WHAT THE AVERAGE TEACHER CAN DO IN MUSICAL

INSTRUCTION.

BY SARA L. DUNNING, MALONE, NEW YORK.

By the mouth of many witnesses the truth that the average teacher can do most valuable work in musical instruction, will, I hope, be established. I am thankful for such a National Association as this, and for the state and county associations of our land. I am thankful for the pedagogical literature that has come down to us, and is springing up anew around us. But I am most thankful that the day has come when not only our great-minded educators but the average teachers throughout our country are attending these associations, and both inside and outside the Teachers' Reading Circles are thoughtfully and earnestly studying this literature and seeking to lift themselves above the position of mere artisans to that of artists in this most noble of all work - teaching.

Sully says: "We call any department of practice an art when the actions involved are of sufficient complexity and difficulty to demand special study, and to offer scope for individual skill." Thus we hear now of the art of cooking, the art of surgery, the art of engineering, the arts of agriculture and even of politics; the mechanical arts, the healing art, the legal art, so we have come to have the art of teaching. Indeed, as has been said, "Teaching is not only one of the fine arts, it is the finest of arts. No other is comparable with it. All other arts deal with lifeless matter. Teaching has to do with the living soul. All other arts are perishable. This is for eternity."

While there is probably no larger proportion of our teachers who are musical to-day than were so ten years ago, there is a far larger proportion who are good teachers. Herein is our cause for rejoicing. The way is at last clear for us to become a nation of singers, and, thereby, improved intellectually, morally, and physically.

President Robinson, of Brown University, says, "Persons who deal with music, whether as composers or teachers of it, are real benefactors of humanity."

Hamerton says, in his "Intellectual Life," "Music has an important influence upon expression of all kinds. No painter, writer, or orator who had the power. and judgment of a thoroughly cultivated musician could sin against the broad principles of taste." Is it then, beneath the best

effort of the best teacher to study this art, and the art of teaching it to others?

It has been clearly shown that no one study cultivates more of the powers of the mind than does music. The element of pleasure enters so largely into it that the little ones do not think of it as work or study, but only as amusement or recreation. Some of my teachers have said as I enter their rooms, "Now how many would rather sing than keep on with their work." Immediately a perfect swarm of quivering digits are in the air, a smile on every face, and as the sound of their sweet voices fills the room, they little suspect that the development of their mental faculties is the primary object of the teacher in giving them this much-loved, restful exercise.

Right here I want to say, that to both teacher and pupil, the enjoyment of the work will be keen in proportion to the degree of intelligence with which the pupils learn to sing. While rote singing may, occasionally, serve a useful purpose as a means of recreation to the youngest pupils, it is nevertheless encouraging to see how much greater pleasure it gives even to the smallest children to read their music from the chart or book than it does to learn the tune, one line at a time, from the lips of the teacher. Besides this objection to rote singing there is another in the fact that many teachers would really be unable to do the work if music must be taught in this way. But taught in the proper manner, i. e. as every other subject should be taught, according to true educational principles, much added delight is given to the child and real relief to the unmusical teacher.

My heart is full of sympathy for the faithful, earnest, over-worked teachers of our land who tremblingly shrink from the thought that the time is surely coming when they will have to add music to their other work. It is always darkest just before dawn, and when the sunlight of music once gets into their schoolrooms they will wonder how they ever got along without it. This has been the invariable experience of all, so far as my knowledge has extended.

In the town with which I am best acquainted, there was not one in twenty of the teachers who considered herself, or would be considered, especially musical. Several insisted that they did not sing at all, and that they could not sing, but like most other teachers in similar situations, found that not only could they themselves sing but they could very acceptably teach other people to do so. All have done good work in music, and some of the least musical have excelled those whom all considered their superiors in this respect. Indeed it may be set down as a fact that in teaching the rudiments of music to little children better work is sometimes done by those who have little knowledge of it than by fine. musicians who have no teaching ability. I trust I may not be misunder

stood and accused of putting a premium on ignorance. Far from it. The teacher will, as we so often hear, "Learn to do by doing." His province is to guide the pupils in their practice of thinking sounds and not to do their thinking for them.

Many teachers themselves believe that in order to teach music in school they must be fine singers, but this is not necessary. If one must needs know all of a subject before teaching its rudiments we should never have any teaching in any subject. "The more we know of our subject the better we can present it to others" is very true, provided we have learned the art of presentation.

One teacher has said to me, "When I engaged to take this school the music was a great terror to me; I knew I could do the other work, and I thought I knew I could not do that; now I would not want to teach if I could not have music."

Another says, “I feel as if I ought to allow the Board a certain per cent. of my salary for the instruction I have received from my children, while they think I have been teaching them."

Still another says: "Since I seem to have succeeded in teaching the children to read music I am sure any one can do so, for certainly no one can know less than I did when I began the work."

A fourth says: "I did dread the music so, but now I would more willingly give up any exercise."

One lady who was not musical, but was a fine teacher of other branches wrote me "Teachers will find out for themselves when they make the experiment that they can teach music, even if not musical. My pupils can take many intervals that I could not take when I began teaching them last fall. They have done remarkably well considering their teacher. Not a mistake that has been made reverts to my lack of musical ability but all to my faults as a teacher, and apply to every subject I teach.” I am told by others that the superintendent there is frequently taking visitors into that room to see the excellent work in music.

And so instances could be multiplied indefinitely, of those, who, to their own great astonishment and delight, have succeeded in this line of work.

Of the teachers throughout the United States a large majority would. say they are not musical, but of this number only a very few would be utterly devoid of ideas of tune or time. Indeed, positive inability to distinguish the pitch of sounds is very rare. Many people who would insist that they could not tell one tune from another would willingly admit that they could distinguish the voice or even the step of some friend.

To be sure tone-perception is more natural to some than to others, but

it is a matter of education and can be cultivated in all.

Most teachers who say they are not musical deplore it, and if they can

but be made to see that they can do it, will be glad to supply to their pupils that of which they themselves so much feel the need.

What is called a "good ear" is not, as too many suppose, a rare gift, vouchsafed to the chosen few only, but when seemingly imperfect it arises not from any defect in the organ of hearing itself, but from want of education or practice in determining sounds.

Dr. W. H. Stone says in his "Elementary Lessons on Sound," that he and other scientists have experimented on a large number of persons without finding a single defective ear. There were many devoid of practice in estimating sounds and there were great differences in the amount of delicacy they could acquire, but all without exception, he states were susceptible of education.

While, then, it has been proven that all are susceptible of some aural education, it is desirable that it should be begun as early in life as possible, for in childhood the sensitiveness of the ear increases rapidly with use. The attention of the child may be directed to many sounds of the inanimate world. Let him sing the pitch of the church bells, car bells, school bells, steam whistles, a gong, a bottle, or even of a creaking door. Even the smallest children will enjoy these common-place object lessons in sound.

We have too many imitative singers; indeed we have but very few who are not such. In nearly every house there is a piano or organ, and singing without this accompaniment is hardly thought of. Many who are considered excellent readers of music are quite helpless without an instrument; they themselves do not realize to what an extent they are imitators.

I hope that soon instrumental aid to singing will be considered oldfashioned and then we will have more independent singers. No piano, however fine, can add to the beauty and sweetness of little children's voices and they should be spared the hindrance in their musical education of having an instrument do their thinking for them.

If all of our School Boards could afford it, if they really had more funds than they knew how to use, it might be allowable to have a piano. or organ in each room for calisthenics, marching solos at rhetoricals, and so forth, but even then the risk would be great. The temptation to learn the new songs from the instrument would very likely be yielded to, and thus they would only "gain a loss."

How, then, can the average teacher succeed? First, by the help of a systematic series of textbooks, supplied either in the form of books and charts or both. Something that contains music of a high order, for little children will soon learn to appreciate such, and their taste for the best in musical as in other literature should be cultivated. In connection with these a pitch-pipe and simple pendulum or metronome should be provided. Secondly, by carrying on the work with the same care and in accordance with the same principles that she conducts her other recitations.

40

It may not be out of place for me to say that having used in my work various series of books, I find nothing so perfectly adapted to the needs of both the experienced and inexperienced teacher of vocal music as the so-called Normal Music Readers and charts by J. W. Tufts and H. E. Holt of Boston.

The teacher who makes intelligent use of these according to the suggestions in the Teacher's Manual accompanying will find her work clearly outlined step by step, and an abundant supply of the best material for practice. By following out these simple directions it is my conviction, as the result of observation and experience, that the average teacher can succeed in teaching music.

I am aware that various other suggestions have been made and that there are those who believe that a simplified notation would greatly facilitate the work of the unmusical teacher. My own observation and experience, however, have not convinced me that a change in notation would be either helpful or desirable. Some six years since, as the result of a letter from one of the most earnest advocates in this country of the system of notation well known as the Tonic sol-fa system, I was induced to investigate carefully the methods and claims of this system with the view of employing it in my own teaching if convinced of the advantages. claimed for it by its advocates; and while I did investigate the subject as carefully as I was able at that time, and have made special effort to inform myself through the published literature of the system, and through listening to the discussions and addresses that have been given from time to time at the great educational and musical conventions, as well as following the discussions through the press, and through the educational papers, I still believe that neither the average teacher nor the special teacher who understands the simple principles of teaching and is willing to apply them to teaching music can derive any possible benefit or assistance from either the permanent substitution or temporary use of the Tonic sol-fa, system of notation.

No teacher can apply to music the true principles of teaching who does not teach invisible sounds instead of their visible signs, and if these invisible things are properly taught together with their relations to each other-both in point of duration and pitch-the staff notation will be found, in my judgment, the most convenient, the most reasonable, and the most satisfactory expression of these invisible objects.

I am aware that the advocates of the Tonic sol-fa system claim freely that no one who has tried both would prefer the staff. One of the best primary teachers of my acquaintance writes me from a New Jersey town as follows: "Having taught both I am much better pleased with the s'aff notation than with the Tonic sol-fa. I never will go back to the latter unless the powers that reign above me demand it." Another