Music in the Undergraduate Curriculum: A Reassessment

Foreword by the President of The College Music Society

The present report represents the culmination of a project which began in 1986 and which has subsequently seen periods of intensive discussion, debate, reevaluation, consensus, preliminary writing, rewriting, and editing. The organization of the CMS Study Group on the Content of the Undergraduate Music Curriculum, and the rationale behind its creation, are fully discussed in the report itself, and hardly need repeating here. But I must stress a few noteworthy aspects of the Study Group's work: first of all, its single minded concern for the undergraduate curriculum (as opposed to graduate study) in the context of general (as opposed to pre-professional) education; moreover, its attempt to address issues with future ramifications, viewed in the light of emerging trends and tendencies (whether musical, demographic, economic, or political); and finally, its concern for identifying and articulating the important questions rather than spelling out all too pat answers.

In discussing the content of the curriculum—or, rather, the contents of many music curricula across the United States—the Study Group found a three part focus. Virtually all curricula deal with (a) training in the making of music: performing, composing, and conducting (and in this super technological age, perhaps recording and mixing as well). Such training stresses the development of specific skills, disciplines, and attitudes—what might be called "craft." Curricula are also concerned with (b) musical "objects," via the detailed study of individual works. This would include the analyses of notated scores, historical contexts, or biographical data, not only as scholarly disciplines in themselves but as important adjuncts to the craft of music making suggested earlier. In many institutions one also finds (c) the study of music in larger contexts, relating both "music making" practices and "individual works" to other aspects of experience and other scholarly disciplines: acoustics, mathematics, perception, the fine arts, anthropology, literature, religion, sociology, psychology, and so on.

Given this situation, the Study Group found itself confronted with a number of provocative questions. Is focus (a) so deeply rooted in the Western notion of "literature" and the "Great Works," overly stressed, at the expense of the other two areas? To what degree can "music making" be separated from area (b), i.e. from "literature," the Western Tradition, and the notated score? Can all three areas be taught from a specifically "global" or non Western approach? How does post 1945 technology alter many basic considerations within all three areas? Should both music majors and general students have experience in all three areas? Or should some areas be reserved for graduate level training? (If so, which?) Could, or should, students with little or no familiarity with Western staff notation be encouraged to explore all three areas? If so, what alternative skills must be developed? These are only a few of the challenging questions grappled with by members of the Study Group during the period of its deliberations.

As President of The College Music Society, I find great pleasure in writing introductory comments to CMS publications, if only because such documents invariably provide valuable insights, resources and/or information for our profession. In this instance, however, I am especially delighted to do so. I served as a member of the Study Group on the Content of the Undergraduate Music Curriculum and I know, from first hand experience, that a great deal of energy and dedication has gone into the completion of this project and the preparation of the document we now hold. I would like to acknowledge the contributions and support of the Study Group members: Harold M. Best (Wheaton College), Donald J. Funes (Northern Illinois University), Richard Long (Emory University), William Malm (University of Michigan), Colin Murdoch (San Francisco Conservatory of Music), Georgia Ryder (Norfolk State University), Frank Tirro (Yale University), and especially Barbara Reeder Lundquist of the University of Washington, who not only chaired the Study Group but supervised all aspects of the questionnaire found at the back of the report. In this latter capacity she was aided ably by James Fricke of the University of Washington. Many others are deserving of special thanks as well, in particular the Ford Foundation, for encouraging the entire project and supporting this publication, and Margaret M. Barela, who was most perceptive and incisive in editing the manuscript.

Elliott S. Schwartz, President The College Music Society

Introduction

"The arts are the spearhead of a nation's thrust toward greatness. 1 look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world, not only for its strength but for its civilization as well. I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artists. "

John F. Kennedy

Review of the Undergraduate Music Curriculum

In the fall of 1986, The College Music Society (CMS) appointed an eight member Study Group to spearhead a forum for discussion about, and eventual recommendation concerning, the undergraduate music curriculum in colleges and universities in the United States. CMS wished to stimulate consideration of the nature, purposes, and values of music experience. It aimed also to make a statement, by means of a written report, to the broader academic community.

CMS gave the Study Group the following charge:

1. To initiate an unbiased, apolitical, and serious dialogue regarding appropriate curricula content for undergraduate music study. Discussion was to focus on the undergraduate curriculum as it impacts upon a) the general education of music majors, and b) the music education of the general college student. The applied music, or performance, component of undergraduate music study was not included in the charge, although inevitably the value of performance as an indispensable element came under consideration;
2. To consider the responsibilities of higher education to our multicultural populace, thus effecting a reassessment of the content and values that inform the undergraduate music experience;
3. To consider what the undergraduate needs to know and be able to do in order to a) participate in the cultural life of the United States, b) understand the culture of the United States within the context of the various cultures of the world, and c) demonstrate the competence necessary for continued learning and a life's work in music;
4. To consider the assumptions now being made concerning the study of music and the questions the academic community might raise about these assumptions;
5. To explore what these responsibilities imply operationally for the music curriculum.

In addition, the Study Group considered 1) the nature of the cultural leadership the academic community should provide and 2) the nature of the vision the academic community should develop as we approach the twenty first century.

The work of the Study Group was to culminate in a written report designed to stimulate discussion within the academic community concerning the impact on the undergraduate curriculum and on the teaching of undergraduates of 1) the cultural diversity of the United States, 2) the cultural identity and pride of our minority populations, and 3) the changing climate for music and other arts disciplines in an increasingly practical and scientific world.

Before beginning its deliberations, the Study Group issued a request for suggestions from the music community. Thoughtful responses were received from members of The College Music Society, from other individuals within the music profession, as well as from other professional societies. Following several months of correspondence, the Study Group convened in April of 1987 for three days of working sessions. A preliminary draft report was issued to participants during the summer of 1987; revisions in 1988 and 1989 have led to the present report.

The Study Group had no intention of duplicating the findings of previous studies, nor did it set out to leap aboard a bandwagon of criticism. It did set out to seize the opportunity, to respond to a favorable climate of educational reform, and to raise a call for action. The Study Group hopes its work will establish a basis for further inquiry into as many related areas as the music profession may find appropriate.

Why conduct such a study? First, given the present climate of reform in higher education, the time is ripe. Second, during the past few decades the once standardized music contribution to general studies has been challenged as exclusionary and limited. Fifteen years ago, general music courses focused on the "appreciation" of masterpieces or monuments of Western art music. Increasingly, however, courses have appeared, both required and elective, which reflect the demographic, technological, and musical realities of the late twentieth century. Such courses may focus on African American music, non Western music, or—as one course at a leading university has it—"Pop, Rock, and Jazz," while others may cover particular subject areas (such as women in music, Hispanic American music) which have great relevance and national importance. Each local variant has a life independent from any national norm or standard. Our graduate institutions are not preparing future teachers to handle these added subjects with competence; with respect to these new areas, the present teachers are largely self taught.

This study, then, reflects concern on the part of The College Music Society for such issues and is a continuing aspect of the Society's broader concern for "music in general studies"—the music education of the college student not majoring in music.

Given the many indications that present curricula may not be congruent with the challenges of the contemporary environment in which music and liberal arts students live and work, it will be evident why this report proposes no final answers regarding curricular content for undergraduate music study, but rather asks questions and points directions.

On the premise that we are educating people for society, not just training professional musicians, the report seeks to provoke thinking among college music faculty and to initiate a dialogue concerning the nature of music, its purposes, and those values we wish to impart to students in the course of the undergraduate music experience.

Analysis of the Reports on the Condition of Higher Education

Any consideration of the undergraduate music curriculum in higher education must be cognizant of the conditions reported in contemporary national reports concerning general undergraduate education.¹ Several recurrent themes emerge from the reports, themes which frequently have direct relevance to the undergraduate music curriculum. Accordingly, our profession should consider ways in which the music curriculum relates to those conditions.

First, all reports reaffirm the central importance of liberal arts studies, studies which prepare for a life of learning as well as for a life's work. If one agrees that "the nation's colleges and universities must reshape their undergraduate curricula based on a clear vision of what constitutes an educated person, regardless of major. . . "², then similarly the undergraduate music curriculum demands our attention.

Second, the national education reports emphasize the value of inquiry, abstract logical thinking, and critical analysis: "There is not a subject taught nor a discipline . . . in the curriculum that should fail to provide students with a continuing practice in thinking . . . ."³ Curricular content must directly address not only subject matter, but also the development of the capacity for—and skill in—analysis, problem solving, communications, and synthesis.⁴ The music curriculum is a most appropriate means of accomplishing the overall goal of the undergraduate curriculum, to produce "verbal and quantitative skills, analytic reasoning, and the ability to synthesize, as well as . . . organizational and human relations skills, and . . . understanding of cultural and intellectual diversity."⁵

Third, every unit of knowledge can be examined from a multitude of analytical perspectives. "There is no place in the course of study where the capacity to make informed and responsible moral choice cannot be appropriately nurtured. We may be wary of final answers, but we cannot avoid the necessity of choice, decision, [and] judgment."⁶ Although no single discipline is sufficient to educate the ideal citizen, music has the potential to extend into all realms of thought—scientific, religious, historical, linguistic, social—to such a degree that music should resume the place of eminence it once held in the days of the quadrivium.

Fourth, the reports emphasize the importance of process as well as product. In present undergraduate music curricula, it often appears that teaching a repertory of standard works takes precedence over teaching students how to learn. Approaches to teaching music need to be developed which emphasize process as well as product. "Our focus is the methods and processes, the modes of access to understanding and judgment, that shape their [the students'] formal undergraduate education."⁷ "We do not believe that concern for coverage and factual knowledge is where the construction of a curriculum should begin . . . . We do not believe that the road to a coherent undergraduate education can be constructed from a set of required subjects or academic disciplines. We do believe that there are methods and processes, modes of access to understanding and judgment, that should inform all study."⁸

Fifth, the reports have issued a call for increased and active student involvement in the educational process. "To do a discipline means to speak it, to work with its primary materials, to follow its processes, and to adopt its perspective. Active modes of teaching require that students be inquirers—creators, as well as receivers, of knowledge. "⁹ Indeed, the liberal arts do teach skills—reading, writing, speaking, thinking, reasoning, creating. Here, music offers an ideal model to other disciplines, as learning in music is an interactive process.

Sixth, the reports call for a balance between depth and breadth. As much as we would like our instruction to be all encompassing, breadth must always be tempered by the need for depth of understanding. Much of this is implicit in the study of music. According to one view, "Depth requires sequential learning, building on blocks of knowledge that lead to more sophisticated understanding [while encouraging] leaps of the imagination and efforts at synthesis."¹⁰ "A course of study that offers depth will... have a central core of method and theory that serves as an introduction to the explanatory power of the discipline, provides a basis for subsequent work, and unites all students who join in the study in a shared understanding of its character and aims. It will force [allow] students to experience the range of topics that the discipline addresses and the variety of analytic tools that it uses. It will have a sequence that presumes advancing sophistication. It will provide a means—a project or thesis—by which the student's final mastery of its complexity. . . may be demonstrated and validated."¹¹ "The year-long essay, the senior thesis, the artistic project, undertaken after a sound grasp of the fundamentals of the discipline or art has been established, provides an experience in which two great lessons are learned: the joy of mastery, the thrill of moving forward in a formal body of knowledge and gaining some effective control over it, integrating it, perhaps even making some small contribution to it; and the lesson that no matter how deeply and widely students dig, no matter how much they know, they cannot know enough, they cannot know everything. Depth is an enemy of arrogance."¹²

Seventh, the reports warn further of the dangers inherent in fragmentation of thought and narrow disciplinary focus. To combat the trend toward tunnel vision and to ensure that students and faculty integrate knowledge from various disciplines, educational requirements need to be expanded and reinvigorated. When, for example, teachers are reluctant to participate in the humanities sequence and wish only to deal with their own special fields, students can conclude all too quickly that fragmented knowledge is normal and acceptable, or that comprehensive knowledge is too taxing and time-consuming.

Finally, the reports generally reaffirm the importance of the arts disciplines—that "the arts can no longer be denied access to the curriculum nor relegated to a peripheral position. They are . . . to be encouraged as providing access to realms of creativity, imagination, and feeling that explore and enlarge the meaning of what it is to be human."¹³

The Undergraduate Music Environment: Challenges and Questions

Not only do the arts contain an important part of what it means to be human, the arts also give coherence, depth, and resonance to other academic subjects. One of the primary tasks of our schools should be to train our young people to know, love, and respond to the products of the human spirit in music, dance, drama, and the visual arts. Surely it should be possible for them to emerge from their years of schooling with their eyes, ears, heads, and hearts attuned to what is lastingly beautiful in their cultural heritage.

William J Bennett¹

The Demographics: Ethnic and Cultural Diversity

Residents of the United States live in a country in which, by unique circumstances of history and geography, four broad cultural influences—European, African, Asian, and indigenous American—have converged.

In the early 1970s, the foreign born population of the U.S. increased faster than the native population for the first time since World War I. Of the approximately 217 million people in the U.S., the Bureau of the Census reported that 12 million people were foreign born and at least 38 percent of the population reported multiethnic ancestry. The concept of the American melting pot has been seriously challenged. In its place the theory has arisen that our social fabric resembles a mosaic of various ethnic communities, each of which contributes to the national culture while proudly maintaining its distinct cultural identity. Hence, the most appropriate education in music may be one that nurtures the capacities and provides skills to comprehend a multiracial, multiethnic orientation—an education that will promote respect for a wide range of cultural groups.

Current demographic studies reveal that the next generation of American students in our public schools will represent a wider range of cultural identification than ever before. If projections prove accurate, we will become a nation increasingly isolated from Western European traditions and more influenced and affected by those of African, Asian, and Hispanic origin. The configuration of the traditional college age population by the year 2000 will be much different from that found on campuses today. The college music teaching community must consider these and other signs of our times for the bearing they have on the future work of the profession.

We must recognize that much of the current population in America does not spiritually identify with art music of the Western European tradition. It is the better part of wisdom to view this shift as an opportunity to expand our educational base in order to reflect the cultural resources in our society.

Ethnic and cultural diversity are a reality. The question of the academic community'sresponsibility to our multicultural and multiethnic populace proceeds from this reality. Can or should the preservation and validation of cultural distinctions be considered as a legitimate goal of higher education?

The undergraduate curriculum should begin to reflect a pluralistic perspective of our age, and goals for student development should involve global awareness and cross cultural competency. We strongly suggest that educational breadth in music study be underscored by the inclusion of a wide repertory. The very act of repertory selection—in any music tradition—validates particular artifacts, and by extension, the culture that produced them. Such selection makes a value judgment concerning what musics are worth teaching. There is an element of elitism in the effort to focus on, and the hope to retain, only the art musics of any particular culture. There is an element of power brokering, as well. In the past, "the right music" has been taught to the group that maintains the institutions that keep the social structure in place. People have been recruited, selected, and socialized to maintain a particular power structure. In a changing society, universities must reconsider the forces underlying these practices and the messages they convey to the larger community. Rather than endorsing exclusivity by supporting the status quo, universities must reach out to broaden the base of the community that works to raise the general quality of life. The power structure must embrace the many cultures it comprises, or face extinction.

There is mounting evidence that monocultural education, to the degree that students are required to deny their heritage to adopt a new one, has had a deleterious effect on individuals, family groups, and society.

We must foster development of capacities which allow students the opportunity to become culturally literate and expressive. Consequently we must reconsider the willful truncation of diverse cultural backgrounds imposed by traditional curricula.

The Role of Academia in the Cultural Community

The picture we have been drawing has another side as well, for within the cultural diversity of the United States there is also a strong sense of community. Total isolation from Western art music is rare. It is possible for anyone to hear music from any Western art music period or style by the proper manipulation of electronic equipment. Technology and other contemporary forces foster the transculturation of ethnic and cultural groups. Even more importantly, Western popular music culture, in all its diversity, is becoming a worldwide phenomenon and appears to be forging a sense of global community among the young even in the face of political resistance. This has been precipitated radically by new technology. Yet, to a great extent, art music is virtually absent from the daily lives of most young people, and popular music culture is virtually absent from academia. Why is that? When did this rift begin? Why has the general public moved art music out of its daily circle of life and onto the cultural reservations of the college and university campus? In view of this displacement, the traditional role of music faculties must be expanded to bring these two communities closer together.

There is another context in which music departments in American universities can be said to consist of two communities. The traditional role of postsecondary institutions in music has in fact been twofold: 1) the training of individuals who possess professional aspirations and 2) the cultivation in the general public of the understanding of music.

Professional musicians and the general public do not function in mutually exclusive contexts. Both are dependent upon one another. For the most satisfying musical experience, each must actively interact with the other via a commonly shared understanding of musico cultural elements. In this respect, an effective cultivation of basic skills and perceptions is central to the objectives and design of undergraduate music curricula. Such cultivation, beyond traditional musicianship, requires a study of sounds (acoustic events and their characteristics), sound producing bodies (e.g., instruments), and the ritual spaces of music (e.g., concert halls), as well as expressive content and the meaning—structural, social, and historical—of many musics, familiar and unfamiliar, oral as well as notated, popular as well as concert.

Given the interactive nature of the Western art music tradition, as a shared experience between presenter/performer and listener/audience, it is essential that we retrain ourselves so that we might teach others to listen actively.

Simultaneously, the training we provide in the area of general studies should seek to reestablish the idea of the dignity of the musical amateur. Tragically, many undergraduates have been led to assume that the only way to make music is to major in it. Specialization and professionalization of music seems to decree that only the fittest should be heard in public. What effects does this have on music majors and on the joy of making music? Amateurs are not responsible for setting standards, enlightening audiences, or augmenting the artistic repertory. But they can make music. The professional can dignify the amateur by being a mentor—a disciplined, dedicated, and artistic example. The amateur can best view the professional, not as a spectator, but as a discerning and supportive co-participant.

The aural experience is but part of the musical experience. Value systems, social contexts, and societal histories are reflected in each music of the world. Conversely, each music of the world contributes to the definition of its own culture. Although the core of virtually any undergraduate music curriculum in the United States may focus on Western art music, those who shape the undergraduate curriculum—especially at the level of basic musicianship—must also recognize that the students who partake of the curriculum represent an increasingly multiethnic character, that the knowledge and experience that these students bring to the classroom are increasingly multicultural, and that these students are the children of a society rapidly changing in values.

The Impact of Technology

Among the most pervasive contemporary challenges is the effect of technological development on the entire range of music related activities. How has recent technology altered the basic considerations of music and its context? Though many members of the music community have barely begun to recognize the vast changes the electronics revolution has already brought to their art, students take these recent technological advances for granted. And most of us can only dimly conceive of the inevitable changes still to come. How can we adapt to this brave, new world?

The post-1945 "loudspeaker revolution"—encompassing the long play record, tape recorder, and Walkman cassette player—has changed the way we listen to music. Technology has taken music listening out of the church, synagogue, and concert hall, and placed it in the home, car, streets, and even elevators. People no longer have to go somewhere special to listen to music. They can hear it almost anywhere and are not required to listen to it. Yet that change is insignificant compared to the post-1970 revolution going on in computer applications. Music Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) hardware, multiple track recording and mixing, electronic keyboards, and other facilities for electronic sound generation and manipulation are not only producing young wizards with their own approaches to musical composition, they are redefining concepts of performance. Furthermore, performers are being replaced by electronic digital samplers, a professional and sociological phenomenon of major consequence that is almost unnoticed in our traditional music curricula.

These developments impose a new conception of both composer and performer. Who is the "composer" and who is the "performer" of a musical example recorded for commercial disc: the pianist who first produced the sound, the keyboard player who first sampled the sound, the recording engineer, or the tape editor? How shall we deal with the electronic separation of performances from listeners? How can this phenomenon, unprecedented in human musical experience, best be integrated into a meaningful liberal arts curriculum? How can we best utilize the wealth of opportunities technology offers? How can we come to terms with what it means, in view of altered and expanded perceptions, to listen to recorded music or to "watch" music videos?

The Undergraduate Music Curriculum and Its Academic Contexts:
Challenges and Questions

"The languages of art, music, architecture, drama, and dance open up new worlds of human endeavor and communication, of truth and of representation. "¹

If there is to be an education in wisdom our humanists, historians, artists, political and social thinkers need to follow the lead of our musical colleagues. We must state boldly that the aim of our studies is the revelation of world visions, not proficiency in the statistics, jargon, footnoting, and other doubling stoppings and roulades of the academic trade. If we are courageous enough to say straight off that the reason we pursue these studies is to create a dialogue of world visions, that we are engaged in a wayward search for wisdom, our students will leave us not only scientific and professional but perhaps well, if not wholly wise at least filled with that awe and wonder which lead on to wisdom.

Dennis O'Brien²

"Without a knowledge of the language of the. . .arts, we see less and hear less. Without some experience in the performing arts, we are denied the knowledge of disciplined creativity and its meaning as a bulwark of freedom and an instrument of social cohesion."³

There is a confluence of issues in academia which have implications in the establishment of a context for the undergraduate curriculum. Among these issues are 1) the needs of the individual and those of society, 2) professional/vocational training versus liberal arts, 3) quality and equity in higher education, and 4) new ideologies versus traditional liberal arts studies.

In view of this confluence, there appears to be a growing awareness of the need within higher education to balance individual curricular needs with community needs. This may inform the reported schism between vocational/technical and humanities faculties, and raise the level of dialogue from competition for students to issues concerning 1) the formation of cultural awareness and 2) access to our shared cultural and intellectual heritages. The quality-equity issues appear to be related not only to individual and community needs, as well as vocational and humanities curricula, but also to a perceived shift in faculty ideology. Such a shift may allow the development of perspectives on relations between culture and society that will inform us in continuing efforts to refine the education we offer.

The Individual and Society

The undergraduate curriculum must deal effectively with the individual needs and interests of students, while serving the need for culture formation in the community of which the students are a part. A curriculum must support diversity, yet reflect a principle of unity. It must ensure that individual study is balanced and placed in a broad range of contexts.

One national report states that "the focus on individuality, on the personal benefits and the utility of education, has a rich tradition in American higher education. And to the extent that our universities and colleges have expanded enrollments and broadened curricula in response to individual interests, they, and the nation, can be justly proud . . . [but students] also should be helped to go beyond private interests and place their own lives in larger context [in their] passage toward a more coherent view of knowledge and a more integrated life."⁴

There is concern that "in a complex, interdependent world we simply cannot afford to graduate students who fail to place their knowledge and lives in perspective. To deny our relationship with one another and with our common home, Earth, is to deny the realities of existence."⁵ "What we need . . . 'is . . . a way to link the humanities directly to the concerns of humanity'."⁶ This might help to address the increasing schism between vocational/technical and humanities faculties, a second and broader issue that affects our consideration of the undergraduate curriculum.

Professional/Vocational Training and the Liberal Arts

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching found that many undergraduates, although committed to their major, are drawn to general education courses in which great teachers provide coherence as learning is linked to contemporary life.⁷ In fact, "given the push toward vocationalism and the fragmentation of academic life," they found it "remarkable that the vision of common learning remains so powerful a part of the baccalaureate experience . . . ."⁸

However, this does not mask the frustration of many students with the general education experience, having "come to view general education as an irritating interruption - an annoying detour on their way to their degree." ⁹ Furthermore, there are reports of schisms between humanities and vocational/technical faculties over increases in job related or vocational courses at the expense of traditional liberal arts courses. These groups appear to perceive themselves as 1) competing for students' curricular time, and 2) having few common goals. This leads us to still broader national concerns regarding the quality and equity of education.

Quality and Equity in Higher Education

There is a national concern with both the quality and equity of education in public schools and in higher education. The Report of the Carnegie Forum's Task Force on Teaching as a Profession (1987) is typical of the national perspective on education reform. The Task Force states that "concern over the quality of education in this country has been expressed in repeated warnings . . . . Yet . . . most Americans still do not fully understand the gravity of the situation. [It is the Task Force's opinion that] much of the rhetoric of the recent education-reform movement has been couched in language of decline, suggesting that standards have slipped, that the education system has grown lax and needs to return to some earlier performance standards to succeed. [This Task Force's] view is very different . . . . It is no exaggeration to suggest that America must now provide to the many the same quality of education presently reserved for the fortunate few. The cost of not doing so will be a steady erosion of the American standard of living."¹⁰

"[The] Task Force rejects the view that America must choose between quality and equity in education policy . . . . The country must have both."¹¹

Concerns of the Task Force are correctly directed toward poverty and its consequences. Certainly, there is little incentive for talented teachers to take positions—let alone stay—in needy areas, when pay is low and facilities are inadequate.

In the following excerpt from the Task Force's report, statements taken by themselves have validity. However, when taken together, they invite connections which are not always valid. Such connections, if without examination are assumed to be correct, can be dangerous. They spring from faulty logic and can only lead to questionable conclusions and inappropriate solutions. For instance, poor does not automatically equal poorly educated. Nor does education guarantee an active electorate. Distinctions must be made so that effective solutions may be identified.

The Task Force states, "As the world economy changes shape, it would be fatal to assume that America can succeed if only a portion of our school children succeed . . . . At present, one out of four American children is born into poverty and the rate is increasing. While it was once possible for people to succeed in this society if they were simply willing to work hard, it is increasingly difficult for the poorly educated to find jobs. A growing number of permanently unemployed people seriously strains our social fabric. A heavily technology based economy will be unable to invest vast sums to maintain people who cannot contribute to the nation's productivity . . . . [The Task Force stresses] the relationship between education and the economy to drive home the economic costs of inadequate education. But [it rejects the view that preparation for work should be the only, or even the most important, goal of education. From the first days of the Republic, education has been recognized as the foundation of a democratic society for the nation and the individual alike. A passive electorate that derives much of its knowledge from television is too easily manipulated. School must provide a deeper understanding necessary for a self governing citizenry. It must provide access to a shared cultural and intellectual heritage if it is to bind its citizens together in a commonweal. It certainly must enable the citizens of this country to make informed judgments about the complex issues and events that characterize life in advanced economies at the end of the 20th century. The cost of not doing so may well be the gradual erosion of our democratic birthright . . . ."¹²

The Report goes on to state that "the skills needed now are not routine. Our economy will be increasingly dependent on people who have a good intuitive grasp of the ways in which all kinds of physical and social systems work."¹³ Further, "such people will have the need and the ability to learn all the time, as the knowledge required to do their work twists and turns with new challenges and the progress of science and technology. They will not come to the workplace knowing all they have to know, but knowing how to figure out what they need to know, where to get it, and how to make meaning out of it . . . . A knowledge based economy in which learning and real intellectual effort are not highly valued is a contradiction in terms . . . . Our argument, then, is simple. If our standard of living is to be maintained, if the growth of a permanent underclass is to be averted, if democracy is to function effectively in the next century, our schools must graduate the vast majority of their students with achievement levels long thought possible for only the privileged few."¹⁴

What is the nature of the education this Task Force envisions? Who are the faculty members that will provide it? We have focused first on reports supporting more curricular balance between individual and community needs. We have broadened our focus to include increasing demands of technical and vocational courses for curricular time. We have extended our thinking to statements identifying a national need for educational equity and excellence to provide for a secure economic and political future. A fourth issue - returning closer to home - is a possible shift in the character of the humanities and liberal arts studies.

New Ideologies vs. Traditional Liberal Arts Studies

There has been a shift in the thinking within the academic community which now gives equal weight to ideology and to traditional liberal humanism, the idea being that the study of such disciplines as literature, art, music, history, and politics can be viewed through the prismatic perspective of a political movement or the eyes of an oppressed minority. While many in the academic community find this approach stimulating, provocative, and invigorating, others are alarmed. They are deeply concerned about what they perceive as a shift from liberal humanism to new ideologies, and do not view the latter as a welcome additional perspective in a continuing dialogue. One of these scholars, Norman Cantor, sees proponents of the new ideologies as sharing "a faith in the authenticity and power of systems as opposed to the consciousness and values of the individual. [These new groups] believe that the individual is imbedded in a cultural, intellectual, moral structure, and that he is the end product, the object of the system that animates it. In their view, the individual cannot claim a separate identity and private value outside this system."¹⁵

Cantor believes that a set of social circumstances have brought this change in thinking into being: 1) the decline, economically, of the academic professions which has resulted in a shift in middle class intellectuals' professional interests, 2) affirmative action programs bringing into the academic community female and minority faculty members with different perspectives, and 3) the loss in power of political liberalism with which liberal humanism was related.

While Cantor seems to express one of the more extreme reactions to these new perspectives, it may nevertheless be useful to consider 1) the study of political and ideological systems and 2) an examination of culture and society as a means of considering the needs of various student constituencies in the United States and the educational needs of large segments of the population.

Determining the Content of Undergraduate Music Courses:
Challenges, Questions, and Proposals

"A perfection of means and confusion of aims seems to be our main problem." Albert Einstein

The Need for a More Comprehensive Perspective

The four issues previously raised bring us to the heart of many of the curricular questions regarding music: its ever expanding repertory. The curriculum needs to expand to include 1) musics other than those of the Western tradition, both folk and art, 2) Western folk musics and the vernacular tradition, and 3) the experimental directions of the expanding Western art music repertory. "No one mind can encompass the breadth of the music of Europe. We are now deluged with musical riches from many other cultures as well, and we have no generally accepted means for coping with that overwhelming blessing. Obviously, what to teach our students is a problem that has no national boundaries."¹

This issue involves not only curricular, but methodological questions. In addition, enlarging exposure to other Western music cultures has led to questions about the identification, ordering, and inclusiveness of the elements of music—the music concepts that we teach as musical knowledge. There is increasing suggestion that not only are music concepts (comprising verbally transmitted musical knowledge) not clearly ordered taxonomically, nor agreed upon in their application in analysis, but also that it is unclear what applicability traditional music concepts have across cultures. To the extent that they do not have applicability, there is a very large curricular question indeed.

Redefinition of Terms

The words we use perpetuate our institutions. We need to examine our language to see how it affects our curricular thoughts and actions as well as our curricular expectations and instructional strategies.

We must begin to look at our definition of "music," and consequently, our current assumptions about music. Items such as notation, the broadening or expansion of music concepts to include more musics, and the concepts specific to each music culture need our attention.

We must reconsider our definition of "musician," and consequently, our current assumptions about musicians and musicianship. Do we expect musicians to be able to be musically expressive in more than one repertory or to have cross cultural or transcultural music competence? How is that to be proven or demonstrated?

We must probe even further in considering how we define "music major" and "general student." We must distinguish how "music majors" and "general students" differ from each other, and then we must determine whether to teach them differently, and, if so, why, and in what way.

Who Will Teach?

The preparation of music educators for more comprehensive instruction is critical. We cannot start implanting in students a broader view of the world of music until teachers have some insight into the topic. Music specialists need additional training to further their understanding and confidence in teaching less familiar musics. Pre-service and in-service programs may need to be developed to foster greater knowledge of diverse musics and to consider strategies for their inclusion in the classroom.

We must also become more sophisticated about advising. We must persuade students that, as constantly developing musicians, they can rove the discipline and find true satisfaction, dignity, and outright pleasure in any number of musics and music professions.

Students today have some kinds of cultural literacy that we lack. The cognitive style of the "Video-Raised Generation," as we are coming to recognize, differs significantly from that of the post Gutenberg era. In order to communicate with these young people, we must understand their new perceptual and learning strategies. It will be of increasing significance to our profession and musical culture that many of the young faculty being hired today are part of the post-1970 generation. They share many of the musical values of our students, and those values will be taken into account as new curricula are shaped. The "new learner" describes also the "new professor," a person comfortably familiar with cultural diversity.

What the Music Student Needs to Know

The curriculum is shaped in the process of examining what the music student needs to know. In order to participate in the musical life of the United States, the Study Group believes the music student needs to develop seven essential competences:

1. a working knowledge of American musics—their history, literature, and sources in art and vernacular traditions;
2. an awareness of the pluralistic nature of most musical traditions—including Western art music;
3. an understanding of various music cultures from many perspectives—their value systems, logical relationships, grammar, structure, notations (if they exist) and, within their contexts, the relationship of music to other arts, religion, philosophy, and human values;
4. an ability to make music, by performance, improvisation, and composition, and preferably in more than one tradition;
5. an ability to perceive links and connections—by means of comparative studies—that synthesize and extrapolate information gained from different disciplines and specialties;
6. a familiarity with technology and the ability to consider the electronic age in aesthetic and humanistic, and scientific and mathematical, terms; and finally,
7. an understanding of the political, social, and economic factors which affect the arts disciplines in the United States and the rest of the world, in order to make informed decisions as performers, listeners, composers, consumers, and/or patrons, taxpayers, and voters.

Concluding Remarks

The issued raised In this report have been presented in an effort to foster a dialogue about the undergraduate curriculum and its implications for music in academia. It provides an opportunity to examine the undergraduate music curriculum fashioned in the 1920s, when "American institutions of higher education created a unique approach to the education and training of professional artists. This approach evolved from two premises: 1) that the arts must be an integral part of higher education, broadly conceived; [and] 2) that artists and teachers of the arts must have a liberal education."¹

Are these premises supported today?

Are there others we must agree upon as we look to the future?

Notes Concerning the Text

Introduction

¹The Study Group on the Content of the Undergraduate Music Curriculum reviewed five reports. (Where noted, the Study Groups used the version of the reports as published in The Chronicle of Higher Education.) "Text of New Report on Excellence in Undergraduate Education . . . . Text of 'Involvement in Learning: Realizing the Potential of American Higher Education,' " The Chronicle of Higher Education Volume XXIX, Number 9 (24 October 1984).
  " 'To Reclaim a Legacy': Text of Report on Humanities in Education . . . . Text of 'To Reclaim a Legacy,' a report written by William J. Bennett, chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. It was based on findings of the endowment's Study Group on the State of Learning in the Humanities in Higher Education," The Chronicle of Higher Education Volume XXIX, Number 14 (28 November 1984).
Ernest L. Boyer, College - The Undergraduate Experience in America: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1987).
  "Integrity in the College Curriculum. Text of the Report [of the Association of American Colleges] of the Project on Redefining the Meaning and Purpose of Baccalaureate Degrees," The Chronicle of Higher Education Volume XXIX, Number 22 (February 13, 1985).
  "A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century. Excerpts from the report by the Carnegie Forum's Task Force on Teaching as a Profession," as appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education Volume XXXII, Number 12 (May 21, 1986).

²William J. Bennett, as quoted in "To Reclaim a Legacy," p. 16.

³"Integrity," p. 18.

⁴"Text of New Report," p. 43, point 10. The same argument is made in "Integrity," p. 22, point 9.

⁵"Text of New Report," p. 45, point 16.

⁶"Integrity," p. 21, point 6.

⁷"Integrity," p. 22, point 9.

⁸"Integrity," p. 18. Emphases original.

⁹"Text of New Report," p. 41, point 2.

¹⁰"Integrity," p. 22, point 9.

¹¹"Integrity," p. 26.

¹²"Integrity," p. 22, point 9.

¹³"Integrity," p. 21, point 7.

The Undergraduate Music Environment: Challenges and Questions

¹William J. Bennett, "Remarks," Proceedings: The Sixty Second Annual Meeting. National Association of Schools of Music no. 75 (August 1987) p. 2.

The Undergraduate Music Curriculum and Its Academic Contexts:
Challenges and Questions

¹"Integrity," p. 21, point 7.

²Dennis O'Brien, "Inaugural Address," [photostat of typescript, 1 October 1984, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, p. 12.

³"Integrity," p. 21, point 7.

⁴Boyer, pp. 67 68.

⁵Boyer, p. 91.

⁶Frank H. T Rhodes, as quoted in Boyer, p. 91.

⁷Boyer, p. 85.

⁸Boyer, p. 86.

⁹Boyer, p. 102.

¹⁰"A Nation Prepared," p. 44.

¹¹Ibid.

¹²Ibid.

¹³Ibid.

¹⁴"A National Prepared," p. 45, columns 1 2.

¹⁵Norman Cantor, "The Real Crisis in the Humanities Today," The New Criterion (June 1985), p. 29.

Determining the Content of Undergraduate Music Courses:
Challenges, Questions, and Proposals

¹Henry L. Cady, "Seeking a Theory for Music Education," Music Educators Journal LXV no. 9 (May 1979) p. 35.

Concluding Remarks

¹The Arts, Liberal Education, and the Undergraduate Curriculum, (Reston, VA: Working Group on the Arts in Higher Education, n. d.) p. 15.

A Survey of National Practice
Introduction

During the last decade, music faculties in higher education have been increasingly concerned about education in music at the undergraduate level for those students who are not intending to make music their career. "Music in General Studies" has been used as a collective label to describe this "coursework in music conceived for non music majors."

A series of events occurred during the 1980s that underscores this concern. The National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) completed a major revision of accreditation standards in 1979; the Wingspread Conference was held in 1981; the Dearborn Conference on Music in General Studies, jointly sponsored by NASM and The College Music Society (CMS), was held in 1983; and the Institute for Music in General Studies was begun in 1982.

Early in 1982, a NASM/CMS questionnaire was developed and distributed to over 2,500 music units in higher education in order to provide a basis for discussion and consideration of curriculum policy. This 1982 questionnaire requested data from fall, 1981, student enrollments, faculty assignments, and course offerings. It focused on the following issues related to music in general studies: 1) academic music courses, 2) faculty assigned to teach these courses, 3) performance opportunities for students other than music majors, and 4) general policies regarding music in general studies. The results of that questionnaire were presented to the profession by NASM and CMS in September, 1983, in a printed report entitled Music in General Studies: A Survey of National Practice in Higher Education.¹ This report was intended to provide information for discussion of music in general studies at the Dearborn Conference.

In 1986, the CMS Study Group on the Content of the Undergraduate Music Curriculum was appointed by CMS President Phillip Rhodes to initiate a continuing dialogue regarding curricular and instructional issues impacting music in higher education. The report of the Study Group appears in the beginning of this publication. The collection of data which could provide further information for continuing deliberations accompanies the report.

Early in 1989, the 1982 NASM/CMS Music in General Studies Questionnaire was revised and re issued. It requested responses from institutions based on fall, 1988, student enrollments, faculty assignments, and course offerings. At the same time, an additional, newly constructed CMS Music in General Studies Questionnaire was sent to members of The College Music Society who had indicated a primary or secondary interest in music in general studies. The report that follows presents data with a general discussion of the results of both the 1982 and 1989 questionnaires and the 1989 CMS Music in General Studies Questionnaire.

Before proceeding with the report, two caveats must be stated. First, the information that appears below attempts to provide an accurate, comprehensive account of the questionnaire responses. Though descriptive statistics are provided which detail the information received, it is not to be assumed that the respondents or responses to the questionnaires can be construed to be a statistically valid representative sample of music schools or practices in the United States. This is made especially clear by the relatively low response rate to the questionnaires sent out, which may suggest that only those individuals or institutions who felt compelled to contribute to the effort took the time to complete the lengthy questionnaire.

As a result of these concerns, we feel that it is important to state explicitly that no attempt is being made to suggest that these data can or should be applied in such a way that they either directly inform, or by themselves suggest, curricular—let alone educational—policy. On the other hand, 434 respondents represents a large sample in almost any context, and we would be foolish to ignore the wealth of information contained in the data.

There is a second caveat regarding the following report. In the 1989 questionnaire, there are questions which not all respondents answered. Whether the person completing the survey did not have the information necessary or there was a lack of time to complete the form is unknown. Whatever the reason, this factor further complicates the report of the results. Hence, a determination has been made. With absolute consistency, percentages, in addition to numbers of responses, have been provided. In every case, these percentages have been figured on the basis of those responding to each individual item—not to the total respondents to the 1989 questionnaire. This was done in order to provide unedited information which could be informative without falsely appearing to provide an accurate statistical basis for comparison between the 1982 and 1989 questionnaires, or between any individual items. Since we cannot determine the similarity between the 1989 data and that from the 1982 questionnaire, we can only compare these two bodies of information in general terms. Although the dangers involved in comparing two uncorrelated sets of information are recognized, we nevertheless have two large bodies of data, gathered through the use of virtually the same instrument at two different times. Though no formal correlation may be drawn, we need not ignore the information contained therein, nor any insights, however limited, provided by their comparison. It is hoped that this report can identify areas to be investigated in a more controlled statistical study.

Finally, in discussing the two bodies of data from the 1982 and 1989 questionnaires, the format of the original report has been changed—in spite of the fact that it cannot be stated with certainty how the 1982 figures that provide information for the graphics were obtained. Again, the objective is to make the information clear to the eye, recognizing that the two caveats already stated are in force throughout the report.

¹Music in General Studies: A Survey of National Practice in Higher Education. Published jointly by The College Music Society and the National Association of Schools of Music, 1982. Charts designated "1982" herein have been reproduced from the 1982 publication.

A Survey of National Practice
1982 and 1989 Music in General Studies Questionnaires

• Course Information
• Music in General Studies Faculty
• Performance Opportunities for the General College Student
• Requirements in Music for the Non-Major
• Issues in Music in General Studies

COURSE INFORMATION

A. Music Appreciation or Equivalent

In response to questions requesting information about the basic survey course(s) conceived for students who are not music majors, respondents in both the 1982 and 1989 questionnaires indicate that their institutions provide at least one section of music appreciation. A higher percentage of the respondents to the 1989 questionnaire indicated that such a survey course is offered, although the percentage of public 4-year colleges responding did not notably increase.

In terms of number of sections, the 1989 response appears to indicate some slight increases in the number of sections of basic survey or appreciation courses offered.

There seemed to be a tendency to move away from organizing course content solely around elements of musics or composers. Chronological organization of courses, as well as combinations of chronology, elements of music, composer, genres, and alternative rubrics were similar in percentages of responses between the two questionnaires. See Appendix 1 for a sample of other approaches to course organization reported in 1989.

B. Basic Theory Course or Equivalent
The data reveal a remarkable consistency regarding the offering of theory or equivalent courses for students other than music majors. A slight increase in percentage of 2 year private schools reporting such offerings can be noted, keeping in mind the extremely small sample.

Note the consistency in the number of sections of theory courses reported in 1982 and 1989.

C. Music History Courses Conceived for the Non Music Major Data regarding courses more advanced and more specialized than music appreciation survey courses were requested in both questionnaires. In the report of the 1982 questionnaire, the popularity of jazz and American music was noted. Also noted was the fact that "a number of institutions report that they offer non Western music as a course for the non music major (37 courses involving 1,359 students)" even though this type of course was not included in the response option for the 1982 questionnaire. Two categories of courses were added to the 1989 questionnaire ("NonWestern" and "Other") which accounted for a significant number of responses. These data may be seen in Chart 4.

MUSIC IN GENERAL STUDIES FACULTY

The 1982 survey reported that 57% of the faculty members teaching courses for the general college student were tenured. The data from 1989, allowing for differences in number of respondents, indicate that there has been no significant change in the status distribution of faculty members teaching music in general studies courses.

PERFORMANCE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE GENERAL COLLEGE STUDENT

As can be observed from the data on Chart 6, there has been remarkable consistency in the data across these surveys.

REQUIREMENTS IN MUSIC FOR THE NON MUSIC MAJOR

Keeping in mind the difference in number of respondents, there was a slight increase in the 1989 percentage of respondents who reported the requirement of at least one course in an arts discipline for all undergraduates. The percentage was not appreciably different in those reporting the specific requirement of a music course, and at least one other arts course. There was an increase in percentage of respondents from all institutions requiring concert attendance for undergraduates enrolled in music in general studies courses, despite differences in numbers of respondents between the two surveys.

The percentage of respondents whose faculty colleagues participated in team taught, interdisciplinary courses conceived for non-music majors was not reported in the discussion of the 1982 survey. Twenty-eight percent of 1989 respondents indicated that this cooperative effort was occurring in their institutions, with 35% of the private 4-year colleges leading in percentage within this category: Twenty one percent of the 1989 respondents indicated the existence of innovative courses, approaches, or techniques in their music in general studies programs. Again, the private 4-year college respondents represented the highest percentage (32%) of those indicating that they have such courses. The data from this section of the questionnaires can be seen in Chart 7.

ISSUES IN MUSIC IN GENERAL STUDIES

The figures in Chart 8 reflect the percentage of respondents indicating that they had either a marginal or major problem with the designated aspect of their program as it was stated on the questionnaires. As an example, 45% of the respondents in 1982 and 46% in 1989 stated that funding was the greatest problem to the Music in General Studies program. This composite figure may neglect some of the reported information in, for example, the case of the "classroom space" and "equipment" information reported below. Though a larger percentage of respondents indeed reported some type of problem with "equipment," a greater percentage reported that "classroom space" was a major problem than did reporting "equipment" (13% vs. 10%) as a problem.

In addition, there are large differences in all of the top three problem areas between private and public institutions. Twice as many public institutions as private reported major problems with "funding" (18% vs. 9%). More than three times as many public institutions reported major problems with "classroom space" than did private institutions (18% vs. 5%). The percentages indicating positive aspects of music in general studies were accompanied by responses that labeled the same aspects as negative. This information appears in Chart 8.

Addenda to the 1982 Questionnaire

• Course Information
• Indications of Changes
• Degree of Emphasis on Contextual and Interdisciplinary References
• Range of Music Repertories Utilized in Music Courses
• Arts and General Education Requirements
• Faculty Teaching Music in General Studies Courses
• Goals of Music in General Studies Courses
• Level of Commitment to Music in General Studies
• Students
• Areas of Most Concern in Music in General Studies
• Other Music History Courses Conceived for the General Student
• Class Lessons for the General Student
• Policies and Plans for Music in General Studies

COURSE INFORMATION

There was a twenty nine item addendum to the original questionnaire which was circulated to institutions and to CMS members identifying themselves as having some teaching responsibility in music in general studies courses. The issues probed in this addendum included 1) indication of changes in cultural diversity of the student population, recruitment of students for courses, instructional techniques, materials and resources, 2) degree of emphasis on contextual or interdisciplinary references in music in general studies courses, 3) range of music repertories appearing in these courses, 4) arts and general education requirements, 5) characteristics, commitment, existing and desired training opportunities, and evaluation of music in general studies faculty, and 6) curricular goals of the music in general studies program.

The types and number of institutions represented in the individual questionnaire responses can be seen below.

(To facilitate presentation of data, the institutional categories will henceforth be referred to by the abbreviations in parentheses above. Figures in parentheses following institutional abbreviation refer to the total number of institutions from that category responding to the individual question being discussed.)

INDICATIONS OF CHANGES

A. Cultural Diversity of Student Population
Reports of observed increase in cultural diversity of student population follow. The responses are divided into changes noted in music in general studies classes and classes for music majors. As predicted in some reports, some changes were observed in both categories, with slightly more change noted in music in general studies classes.

B. Instructional Techniques
Information was received from some institutions suggesting that traditional instructional techniques or strategies were less effective than in the past. Indeed, that observation was noted in the responses provided in the chart below, suggesting that this could be an area for further, more detailed study.

There is an indication that new instructional techniques are being incorporated, as can be seen in the following chart.

Categories of instruction in which change of instructional techniques was reported are presented below. Figures in parentheses refer to the number of respondents who indicate that a change has been made in that category of instructional techniques. Overall rank order of categories is indicated in boldface type and was determined by total figures. Boldface figures (1-10) within institutional group columns indicate ranking of that category for that group.

Other categories of new instructional materials and resources identified in responses included attendance at local performances, videotapes and other audiovisual aids, syllabi, and writing labs.

D. Materials and/or Resources
The extent of utilization of different instructional materials and resources in order to increase instructional effectiveness was reported as follows:

The use of new instructional materials and resources were reported in the following categories. Again, figures in parentheses refer to the number of respondents who indicated that a change has been made in that category of instructional materials and resources. Overall rank order of the categories is indicated in boldface and was determined by total figures. Boldface figures (1-9) within institutional group columns indicate ranking of that category for that group.

Other categories of new instructional materials and resources identified in responses included attendance at local performances, videotapes and other audiovisual aids, syllabi, and writing labs.

DEGREE OF EMPHASIS ON CONTEXTUAL AND INTERDISCIPLINARY REFERENCES

A. Emphasis on Social Context
In response to a question about the extent to which the social context (including history, geography, socio-cultural traditions) was used to situate information in music in general studies courses, the following information was provided.

Extent to which the social context was emphasized to situate information in courses for music majors can be found below.

B. Emphasis on Interdisciplinary References
In music in general studies courses, emphasis on interdisciplinary references was reported as follows:

In courses for music majors, emphasis on interdisciplinary references was reported as indicated in the chart below.

C. Extent to Which Value Systems are Directly or Indirectly Addressed
The chart below reveals data concerning the perception of respondents regarding the extent to which value systems are directly or indirectly addressed in music in general studies courses.

Compare the above with the following chart regarding perceptions of the extent to which value systems are addressed in courses for music majors.

RANGE OF MUSIC REPERTORIES UTILIZED IN MUSIC COURSES

A. Knowledge of American Musics
There were several questions examining this issue. With regard to the question of whether specific knowledge of American musics was an expectation in music in general studies courses, the respondents answered as follows:

This can be compared with the responses regarding the expectation of knowledge of American music in courses for music majors.

B. Making Music in More than One Tradition
The following chart reveals responses to a question asking whether the development or refinement of a student's ability to make music in more than one music tradition was emphasized in music in general studies courses.

Regarding courses for music majors, the responses are quite different.

C. Emphasis on Music of Women Composers
The response to the question concerning emphasis on the music of women composers in music in general studies classes is as follows:

Except for the responses from independent schools of music, figures are very similar regarding the amount of emphasis on the music of women composers in courses for music majors.

D. Repertories Covered in Music in General Studies Classes
Respondents were asked to indicate from a provided list the music repertories that are covered in music in general studies courses by placing the repertories in order of thoroughness of coverage. The results can be seen in the following chart. Larger numbers indicate more thorough coverage. Repertories are listed in descending order of coverage based on totals. Boldface figures (1-13) within institutional group columns indicate ranking of coverage of that category for that group.

With regard to world music included in courses other than those identified as world music courses, the following responses were generated.

In response to the request for identification of courses in which musical examples from world music cultures are included, such courses were listed as Music Appreciation, Music History, Music Literature, History of Jazz, Theory, Choir, Band, American Music, Electronic Music, and Musical Theater. Music education, general education, humanities and interdisciplinary courses, including interdisciplinary arts, were also mentioned. By far the most frequently mentioned categories were music appreciation, music literature, music education, and history of music, in that order.

E. Number of Different Repertory Survey Courses Offered Primarily for Non Majors
The percentage figure following the institutional abbreviation in the following chart of responses represents the percentage of respondent institutions in that category which stated that they offered such courses (e.g., 92% of departments in liberal arts colleges responding [259 of 281] indicated that they offered at least one repertory survey course primarily for non majors). The figures in the columns that follow represent the percentage offering only one such class, between two and four such classes, and so on. These percentages are based not on total respondent institutions but only on those indicating that they offer such classes (e.g., 5% of responding departments in liberal arts colleges which offer repertory survey courses primarily for non majors [14 of 259] offer between five and seven such courses).

The percentage of non major survey courses indicated above which have multiple sections can be seen in the chart on the following page. In this case, the number following the institutional abbreviation represents the percentage of those respondent institutions in that category who previously stated that they offered repertory survey courses primarily for non majors and also indicated that at least one of these non major repertory survey courses had multiple sections (e.g., 67% of departments in liberal arts colleges offering such courses [173 out of 259] indicated that at least one of these courses had multiple sections). The figures in the columns that follow represent the percentage in which only one such class had multiple sections, between two and four such classes had multiple sections, and so on. Similarly, these percentages are based, not on the total figure from the previous chart, but only on those indicating that at least one of these non major repertory survey courses had multiple sections (e.g., 21% of responding departments in liberal arts colleges which offered repertory survey courses primarily for non majors that had multiple sections [37 of 173] had between two and four such classes).

ARTS AND GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS

The following chart contains responses to the question asking whether arts requirements are in place in geographical areas represented by responding institutions.

PERCENTAGE OF REQUIRED CREDITS IN GENERAL EDUCATION COURSES

The percentage of required credits in general education courses in categories of responding institutions can be found in the following chart.

FACULTY TEACHING MUSIC IN GENERAL STUDIES COURSES

A. Faculty Status
It was evident from the range of responses to this portion of the questionnaire that this question was unclear to a large number of respondents. Only those responses which were obviously consistent with the intent of the question were analyzed. Though this may have excluded some valid responses, it also removed the possibility of misinterpreting a response which may have been the result of not understanding the question. Figures in parentheses following the institutional abbreviation indicate the number of responses on which the percentages for that category are based. The total figures are not an average of the percentages above them. The total figures are a result of weighting the responses of categories of institutions to reflect their relative contribution to the total. For example, the percentages from the liberal arts category received 219/33 more weight than those of the independent schools of music category.

B. Background
Background required for teachers of music in general studies courses was reported to be as follows:

C. Special Training Requirements
The chart below indicates responses as to whether teachers of music in general studies courses are required to undertake special training of any kind.

Of those respondents who stated that special training was encouraged for teachers of music in general studies, the most common form of encouragement was financial support for training (83 respondents), followed by considerations for promotion (40 respondents), merit credit toward salary (33 respondents), and some other form of encouragement (18 respondents). Note that individual respondents could specify more than one form of encouragement.

D. Evaluation of Instruction
In answer to the question of whether evaluation of instruction was required for teachers of music in general studies courses, the following responses appeared:

E. Faculty Assistance
The question of how assistance might best be provided to teachers of courses in music in general studies elicited the following responses. Figures in parentheses refer to the number of respondents indicating that the listed form of assistance would be helpful to their faculty. Overall rank order of categories is indicated in boldface and was determined by total figures. Boldface figures (1 7) within institutional group columns indicate ranking of that category for that group.

Categories of assistance suggested by respondents include circulating syllabi from other institutions, research, visiting scholars, access to appropriate equipment, availability of recordings, idea banks, identification of groups with similar interests and needs, clarification of goals, short summer workshops, administrative encouragement, and funds to support experimentation with new formats, techniques, and equipment.

GOALS OF MUSIC IN GENERAL STUDIES COURSES

Responses to categories provided in a request for identification of goals of music in general studies courses appear on the following page. Figures in parentheses refer to the number of respondents indicating that the listed achievement is a goal of their music in general studies courses. Overall rank order of categories is indicated in boldface and was determined by total figures. Boldface figures (117) within institutional group columns indicate ranking of that category for that group.

Alternative goals added to the questionnaire by respondents included knowledge of historical chronology, listening skills, knowledge of world music cultures, understanding cultural pluralism, building non major performance ensembles, interdisciplinary research, enjoying music, music appreciation, aesthetic awareness, and critical thinking. Such goals as preparing future patrons or board members for their role in the support and maintenance of musical institutions was also mentioned.

LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO MUSIC IN GENERAL STUDIES

The following chart identifies the level of commitment reported by respondents to the music in general studies curriculum.

STUDENTS

Responses indicating the extent to which students are actively recruited for music in general studies classes follow.

Perceptions of changes in number of students enrolled in music in general studies courses appear in the chart below.

AREAS OF MOST CONCERN IN MUSIC IN GENERAL STUDIES

Categories of response to this open ended question include 1) changes in social context which are affecting the nature of and support for arts education; 2) changes in student population and enrollment patterns, and cultural diversity issues; 3) content areas in which courses are needed and in which respondents are not prepared; 4) deficiencies in student background, experience, and motivation; and 5) lack of equipment, materials, and resources perceived as necessary for successful instruction.

The questionnaire allowed for a lengthy response to the question of areas of concern within music in general studies. Issues were raised that should receive more attention than is possible in this report. These will need to be examined as a part of the continuing dialogue regarding music in general studies.

OTHER MUSIC HISTORY COURSES CONCEIVED FOR THE GENERAL STUDENT

In the first section of the Music in General Studies Questionnaire, the respondents were asked what other music history courses, conceived for the general student, were offered beyond the music appreciation course or equivalent. Among the courses listed were:

CLASS LESSONS FOR THE GENERAL STUDENT

In answer to the question regarding areas in which class lessons are offered for non music majors, the following are areas summarizing all responses beyond piano, voice, and guitar:

Instrumental, including brass, woodwinds, and strings
Synthesizer
Puerto Rican Music

POLICIES AND PLANS FOR MUSIC IN GENERAL STUDIES

Responding to requests for identification of unusual programs the following team taught and interdisciplinary courses were listed as examples of those offered:

Humanities
American Music and History
Introduction to Music Combined with Introductions to Theater
Musical Theater
Word and Sacrament
Early Childhood Development
Music and Math
Music and Psychology
Honors Seminar
Musical Acoustics (with Physics)
Technology and the Arts
Integrated Fine Arts for Scholars
Arts in Western Civilization
Thought and Image
Cross Cultural Studies
Jazz and American Culture
Music and Politics
East Asian Studies
American Studies
Future Studies
Russian Area Studies
The Honors Program
Moral Issues in the Fine Arts
Musical Awareness
Music Listening Lab
Speech
World Thought and Culture
A New Song: Biblical Texts and Their Musical Settings
Foundation of Aesthetic Experience
Native American Studies
Aesthetics: Creation
Aesthetics: Interpretation

Among the innovative courses or projects mentioned were the following:

Introduction to Music (Purchase of course syllabus and tickets to three concerts generates funds for campus chamber music and recital series)
Computer Assisted Instruction
Electronic Music Credit for Attending a Required Number of Performances
Videotape Assisted Instruction Music for Non Native Speakers
Music in Popular Culture
Music and Society
Music and Media
Folk Instrument Building
Journal Writing
Collaborative Papers and Projects
Theory Through Composition and Performance
Women and Music
Computers in Music
Videodisc Assisted Instruction
Videodisc Series Hispanic Component
Guest Lectures and Performances
Creative Music
Electronic/ Experimental Music
History of Rock and Roll
Nature, Sound, and Music
Compositional Assignments (from Assignments to Study of Music Elements)
Taped, Programmed Instruction
Music in Contemporary Life

Concluding Remarks

Despite the difference in numbers and identity of respondents to the 1982 and 1989 questionnaires, noteworthy consistency in the data obtained indicates one of at least three possibilities:

1. it may be that there is no perceived need to change courses being offered, how they are organized, who teaches them, and the extent to which there are performance opportunities for students who are not music majors;
2. considering the changes occurring in music and music performance technology, it may be that there is a remarkable resistance to change in music in general studies courses, organization, faculty, and performance opportunities across the United States; or
3. it may be that there are a lack of economic and instructional resources and advanced training for faculty which are impeding a response to a perceived need for change.

In terms of the questionnaire addenda, the responses generally indicate some change in cultural diversity noticed in student populations along with a perceived need for some changes in teaching strategies. Some changes in instructional techniques are noted, including, in rank order, instructional aids, presentation of information, use of examples, nature of assignments, student participation, introduction of material, motivational techniques, feedback to the students, and size of class. Changes were also noted in extent of utilization of different instructional materials and resources. In rank order, these were in the categories of instructional technology, texts, assignments, goals and objectives, repertory, guest artists, guest lectures, and workbooks.

The extent to which social context and interdisciplinary references are given a major emphasis to situate information is greater overall in music in general studies courses than in courses for music majors. However, the extent to which value systems are directly or indirectly addressed is reported to be relatively greater in courses for music majors than in music in general studies courses.

Knowledge of American musics is reportedly expected of music in general studies students to a slightly greater extent than music majors. There is a more significant difference in the emphasis on development or refinement of the music major's ability to make music in more than one music tradition than was observed with music in general studies students. Courses for music in general studies students and music majors seem to be equal in their neglect of music by women composers. Music repertories involved in music in general studies courses are consistent across institutional responses, and appear in these ranked categories: symphonic literature, concerto, opera, choral music, American music, contemporary music, jazz, world music, popular music, musical theatre, folk, and rock. Contemporary music seems to receive more emphasis in independent schools of music, and world music is included in courses other than those which focus on world music in somewhat less than half of all categories of institutions.

A healthy percentage of high schools with arts requirements are reported in the geographical areas of questionnaire respondents. Even stronger percentages of colleges are reported to have an arts requirement. This may be an area for further study, since details regarding these requirements were not obtained.

Most music in general studies courses are taught by full time faculty members who have both teaching experience and advanced degrees. Responses indicate that they are not required to take specialized training of any kind. Evaluation of instruction is common in these classes across all institutions. Types of assistance identified to improve instruction varied somewhat depending upon the type of institution. However, the top four categories were, in order, summer institutes, videotapes, publications, and conference presentations. Surveys were the least favored of the choices for offering assistance to teachers of music in general studies courses.

The nature of goals for music in general studies courses appears to be common across respondents with greater emphasis on expanding music repertory in independent schools of music. Goals include, in order emphasized in responses: building future audiences, increasing music literacy, expanding known or familiar repertory, developing analytic skills, providing opportunities for musical expression, and considering theoretical aspects. Commitment to music in general studies within the undergraduate curriculum appears to continue to be strong. Numbers of students remain the same, or are slightly increasing, in courses labeled as music in general studies. Most institutions are not actively recruiting students for these courses at this time.

The purpose of this report has been to provide data regarding the undergraduate music curriculum. It is hoped that this report will stimulate continued discussion regarding the study of music, the cultural leadership we provide, and our curricular needs as we enter the twenty first century.