Reply
Thu 31 May, 2007 03:46 pm
I never thought it was, or even questioned it. Untill someone mentioned today.
I know it's not exactly finding a cure for cancer, but I never thought it wasn't a credible subject. It's made me really upset.
It sounds to me like someone who gets his or her jollies making people feel badly about something. It is perfectly reasonable to study music at university, and it would be a study which would lead the student to a more profound understanding of music than could be gained by spending tens of thousands of pounds on a sound system and cds.
Ignore the sour pussed son of a bitch . . .
"Pointless" to whom?
It would be pointless for me (I have a tin ear and little to no interest in music history, techniques, etc..) but if someone has an interest and wishes to increase their knowledge it seems just as valid as any other area of study. *shrugs*
It sounds to me like someone who doesn't even mildly appreciate art. You will never satisfy such people.
I studied English. Whcih isn't useful when it comes to making money for things I don't need--like a diamond encrusted cellphone/planner I can wear on my cock--or picking up girls to date rape at a sports bar after work.
But it was useful in a million other ways. Most importantly, I enjoyed school.
I leave you with this sage wisdom: a lot of people are dumb.
For anyone to say that to you, shows a total lack of understanding on their part about what a university actually is.
As someone who teaches music at a university, I am frequently confronted with this question. I wholeheartedly believe in the value of teaching music at universities, but I do think there are right ways and wrong ways to justify music's existence as a university subject. The wrong way, in my opinion, is to insist that music is worth learning about simply because certain works are acknowledged masterpieces and are self-evidently worth knowing about. (I do happen to believe this is true, but I don't think it works as an argument for why music should receive university support. It also doesn't seem to work well in the classroom; I've found that this approach is almost guaranteed to turn students' interest off.) A better way, I think, is to demonstrate that to learn about music is to learn about history. Few skeptics question the usefulness of learning history at the university level, after all, and studying music has as much to tell us about history and culture as, say, studying wars does.
And while I'm at it, damnit...
Anyone who believes that it's pointless to pursue an endeavor that doesn't make money, believes in throwing themselves headlong into the (capitalist) "System," with no resistance for the sake of using their imagination for pleasure. And you have to wonder about that--who is so intent on validating a culture that works way too hard for a few jerks in corner offices?
Mindless.
p.s. Michael Marissen's recent, controversial
NY Times article on Handel's Messiah, which I've posted out before, is a beautiful example of how music can supplement our understanding of history (and vice versa).
Quote:About 100 years ago Michael Faraday, when asked by Mr. Gladstone, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, about the use of his research into electrical phenomena, replied, so the story goes, with Franklin's counterquestion "What is the use of a newborn baby?"
Is see nothing wrong with studying music, I just hope that everyone would follow their heart and study what they truly enjoy. Don't worry about the Lout I say!
I think that as long as you almost totally avoid Taichovsky (Sleeping Beauty excepted) the university study of music is more than credible.
I read the question differently than most here (except maybe Gargamel), I think. Not as, "Is it worth the resources of the university to study it?" but as, "Is it worthwhile to the student of music to study it at a university?"
And I'd suspect the serious and talented music student would be better served studying at a conservatory and moving directly into the profession. Less time "wasted" on general education courses and the like (which, to be honest, are rarely as valuable as reading one or two good books on the subject covered).
But if you want to study music as part of a broader university education, why the hell not? I've got a BA in theater, and it's never directly got me a job that paid the rent, but I learned a lot about myself and about people in general in the process. And I could sleep late and smoke a lot of dope, so all in all it was a pretty good deal.
patiodog wrote:I read the question differently than most here (except maybe Gargamel), I think. Not as, "Is it worth the resources of the university to study it?" but as, "Is it worthwhile to the student of music to study it at a university?"
'Twas exactly as I read the question.
I thought of the question in both contexts.
My own thoughts are that there has been - seemingly, to me - a gradual shift to thinking of post secondary school education as all about a monetary investment in a career base. (This may not be true at 'free' universities, as mine was, long long ago. But even UC charges tuition now/Reagan/hiss).
Back in the hinterland of my university years, some fair proportion of students and their parents wanted getting a baccalaureate to be about getting a well-rounded liberal arts background. Even many science majors, of which I was one, prized that background. I eventually studied much more art and design than I ever did science. The art was also for my own interest, as opposed to being for monetary value. The design education was for both interest and career.
Re: Is Music a pointless subject to study at university?
The Pentacle Queen wrote:I never thought it was, or even questioned it. Untill someone mentioned today.
I know it's not exactly finding a cure for cancer, but I never thought it wasn't a credible subject. It's made me really upset.
No, it's not a pointless subject. By the way, music majors have been known to apply to and gain entrance to many a law school and to eventually become lawyers.
dyslexia wrote:fishin wrote:patiodog wrote:I read the question differently than most here (except maybe Gargamel), I think. Not as, "Is it worth the resources of the university to study it?" but as, "Is it worthwhile to the student of music to study it at a university?"
'Twas exactly as I read the question.
as well.
I disagree with this assumption. To me, the question (really an insult) means "The study of music is worthless to society and universtites should not offer it as an option. They should turn out scientists, engineers, doctors and the like and should not waste money and resources on music, philosophy, classics and other disciplines which have no tangible benefit. Do you agree?"
Knowledge isn't wasted and a degree in any subject opens a lot of doors. Tell your critical friend that this Philosophy major said so.
Don't listen to that little black and white doggy, Jespah . . . she's a known homo sapiens and a practicing thespian . . .
The university I went to required that every student take a class in something like music history or appreciation.
Knowledge is never worthless.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace