The Multimedia Technologies Applications indd

Society vs. Music Education
Michal Košut
The general notion that everything related to something new shall be benefi cial, is 
the main moving force of the twentieth century. As past centuries developed rather in 
line of evolution, shaken by revolutionary events from time to time, the principle of 
revolution is the main moving force of the 20th century. The principle of fl uent natu-
ral evolution, at least a little predictable as described by Isaac Newton in physics and 
Carl Marx in philosophy, founded on a qualitative change that followed a series of 
partial quantitative changes, was in the political and cultural life of the 20th century 
replaced by the involuntary revolutionary moves, often in no relation to one another. 
The principle of revolution was the main mover in all aspects of human life in the 
20th century.
This phenomenon led to the turbulent inventions in the area of technical develo-
pment. Yet, the principle of turbulent changes concerns art, as well. In past centuries, 
the development was gradual and it is interesting to see how the intervals of indivi-
dual epochs shortened. The era of Gregorian chants and organum lasted 600 years, 
vocal polyphony lasted 350 years, instrumental counterpoint 200 years, classical 
homophony 90 years, romanticism approx. 80 years. All substantial changes in the 
history of music till the end of 20th century happened after the withdrawal of the 
technological and listener materials. At the same time, two kinds of composers coexi-
sted for all the time: besides innovators of Beethoven type, there were also synthetists 
of Händel and Dvořák type or genius Mozart, unique for his synthetic abilities as well 
as for being a great innovator.
This natural and, more or less, gradual development markedly changed in the 
20th century. So called ‘avant garde’ was institutionalized, its objective was to keep 
on changing. The shift forward was absolutely preferred to the acceptability to lis-
teners, which led to the schizophrenic situation of doing art for art, leading on to the 
piteous situation of fumbling post-modernism. Artists’ talent was replaced by their 
obligation to shock – no matter how, by what and in whatever conditions. The struc-
ture, process of elaboration or ideology are absolutely superior to the perception and 
opinion of the art by the listener. And so it happened that the Schoenberg’s saying 
that the listener is just an acoustic complement of the hall to him, is nowadays just 
a little fl ippancy.
This situation in art is a consequence of a permanent revolution with lack of time 
to digest the change. Instead, one change is automatically replaced by another. This 
situation in so called ‘classical music of the 20th century’ brought about the loss of 
communication with the listener, whose relationship with the composer gradually 
became extremely antagonistic. The natural line of European culture that had existed 

---

30
M
ICHAL
K
OŠUT
here since early Christian period was disturbed, and in just a few decades, something 
completely discontinuous emerged. In the eye of a present visitor of classical con-
certs, there is just one music culture that ends in the period of Janáček or Stravinský, 
and all newer radical attempts of composers are observed as a sui generis product that 
has nothing to do with the past.
And what are the consequences of all of that? In the eighties of the 20th century, 
it was still clear to all in this country what the difference between art and show busi-
ness was. The boundary was fi xed and no one would classify pop music in the same 
category as Mozart. But 30 years later, the national norm of a general liking and of 
what is to be called art, are just songs of Michal David, any guy with guitar could be 
celebrated as Richard Wagner and Bára Basiková simply claims that Antonín Dvořák 
must have imagined the interpretation of Rusalka just the way she was singing it. So, 
there was such a radical change in values, that art now means everything and nothing 
at the same time.
And in this situation appear students at departments of music education of peda-
gogical faculties that are trained to become music teachers and promoters of general 
cultural erudition. In relation to this situation, we must remember local village teach-
ers of the past who used to play an important part in the cultural life and education 
of our nation.
Present students are brought up in the mood dominated by values of the mass cul-
ture that has been attacking them from everywhere since their early childhood. Most 
of them were made by their parents to attend music schools, but this education had 
only a limited effect on shaping of their relationship to music. The same is true about 
one lesson of compulsory music education at primary schools.
A research that was carried out in 2010 by the Department of Music of Pedagogi-
cal Faculty, Masaryk University Brno has got clear results about the situation. Music 
lessons within the framework of school education have lower and lower effect on 
shaping the music values of pupils. At Musica Viva conferences some fi fteen years 
ago, we would discuss the problem of a falling infl uence of music education on shap-
ing the values of pupils, but the present research showed that music lessons nowadays 
nearly fell down to zero in this aspect.
We need to raise a question of what is going wrong that causes this fall. Or might 
not it be a fall, but just a radical change in the value system that goes through society, 
which we, teachers, do not want to accept?
I dare stop and mention some of the causes. The fi rst of them is the profi le of a 
student personality. About twenty years ago when my functioning at the department 
of music began, there were approx. 150-200 applicants at the entrance exams to the 
department. Only about 25 students were admitted, which means that every 6 to 
8 succeeded. At present, there are about 70 applicants, 55 come to entrance exams 
and 45 are admitted, so almost all of them. About twenty years ago, there was a 
fi xed standard of instrumental repertoire related to so called ‘veto’, but no there is no 

---

31
S
OCIETY
VS
. M
USIC
E
DUCATION
veto institute now. And I could go on naming more and more aspects. It is clear that 
students at a considerably lower starting level are admitted to the studies of music 
education now than they used to be in the past.
The fact that twenty years ago, nearly 90 percent of the admitted students fi nished 
their studies successfully may support the claim above. Now, only 23 out of 45 admit-
ted students get as far as the bachelor exam, and only 15 or 17 students reach as high 
as the master degree. The fl y in the ointment, such high drop-out rate, leads students 
to the revaluation of their attitudes to the studies. The goal of the studies is not the im-
provement in the fi eld or acquiring knowledge in the fi eld and formation of individual 
relationship to the study. However, this narrowed into a cold and purposeful running 
after credits and fi nding one’s way in the study directives.
When you speak to students, you will fi nd out that some of them have never been 
to a concert of classical music and a lot of them have never heard life symphonic 
orchestra. Attending of listening seminars with recognition tests is just a must in 
order to gain a credit for a certain percentage of them; there is nothing to do with any 
deeper relation to the listened. We could say that, in this aspect, the profi le of a music 
student is completely unsatisfactory and that a person without a deeper relation to 
music can hardly arouse this in other people.
The standard number of lessons of music education is one a week. Let’s just 
consider if this little would allow a quality teacher with love to music use his/her ca-
pabilities to yield fruit? I doubt so. 24 hours a day are our teacher’s pupils massaged 
by the globalized mass media culture which is in a complete contrast with the main 
objective of music education – cultivation of an individual. Quite primitive people 
that speak slang Czech, bordering with vulgarity, and simple-minded individuals are 
often presented as cultural personalities by the mass media. In this situation, it is ex-
tremely hard for an excellent music teacher to form his/her students, and an average 
teacher would just give it up completely.
Now let’s raise a question whether music education, as it is taught at the peda-
gogical faculty, is still real in this time, and if not, how to change it. My answer to the 
fi rst part is clear: no, it isn’t. And I really doubt how to answer the latter.
I view the present state as a consequence of decline of the identity of European 
culture, something that can’t be changed by us. It is surprising to me how Europe 
could get rid of its cultural heritage so easily. The Spirit was replaced by the universal 
mediocrity, the uniqueness of an idea was replaced by the desire to shock. But let’s 
not give it up. We are not alone. It is not only music education that appears in this 
situation.
Summary
The 20th century by the pace of its development accelerates the development in all 
spheres of human activity. In the fi eld of art, this situation has resulted in the fact that 

---

32
M
ICHAL
K
OŠUT
contemporary art recedes from a wider audience. At the same time there is confusi-
on of categories of art and show business. The child’s value attitudes are shaped by 
mass culture. In this situation the position of music education teacher is still more 
complicated.