From a high school teacher who wishes to remain anonymous

Thank you for your editorial concerning the Royal Society of Arts report. I have been a school music teacher now for twelve years in a northern school and have actively encouraged pupils to study music at GCSE as well as take part in extra-curricular musical activities. However, I am concerned that a pupil who desperately wants to go to a music college is beginning to fail. Most of her music group are not in the slightest bit interested in the subject; they took it because they enjoyed it when they were in Years 7 and 8, which I suppose is my fault since I am what you sarcastically called a 'National Curriculum-music-for-all apparatchik'. Now I am having second thoughts, since those who are serious are suffering because I have to pay so much attention to those who have difficulties and who don't really want to work at the subject. They really haven't the skills or self-discipline required to do even the most basic activities and they will probably fail. They certainly show no love for the subject, so now I wonder if it is all worth the effort. So perhaps you are right, perhaps we should return to the old days of O-level and CSE, where only those who really want to study the subject take part and are able to work in a more studious and musical atmosphere without feeling out on a limb because they have specific skills and requirements.


From Kevin Osborne, Cannock Chase High School

I am amazed at the blind, self-satisfied nature of this article. I do hope that John Woodford is not teaching music in a comprehensive school! Does he not understand that there will never be enough money for music in schools whilst such elitist attitudes continue? Imagine for a moment if the same viewpoint existed in a PE department: 'No, I am sorry, you may enjoy playing table tennis, but if you are not prepared to commit to this training regime and take part in rugby or cricket, then you cannot possibly study GCSE PE'. I have spent my career of 14 years persistently encouraging all musicians, ranging from those who have played in the National Youth Orchestra to those who have developed their karaoke singing skills. I would want to see both types flourish in a comprehensive school to at least GCSE level. Music is unpopular in comparison with other GCSE subjects because it does require hard work, but it is vastly more popular now than in the dark ages of O-level when one needed Grade 5 theory to enter. By all means have an elitist attitude, but let us encourage as many people as possible to have a greater love, experience and understanding of music by taking their level as a starting point.


From Maria Crumpsall, Devon

How right John Woodford was in last month's editorial, where he defended music teachers against a potentially damaging RSA report. The rot in music education really set in with the dumbing-down of O-level to GCSE: where my pupils once studied four-part harmony, putting them in a strong enough position to take A-level music, now, in favour of single-finger chords and dragging a rasp around the inside of a piano, all the important skill-learning has been done away with. It is one thing is to encourage pupils to take part in music, another is to damage what little chance the good ones have by subjecting them to a mishmash of talentless youngsters who are really looking for nothing other than a, to use their word, doss.

Many thanks for your replies on this matter. I feel that Kevin Osborne is missing the point entirely. I tried to raise two important issues. The first concerns the profile of music and, in particular, the position of the teacher within a school. Things for your colleagues are hard enough as it is without the abject negativity of the RSA who are simply castigating teachers for the inadequacies of a system that generally wants the kudos music delivers, but doesn't want to face up to the demands it makes on the timetable. Across the country, teachers are made to feel that their contributions to the life of a school are unimportant because its success cannot be measured on a scoreboard. If they cannot get support from their colleagues in other schools, then where should it come from? The second issue concerns what we should be trying to achieve as teachers and who we should be encouraging. Neither maths nor physics is plain sailing; students have to learn theory and do a lot of work that is thorough and demanding. Do maths teachers have to say 'hey kids… this is fun and it will heighten your love, experience and understanding of maths and make you better members of society'? Of course not - pupils are expected to get on with the subject and do the work; so why should music be any different? Many music teachers feel very defensive about their work. Perhaps this is because they realise that in the eyes of many of their colleagues their subject stands for little. But to kowtow to their charges in an attempt to make it popular is not the answer and treating it as the ultimate kick devalues the work of thousands of serious musicians, putting them on the level of the karaoke singer who you seem to think is so important. Let us reward the talented by treating them properly and providing the best that we as teachers have to offer; if a few have to fall by the wayside, the so be it. JW


From Ian Dearden, Lancashire

Having written out far too many scores for my school orchestra by hand, I feel the time has come to purchase some software for my computer and start producing music with a more professional touch. I would be interested to know your readers' views on any available music software, especially the Sibelius v. Finale contest. Both seem excellent, but I would be interested to know not only about versatility, but what customer support is like as well - I might be Internet-bound, but have to admit to being slow on the uptake with new software, perhaps to the point of uploading some new products rather than continuing to get myself tied up in knots!

We would welcome readers' views on this matter; I think it is only right to express personal views and, since both programs are very expensive, readers' experiences of the pros and cons of music programs would be very useful. At the MusicTeachers HQ we use Sibelius, but there are a good many other programs available which are just as good at a fraction of the cost. JW


In response to David McKay's request about parallel fifths (MT.co.uk, October Issue), Kirk Elliott replies:

I can offer a personal perspective on this. I grew up listening to a lot of rock and folk music, styles in which parallel fifths and octaves are commonplace. So, when I took harmony lessons, I had the same question for my teacher. I thought they sounded fine, and in fact played them regularly on my guitar. (So called "power chords" on the electric guitar consist of a root, a fifth, and an octave, and so a series of power chords is essentially nothing but parallel octaves and fifths.) My teacher answered that textbook harmony was the study of a particular style of western music, and that parallel octaves and fifths were simply not part of the vocabulary of that style. Why? My guess is that parallels had been part of the musical vocabulary in an earlier era (early polyphony in sacred music), and that, by the time of Bach, such voice leading was considered hopelessly old-fashioned and unsophisticated. So I suppose the answer really comes down to style. In a rock song, parallels sound fine. If you're trying to do SATB in the style of JSB, they sound out of place. Anyway, that's how I've come to grips with the issue.