gnition.
[See for example "Music and Cognitive Achievement in Children",
MRN, Fall 1994, I (2) and "The Nonmusical Outcomes
of Music Education", MRN, Fall 1995, II (2)]. Why
should anyone object to studies which support the hypothesis that
music education improves listening skills, reading ability, reasoning,
The reason given to me is that such findings can be used to promote
music education! This seems bizarre, given that the promotion
of music education is a goal of music educators. As the author
of the articles listed above, I clearly am not opposed to such
research; far from it, I welcome such studies.
But, this particular anti-research attitude is, I think, quite
logical within a given frame of reference. As I understand it,
the argument goes something like this.
"Music should be studied for its own sake, not because of
its effects on other aspects of education. Studies that seek
such effects undermine this foundational premise. They reduce
music education to an adjunct of non-arts subjects that are alleged
to be more important. Music and arts education thus become a
means to an end rather than an end in themselves. It is bad enough
that music and arts education are under continual attack, reduced
support and the like. But rendering music as a sort of skill that
is valued for its possible facilitation of mathematics is really
No doubt an advocate of this position could write a better explanation
but I hope that I have captured the essential point. Since I
am going to argue against this position, I would like to think
that I am not setting up a straw argument just so I can easily
knock it down.
For shorthand, I will refer to the anti-research position as the "Musical Purist Position", while advocates of "music effects" research will be "Music Utilitarians". These are meant as descriptive, not pejorative, labels. An imaginary dialogue between the groups might go something like this.
MP: We all need to educate relevant decision-makers (school boards, etc.) about the importance of music education as a fundamental component of education. [The strongest possible reasons for music education are then provided.]
MU: We agree with everything you have said.
MP: Music budgets get cut but sports budgets survive the axe. That's crazy! It is certainly not in the best interests of the students.
MU: We agree completely.
MP: So, if you agree with us, why do you MUs insist on promoting activities that hurt music education?
MU: We agree that music should be studied because of its intrinsic merit. We disagree with the premise that "effect" studies are bad for music education. We believe that music should not be excluded from research on any aspects of behavior it touches. In short, music is a sufficiently important subject to command the attention and efforts of both arts workers and science workers.
MP: But you are using the arts as stepping stones to the sciences. The arts are of at least equal importance in education.
MU: Yes, and so are the humanities. If music education is found to be beneficial for learning and intellectual development in the other arts and in the humanities, would you object to such research? If humanities education is found to facilitate music education, would that be bad? Not nearly enough is presently known about the development, nature and employment of cognition and intellectual functions in general, much less their role in any given discipline, to limit research.
MP: You have completely convinced us of the superiority of your position and we now agree with you.
That last imaginary remark was just wishful thinking by us MUs. Let's try another response of the MP faction to conclude this imaginary conversation.
MP: We are reasonable and rational people and are always ready and willing to listen to other perspectives. Therefore, we invite you MUs to begin a serious and extended dialogue with us MPs. Together, we should find ways to set and achieve common goals.
Yes, I like that one better. So, let's begin...
Brain Coherence, Musicianship and Gender
Everyone has brain waves (the electroencephalogram or simply EE