…the very next day…
by Jonathan Andrew Govias
No, I didn’t think this particular cat “was a goner“, but it seems my previous posting has been more than a little controversial. (Note to readers: please use the comment form below rather than e-mailing me directly, otherwise it looks like I’m censoring, which I’m not. The debate isn’t just healthy, but necessary, and I invite it. Using the comment function also saves me the trouble of transcribing/transporting comments when I try to respond.)
In my last posting I started providing some context and explanation for my criteria, but conscious of the length at which I’d written, ultimately desisted. I shouldn’t have: this is a topic worth exploring in some depth. In short, every point reflects some combination of both differentiation and adaptation – not differentiation from Venezuela, but from the plethora of highly sophisticated, very worthwhile musical activity already taking place in Western Classical pedagogical traditions, and the evolution or transformation required to represent the ideals of el Sistema accurately.
1) Mission – there’s a very clear differentiation here. The Western classical pedagogical tradition is geared exclusively to the production of musical excellence, something it does extremely well. The idea of advancing social change to a point of equality with musical excellence at the level of mission represents in and of itself a radical shift in thinking.
2) Method – here’s another major point of divergence. Music education in the developed world focuses on the training and advancement of the individual, with ensemble music a very distant second. El Sistema inverts this entirely.
3) Frequency – Perhaps the most clear-cut of all differentiators, classical music education right now is structured almost universally to a frequency of contact once a week: one private lesson a week, perhaps one orchestra or choral rehearsal a week, and no more. While it may seem unduly black and white, requiring a frequency of anything more than once a week basically doubles the existing level of musical activity and contact, and represents a major step forward.
4) Affordability – Let’s face it, classical music instruction is extremely expensive, and thus is the near-exclusive purview of the financially privileged. Most of the existing conservatory, youth orchestra and similar programs operate on tuition-based models, and what financial aid is available is always awarded based on competitive audition. Ironically, winning those auditions requires significant financial investment before the fact, creating something of a vicious circle. I don’t think everything has to be free, however. It isn’t in Venezuela, and we have to be conscious of North American financial realities too. Basing fees on the ability to pay is one of a few ways this could be addressed, but the bottom line is that no one should be turned away because of lack of means.
5) Non-selectivity -back to those auditions again. For many orchestras or musical programs, if the musician doesn’t pass the audition, that’s where it ends. Note that I didn’t say that it’s incumbent upon el Sistema organizations to accommodate every applicant, only to facilitate the process of finding an appropriate outlet in which they can play. This is a reflection of the fact that there is an existing, highly sophisticated music education industry in America, wonderful in its own right, rather than the vacuum in which Dr. Abreu built the program in Venezuela, and that the creation of connections is one of the most powerful ways in which our organizations can support these ideals without departing from their artistic missions or ceding autonomy.
I don’t expect this elaboration to resolve the issue entirely, nor is my position on these immutable. All I’ve attempted to do is set the bar, and set it high but also realistically, in relation to where we as an industry currently stand. Once we’ve met the standard, I sincerely hope and expect it will rise again.
I would like to hear this debate as much as you would. It will not wound me mortally if someone even dares to disagree with me completely. I welcome the struggle with words.
The YOLA Symposium in LA was inspiring. I needed to meet people who are interested in what I’m passionate about. I needed to hear the enthusiastic conversation coming from fellow practitioners from across the country and around the world. But a small voice inside me reminds me that there are some conversations that we did not have the time to pursue.
Maestro Govias’s cat reminds me that there is a parallel cat looking me in the face as I teach children from my urban community in California. There are paradoxes in what immigrant parents want for their children to accomplish in their new world and how much they still hang on to what they left behind. After working so hard to become these new kind of Americans there is that nostalgia for old world arts and values. First generation immigrants are at moments more ethnically expressive in their new home than they had the opportunity to be in their old world.
In the struggle to learn new values and thrive in the new environment can we keep what is admirable about our ethnic inheritance and some how use it to enhance what is already great about the North American adventure?
How many times have I seen my students torn between the values of individualism which they are learning from US culture and the values of inclusiveness and consensus which they continue to accommodate in the environment of parents and grand parents? When I set the bar high for what I expected students to achieve for each basic musical skill there was the misunderstanding that this would be a competitive environment that immigrant children would find too difficult. When I required everyone from all levels to share the same group lesson in addition to their skill level classes there was the confusion and disbelief that the children of diverse ages and levels could learn from each another. How was I going to keep everyone motivated to pay attention if they were not receiving direct instruction from me at every moment?
Even though I am working primarily with families of Latin American decent it has taken me 3 years to create a culture of cooperative education in which we are all learning from one another in the environment. My younger students and their parents are inspired by the accomplishments of more experienced students. My older students are learning how to give back as role models. My more advanced students and their parents are no longer threatened when I bring even more advanced students from my more developed Suzuki program in Irvine. What would be ideal is if I could find a facility near the freeway which divides both of these communities so they could meet regularly once or twice a month in addition to the other two classes I require of them. When I work with these students now they are all on the same team ready to go to work.
In addition to this cultural cat which I brought into the El Sistema room I am conflicted about the economic diversity we are able to serve at this time. My intentions where to serve an undeserved population which I imagined as economically challenged families in Santa Ana with at risk children. The Center where we are based is technically open to everyone regardless of income. Our director has often asked parents who can not afford the nominal tuition to volunteer their time. This means that parents who are already working 2 or 3 pastime jobs are also helping to clean and do other jobs to keep the center running.
In theory this is a really great idea that creates a sense of commitment and ownership. But now that the economy has tanked and has devastated the reliability of employment for working class and blue collar labor in Orange County, asking this much may not be a workable solution. It has been quite difficult for these families to stay in the program even when it is offered for free based on consistent attendance. The working poor and under employed now find it difficult to compete with the middle class participants in the program because it is so difficult to stay in the community long enough to have the required consistent attendance.
I find myself praying that I can find someway to get more violins of the smaller sizes before some of the families who had to leave, return again when the economy stabilizes. Fortunately we offer other instruments based on a rather working class, meritocratic enrollment system. As I said before, it is not intended to be based on income or musical ability. We also offer music therapy and instruction for special needs children. There have been some special students in the Suzuki Violin classes. Raising even one child with special needs is yet another level of burden that these families sometimes must cope with. Ideally I wish we had a violin for every child that manages to graduate from their PreTwinkle Class which includes all of the rhythm activities and paper violin activities I saw on your blogs about the Venezuelan programs and then some.
Currently, all the tuition collected is needed to cover the facilities we are using. Much of the equipment is donated. I am volunteering all of my instruction time. As director of this program I am hard pressed to find ways to fund more instruments of playable quality. I am surprised how much progress these students are making in the face of the instruction time I am able to provide. God knows I keep finding ways to sneak in extra minutes with them, especially the older ones who didn’t get to start as preschoolers.
There is a part of me that worries that it will not be enough to get past this initial phase. Where should we be looking for funders who are inspired to provide seed money or matching funds that will embrace our inclusive, cooperative, non competitive values. Do you think for one minute I’m not going to exploit the cuteness factor of Latin American 5 year olds playing Twinkle to get more violins? While 12 violins is not enough to create the peer groups I would like to have at each level or the momentum this program needs to reach a significant number of children, we have learned much about how to go about creating an environment that strives for excellence. That being said, we are reminded every day that it is not so much about the level of our performance as the process that is constantly being developed.
How honest can we risk being on our next grant application in a world that wants to fund the activities of older students who are being measured by the merits of their performances?
What hope do we have of influencing the culture of funding sources for the arts in the US?
(I am already guilty of sneaking 3-year-olds into Symphony Concert Halls. Don’t tell the fire martial)