Accompaniment Software
Wednesday, March 23, 2005 7:54:31 PM
There is a problem not identified by the articles. Although accompaniment software is vital and necessary, and allows for increased meaningful learning activities, the educator still has to know how to teach improvisation. This is actually a rarity in current schools. Paul Woodford discusses in the New Handbook of Music Teaching and Learningthat there is a "gate." Colleges who grant music education degrees, have an audition and acceptance process. This process primarily accepts well trained classical musicians. Not always great teachers. Those with jazz skills primarily try jazz performance degrees and a jazz career (although many will find they can't make it and return to teaching or masters programs). Of the jazz schools and jazz educators I have been around, many fine jazzers have not taught in public schools. Likewise, many music educators who become responsible for jazz bands are primarily classically trained, although it must be noted this is my perception and not research based. It does however seem, that jazz improv is sorely neglected in most college curricula and music conferences. No amount of software will work and create great jazzers in a school with locking the student in a room with it.
Although there is some research that supports accompaniment software, there is also some contention that using accompaniment software (Lautzenheiser's Essential Elements was attacked) does not help build internal time keeping in students. If this contention is correct, why is it that every music educator advocates working with a metronome? And most certainly accompaniment software (and accomaniment CD's for method books) provide a much more stimulating practice session for students. Getting students to practice and enjoy it is key to a performance oriented music program.



