I received the following article (http://www.economist.com/books/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=11959117) in the mail from my grandmother today. In her accompanying letter she wrote:
"If music is so influential in our lives and society, then in the classroom it should be as important as English or Math. Do you know of any organized effort in the musical world whose goal is to pursue this idea? I believe with Plato that music is anchored in moral and political reality or 'that music-making are forces for social and political good' and most importantly that "everything is connected". Of course, there is no one as ignorant as I am about music!!!"
She then asked me if people were making more music and art, would we have less of a war-like society?
Two interesting things here:
1. Does anyone have a response to these questions?
2. The fact that ‘non-musician’ feel compelled to qualify their statements about music with a sentence like the above. (Much like the critics Levine complains of!) Do you encounter this in conversations with others? Does it make you wonder how we define ‘musician’ and what the prevailing beliefs are about this definition?
Check out the article in its entirety, but here’s the first paragraph to peak your interest!
"For Plato the art of music was so firmly anchored in moral and political reality that any alteration to the musical system would necessarily require a corresponding political shift. Two and a half millennia later, when classical music is generally seen as a high-class lifestyle accessory, Plato’s conception seems outlandish, even absurd. To be sure, most people involved in classical music today consider their art to be of profound cultural importance, but there are very few who are able to articulate this convincingly."