[Paul Fleet]

Being new to this site, and not being able to work out how to edit (I will work this out) I need to make a quick correction:

“a) fully recognise that any aural skill is not complete after a course and b) if it is selective in the skills being taught.”

[Paul Fleet]

Hi Robin, I am fascinated by this idea of the certificate in aural training.  Is it recognition of a particular stage in the learning, or (worringly) completion of a stage.  The reason I say this is because I firmly believe that aural skills is a life long learning process.  So to follow your position, I agree that a paid certification is problematic if we do not a) fully recognise that any aural skill is complete after a course and b) if it is selective in the skills being taught.

So how would we respond to this?  Well, we do need recognition in levels of training but what are these levels, and what do they signify?  What are they  recognising and what do they lead towards?

I agree that the art of teaching is diagnosing challenges and then supporting them through stages of development so that they are prepared for their future of independent, critically informed, learning.  At this point I’ll stop and echo Robin’s words welcoming the thoughts of others…

[Paul Fleet]

I agree with you Scott, it does still feel that anything outside of WEAM is other but that is taken from our experience of the examples that are used in many of the curricula.  The choice of wording was deliberate to counter this position, and to be inclusive.  However, and on reflection, I wonder if we could reword this to still have the impact.

For example, would ‘7. Should actively include examples from all musics as appropriate to the musical practice’: be strong enough to still provoke the reaction in asking educators not to simply dive into Baroque examples?

Do you have any suggestions?  Would be great to keep this conversation going and include thoughts from others?

[Author]

Posts