw the line. It is a social responsibilityto acknowledge the connection between art and reality, to determine when

music and poetry reflect and portray socially unacceptable realities, and to

assess the influence of such popular performers on the thoughts and behaviors

of young listeners.

School Time Cannot Be Spent on the Vernacular

Since students are constantly being exposed to popular music, this positionargues that classroom time should only be spent on music that they would not

otherwise experience in their lives. An uneasy compromise was advocated byStuart Smith soon after Tanglewood, who wrote critically of rock music, and

then begrudgingly advised teachers to accept it into their curriculum, lest school

programs become completely alienated from the musical realities beyond the

classroom (Smith, 1970). One popular strategy espoused early on by Beatrice

Landeck suggested applying a rock beat to folk songs in order to maintain the

stylistic aspects of rock music that attract young people, while avoiding the

controversial topics addressed by rock lyrics (Landeck, 1968). Sidney Fox (1970)also advocated the compromised position of ’carefully screening and selectingrock music that can be used to teach the structure of the music and to show

its relationships to, and roots in, the &dquo;great&dquo; music of the past’ (p. 52).But running counter to these suggestions is the belief that rock music is an

integral genre, and that to strip the music of its lyrics, or to consider the styleonly as a link to music of the historic past, is to miss the point. Further, musicthat is acquired by students outside of school is not necessarily fully understood.When rock music is brought into school, it can be examined for its uniquecharacter and its power. One can meditate on the very question: What are the








19

.lIU(;lB. 1V1l1Jll; 111 f111lt::llLUll LJLllUU1;:’

rhythmic, melodic, and harmonic phenomena that make the music so powerful,so contagious, so vital? Rock music can be experienced differently within

schools than it may be experienced on the outside. It can be performed, whether

recreated on guitars, keyboards and percussion, or through arrangements that

work for wind bands, young voices, and string ensembles. It can be examined

analytically for its musical and textual essence, and probed in ways that are

not considered when listened to in a casual and informal manner. Even further,it can become the impetus for new musical expressions yet to be created.

American Teachers are not Trained in Popular Genres

With the number of demands already placed on university music students in

teacher education programs, the integration of popular music into coursework

is not a common thrust of the preparation of teachers in the United States. Yet

increasingly, music historians are widening their compass of 20th century stylesto be included within their survey courses, and some universities are requiringsenior seminars for students in popular music, jazz, African-American and

Latin-American genres. More than occasionally, music education students are

advised into gospel ensembles, instrumental jazz and vocal jazz studies, and

even steel drum and mariachi bands

(althoughactual rock band

performanceopportunities are still beyond the bounds of most university programs). In

music education methods classes, illustrations of teaching principles can be

presented just as easily through a tune by Queen - or Queen Latifah - as

through Haydn’s Coronation Symphony. Teacher educators, and music facultyat large, are responsible for updating their courses and the musical selections

chosen for study.John Shepherd (1993) has claimed, ’Music education has not traditionally

been regarded as being in the intellectual forefront of academic music as a

whole’ (p. 113). Yet, within university settings, popular music is one of the

many domains in which music educationists may be able to set the trends to

be later followed by theorists and historians. Significant progress in this area

may take on many forms, ranging from hiring a popular music education

specialist, to adding new course offerings, to merely integrating examples from

rock and other genres into

preexistingmethods courses.

Rock Music is Anti-Education

The portrayal of teachers and educational systems within popular song lyricshas tended over many decades to be both positive and negative (Butchart and

Cooper, 1987). Music teachers have responded with descriptions of rock music

as, ’an expression of defiance and dissatisfaction’ (Landeck, 1968, p. 36). The

critical perspective regarding education taken by rock musicians is evident in

such popular recordings as the Beatles’ Sergeant Pepper’s album, Pink Floyd’sThe Wall and the Greatest Hits of The Police. The Beatles sang about teachers

being ’uncool’ and ’dragging [them] down’, but eventually concluded that life

will improve with a change of attitude in It’s Getting Better all the Time. Pink

Floyd summarized the school experience with the catchy slogan, ’We don’t

needno

education,we

don’tneed no

thoughtcontrol’.

Historyhas

proventheir

song to have both international and intergenerational appeal, having been used

as an anthem in a variety of contexts, including even a school boycott of black

South African students (Garofalo, 1992, p. 34). Alice Cooper sang of the euphoriaentailed in escaping the oppression of school education in his hard rock anthem,School’s Out. Sting, a former schoolteacher, sang for The Police about the








20

institutionalized suppression of a romance between a high school teacher and

student in Don’t Stand so Close to Me.

Alternately, Lulu, a popular British female singer in the late 1960’s, sang the

title song of a hit film of that era, To Sir With Love, an undeniable expressionof admiration and respect by a student to her teacher. Bryan Wilson of the

Beach Boys expressed school spirit and institutional pride in his Be True to

Your School. Since teachers were once the age and ’developmental phase’ oftheir students, an analysis of the intent of some of these songs may locate the

source of students’ real frustration with school as less with the teachers, and

more with the sometimes rigid and inflexible feel of school as an institution.

When Bruce Springsteen sings (in his No Surrender), ’we learned more from

a three-minute record than we ever learned in school’, perceptive educators

might discover an important lesson about both the relevance of popular music

and the ineffectiveness of traditional forms of curriculum and instruction.

Rather than responding to such lyrics defensively by shunning the rock genreas a dangerous adversary, schools might benefit from utilizing the power of

such music to their advantage within the curriculum.

Popular Music Curriculum is Under-Developed in the United States

Curriculum promoted by mainstream music publishers that is explicitlydesigned for the purpose of rock music teaching continues to be relativelyscarce in the USA, particularly when compared with nations such as the United

Kingdom and Australia. However, popular songs have been integrated into the

most widely used K-8 basal textbooks (such as those published by Macmillan

and Silver Burdett Ginn), and additional resources are available to those juniorhigh and high school music teachers who are motivated to integrate popularmusic into their curriculum. Sheet music publishers that specialize in school

ensembles (such as Pepper Music) include substantial sections devoted to rock

music arrangements in their catalogues. Relevant method books from the United

States include Ferguson and Feldstein’s (1976) The Jazz Rock Ensemble: A

Conductor’s and Teacher’s Guide and Holms (1997) Rock ‘n’ Roll School Tools:

A Guide for Teachers. Meanwhile, the growth of the internet has led to the

development of websites that provide current and detailed information on most

popular performing artists. Recent decades have also seen the development of

extensive academic resources, including reference works devoted to American

music (including rock), such as The New Grove Dictionary of American Music

(Sadie, 1986) and publications that address popular music recordings from

throughout the world, such as World Music: The Rough Guide (Broughton,Ellingham, Muddyman and Trillo, 1994). These resources, combined with the

media of CDs and videotapes, provide substantial material for American music

teachers who choose to integrate rock music into their programs. Music teacher

educators may encourage prospective teachers in these endeavors by providingpractical training in the use of available rock music materials.

Benefits ofPopular Music in Education

Popularmusic has a

pervasiveand undeniable influence on the

dailylife of

young people. It may be among the most powerful discourses available to

students as a means by which to construct personal identity and interpret social

experience. Curricular policy that provides little or no exposure to the studyof rock music within schools may serve to alienate students. While some

examples of this music lack sincerity and artistry, the same may be true of the








21

majority of historical musics that have faded into obscurity with the passing of

years. The works of many rock performers are both aesthetically and intellectu-

ally engaging and may well withstand the test of time; only time will tell.

Meanwhile, for the moment, rock music is driving, energetic, and expressiveof contemporary people, their ideas, and their life circumstances.

Lessons in rock music may

requireyoung students to engage with a broader

diversity of musical skills, concepts, and technologies than they otherwise

might. Students who study the music will no doubt broaden their understandingof music as a phenomenon of expression of our time. They may be drawn

through such studies to recognize the relevance of their technical skills in

relation to both amateur and professional performing opportunities outside the

classroom. The participation by students in popular music through formal

educational opportunities in school can be an invaluable means by which theymay develop improvisation, composition and arranging skills - all of which

are fundamental components of musicianship throughout the world.

References

Anderson, S. V. (1968). The role of rock. Music Educators Journal, 54, (5), 37.

Boespflug, G. (1999). Popular music and the instrumental ensemble. Music Educators Journal,

85, (6), 33-37.

Broughton, S. Ellingham, M., Muddyman, D. & Trillo, R.. (Eds.) (1994). World music: The

rough guide. London: Penguin Group.Burnett, R. (1996). The global jukebox: The international music industry. London: Routledge.Butchart, R. E. & Cooper, B. L. (1987). Perceptions of education in the lyrics of American

popular music, 1950-1980. American Music, 5, (3), 271-81.

Chastagner, C. (1999). The Parent’s Music Resource Center: From information to censorship.Popular Music, 18, 179-192.

Choate, R. A. (Ed.) (1968). Documentary report of the Tanglewood Symposium. Washington,DC: Music Educators National Conference.

Cutietta, R. A. (1985). Using rock videos to your advantage. Music Educators Journal, 71,

(6), 47.

Cutietta, R. A. & Brennan, T. (1991). Coaching a pop/rock ensemble. Music Educators Journal,77, (8), 40.

Ferguson, T. & Feldstein, S. (1976). The jazz rock ensemble: A conductor’s and teacher’s

guide. Port Washington, NY: Alfred Music Publishing Co.Fowler, C. B. (1970). The case against rock: A reply. Music Educators Journal, 57, (1), 38-42.

Fox, S. (1970). From rock to Bach (youth music on our terms). Music Educators Journal,56, (9), 52.

Frith, S. (1996). Performing rites: On the value of popular music. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

Frith, S. (1988). Music for pleasure. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Garofalo, R. (Ed.) (1992). Rockin’ the boat: Mass music and mass movements. Boston: South

End Press.

Holmes, R., et. al. (1997). Rock ’n’ roll school tools: A guide for teachers. Seattle: ExperienceMusic Project.

Housewright, W. L. (1969). Youth music in education. Music Educators Journal, 56, (3), 45.

Hughes, A. (1969). Give Bach a sabbatical. Music Educators Journal, 56, (3).

Keil, C. & Feld, S. (1994). Music grooves. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Landeck, B.

(1968). A happy alternative to embracing rock. Music Educators Journal, 55, (4), 35.

Longhurst, B. (1995). Popular music and society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

MacCluskey, T. (1969). Roll over, Beethoven. Music Educators Journal, 56, (3).

Mark, M. L. (1994). Youth music: Is it right for the schools? Quarterly Journal of Music

Teaching and Learning, 5, (2), 76-82.

Negus, K. (1996). Popular music in theory. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press.

Sadie, S. (Ed.) (1986). The New Grove Dictionary of American Music. New York: Macmillan

Press Ltd.








22

Sarig, E. R. (1969). Ignoring rock won’t make it go away. Music Educators Journal, 56, (3), 46.

Scholten, J. W. (1988). Born in the USA: Vernacular music and public education. Music

Educators Journal, 74, (5), 22-25.

Shepherd, J. (1993). Music and the last intellectuals. In E. R. Jorgensen (Ed.) Philosopher,teacher, musician: Perspectives on music education. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Smith, S. (1970). Rock: Swim in it or sink. Music Educators Journal, 56, (5), 86.

Struble, J. W. (1995). The history of American classical music: From MacDowell throughminimalism. New York: Facts on File.

Thompson, D. (1979). Plugging into pop at the junior high level. Music Educators Journal,66, (4), 54-58.

Wagner, M. J., & Brick, J. S. (1993). Using karaoke in the classroom. Music Educators Journal,79, (7), 44-46.

Walser, R. (1993). Running with the devil: Power, gender, and madness in heavy metal music.

Hanover: Wesleyan University Press.

De la musique rock dans les écoles am6ricaines: Points de vue et

mises en application depuis les ann6es 60

Le d6fi que la musique rock a historiquement affronté pour Atre reconnue et acceptee au sein

de la musique am6ricaine, peut 6tre attribu6 a six arguments courants:

1) La musique rock est esth6tiquement inf6rieure.

2) La musique rock d6grade la same des jeunes.3) Le temps pass6 4 1’ecole ne peut pas 6tre consacr6 a la langue vernaculaire.

4) Les professeurs de musique ne sont formes en musique rock.

5) La musique rock encourage un comportement rebel et anti-6ducatif.

6) Enfin, le programme d’enseignement de la musique rock est difficile a acquerir.Les forces et faiblesses de chacun de ces arguments sont analyses dans cet ouvrage et les

auteurs concluent sur les gains 6ventuels des etudes de musique rock.

Rockmusik in amerikanischen Schulen. Positionen und Praktiken

seit 1960

Die Herausforderung, der sich die Rockmusik beim Bemühen um weitgehende Anerkennungin der amerikanischen Musikerziehung gegenüber sieht, kann auf 6 allgemeine Argumentezuruckgefuhrt werden:

1. Rockmusik ist asthetisch minderwertig.2. Rockmusik ist schadigend fiir die Gesundheit der Jugend.3. Die Zeit in der Schule kann nicht nur mit ’Umgangssprache’ vertan werden.

4. Musiklehrer sind nicht in Rockmusik ausgebildet.5. Rockmusik unterstiztzt aufsdssiges und antiautoritares Verhalten.

6. Es ist schwierig, sich ein Rockmusik Curriculum anzueignen.Die Starken und Schwdchen jeder dieser sechs Thesen werden analysiert und mbglicheVorteile von Rockmusik Studien diskutiert.

La musica Rock en las escuelas americanas: Posturas y practicasdesde 1960

El desafio que la mdsica Rock ha enfrentado hist6ricamente para poder lograr una ampliaaceptaci6n dentro del sistema educativo americano puede ser atribuido a seis argumentosmuy comunes: 1) La mdsica Rock es est6icamente inferior; 2) La musica Rock es nociva para

la salud de los j6venes; 3) No se puede dedicar tiempo escolar a lo verndculo; 4) Los maestros

de mdsica no estdn capacitados para el Rock; 5) La musica Rock incentiva la rebeldia y la

conducta anti-educativa; y 6) es dificil de obtener una curricula de m6sica basada en el Rock.

Es en este contexto que se analiza la fuerza y la debilidad de cada uno de estos seis

reclamos, y en sus conclusiones, el autor argumenta sobre los potenciales beneficios del

estudio de la m6sica Rock.






international journal of music education 2000 hebert 14 22

Documents