My thoughts exactly.
Analysing music to such meaningless detail just wrecks it
Okay... here goes...
I thought now that the exam is over is a perfect time to bring up with everybody the issue of the written components of creative subjects.
After completing today's music exam (music 1, not that it makes a difference), I am even more worked up about the state of the system.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D A M N T H E M A N !~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My concern is that our creative subjects (music, drama, art, etc.) are de-valued, thus making it's students the same. Not only are these subjects scaled down for no reason apart from the fact that they're not maths or science, and our state decided that any subject other than these "academic" subjects are useless, but we are forced to sit written exams for these subjects that have nothing to do with the essence of the subject - the PERFORMANCE!
Whether you know the concepts of music in depth has little to do with the quality of your performance, nor does analysing the shit out of a play have any bearing on the quality of a drama performance, or a film, or a set design.
Although the opinion of the little guy (or girl - ME) has no effect on the system, nor will it make a difference to the future of these subjects, but I just thought I'd get it out, once and for all....
Cheers for reading!
My thoughts exactly.
Analysing music to such meaningless detail just wrecks it
I totally agree! But let me give you a booster by telling you that the few people that topped my year last year did both art and drama, so they can't scale us down too much!
I think having the ability to listen to other people's music and gain inspiration from it is a useful skill. I would hope that the HSC aims to deliver a broad education and I have no problem with the very limited amount of written work in the Music 1 course. Mind you, I compose better than I perform. (1 core performance, 3 compositions)
The course is "Music", not "performance". We study music, we don't just focus on performance. This is school, not a TAFE course or something ... we have to STUDY the subject of music itself, that involves the concepts and stuff like that. I think it's great we have the opportunity to pick 3 of our electives, and i think weighting wise, the 4 elective contribute more to our overall mark than the aural, no ?
I understand that they're "creative" subjects and they should emphasise on the creative aspect of it, but they're not gonna turn schools into giant jam sessions. A school is a place of study. We study music. If you think there should be a whole course dedicated to the creative side of it, well, anyone could say that about anything they like. A gardening enthusiast might think they should have a 2u gardening course. Well it aint gonna happen sister. I think the current set-up of the music course is quite good, if anything, it's too simple. You can do shit all in year 11 and 12, yet still be good at your instrument and do 4 perf., and still remember all the concept stuff we were taught in yr 9 and 10 (which is basically all you need to do the aural exam), and still get a great mark in music. We seriously have it pretty easy.
You just gotta remember this is school. They have music courses that focus on performance at TAFE and you can master performance at the Institue of Music or any colleges like that when you leave school.
he has a valid point. I do drama and personally think there should be two one unit drama subjects - performance and theory. Not many people are interested in both.
gain inspiration? in an exam? how do the conceptsof music help you gain inspiration from a piece of music? Ofcourse we're inspired, but that's half the reason we do music, because we connect with it in some way.
I think you mis-read my message because I definately DO NOT have a problem with the limited amount of written work, my comlplaint is that it's there at all!
Am I being completely mis-understood here? sure, we have to do aural, whatever! but why should we be scaled down because creative subjects and their students are underappreciated?Originally Posted by GruvisMalt
Not everyone is good at the "academic" subjects such as maths and science, the BOS should get a grip and realise this, because we're put behind these students!
psssh .... you brought up two points in your post: one about scaling, one about performance. I was commenting on the second point. Have you already forgotten all about that ?Originally Posted by Apathetic
Anywho since you switched the subject, i agree with the scaling anyway. It's SOO much easier to get marks in music than it is in, say, physics, and it IS an overall easier subject, no matter what you think. And don't give me the "but what bout people who are naturally gifted at music, but not mathematics and science. Why should their subjects be scaled?" .. thats why they have 2UNIT music !! You'll find in most cases there's always extension courses for these creative subjects which allow people who are naturally gifted at those aspects to still partake in a high-scaling subject.
"But i don't like the theory of music and hence dont' want to study music 2. I want a high scaling music 1 course!!" - too bad bubs, you aint gonna get scaled up for sitting round playing a guitar.
This is misunderstood. Sitting around playing a guitar? Pick up a guitar and learn to play it. It requires much more talent then sitting around cramming before an exam for physics. You can argue ext 2 enlgish doesnt require good scaling because writing is a 'natural' talent too.
I don't do drama, but can tell you that I spent much more time studying for the theory and rehearsing performances then any of my other units. It's very intensive and difficult
Many people have natural talent for music. Someone might have been playing guitar for 10 years ... they can do 4 perf and just play songs they've known for years and get 95% without hard practise or study.
Meanwhile, whilst some people are naturally gifted at maths or science, a large amount of study is still involved in order to get a good mark even for the most profound lovers of maths. Music is the kind of subject (the prac side of it atleast) that you can just be good at, not need to study at all, and get high marks. THIS is why it's scaled lower. In that sense you can say it's not fair to people who do sciences because they still have to work VERY hard to get a good mark, whereas a talented musician could get a very high mark in music very breezily.
You just proved my point. The HSC doesn't reward talent, it rewards hard work. OF course talent is a major factor in this, and in some cases (like music) it can be the ONLY factor, but it shouldn't be. You should have to work hard to get a good mark also, which, for a large part in music, you do not have to.Originally Posted by 1Time4thePpl
Obviously being a maths student, and possibly even not a music student at all, you wouldnt know musical talent if it bit you on the arse! Music is about talent, agreed! A student wouldnt choose music if they didnt have talent, but to say that these people dont work hard is rediculous. You try playing 4 songs you know and tell me if you get 95%? That's right, you couldnt, plain and simple. Whether you like it or not, music IS difficult, as is maths or science, but we're not talking about how difficult a subject is, we're talking about why all subjects cant be scaled the same? Music students who do really well put their heart and soul into their performance, and that's why they do well. You put in the effort you get rewarded equally, right?
As you are a sexist pig, I guess you recieved marks just for being male, right? Don't go round attempting to patronise people by calling them "bubs". I am not, nor will I ever be referred to in that way. I dont appreciate your behaviour!
WOMEN! NATURES PUNCHING BAG! Apathetic, make me a sandwich
It really isn't plain talent. It would I presume involve shitloads of rehearsals, as did drama. It really is hard work. Funnily enough harder than extension 2 english, the subjects' rewards being much greater in terms of scaling
I feel like a broken record ...
ok, here's my point. Disregard the majority of music students and physics students, let's focus on the very top elite few in each subject.
Music: some kid has been playing guitar for 10 years. He could simply pick 4 performances, already know them like the back of his hand, not go under any intense rehearsals or trainings, and still get very good marks up around 90%. I know it happens. A lot of people are like this.
Physics: some kid is a mathematics genius and aboslutely loves physics. Obviously he has an advantage over the other kids who dont necessarily enjoy physics .. BUT, in order for this guy to get a high mark like 90%, he can't just rely on his plain talent and enjoyment of the subject, he'd still have to study his arse off to get a good mark.
This is the difference. It's easier for a lot of people to get a band 6 mark in music as it is for physic students to get a band 6 mark. I agree, SOME music students would work as hard as physics students to earn their mark, but what im saying is there is a high possability that a very talented musician could breeze through the performance exam with very little effort and still get high marks - this more or less IS NOT possibly for physics students.
I really hate bringing this into it, but you brought it up, and i must defend myself. I play drums. I chose 2 perf + core. All the songs i played were songs i previously knew and did not require any intense rehearsals (only with my backing musicians so that we were in sync). Obviously i cant present you with my exma marks to "prove" my theory correct, but if it means anything, for my trial performances, i got 9/10 (core), 17/20 (elective) and 18/20 (elective) .. and all 3 pieces were pieces i already knew and spent no specific time rehearsing for the exam. If i had of done that in my physics trial, i assure you i would not have passed. My point is it's very possibly for a music student to get high marks without trying, whereas it's not possible for a physics student to get high marks without trying hard. Thus the difference is clear, and physics gets scaled up. Now if you lot keep repeating the same arguments and misinterpretting what im saying, well, then i'll, er, be very cranky .. so there.
Originally Posted by Apathetic
Oh get off your bloody high horse bubs. Do you even know where the word Bubs originates from ?
The original term was an 18th South African word for 'slave boy'. Slavery was a big thing back then. Kinda like pokemon back in yr7. Except instead of catching small monsters in little balls, you tried to catch as many small black people in chains.
You could then train them to battle and some bubs even learnt special moves. Back on topic -
This slang term however, was misinterpreted during the feminist movement in the 60's. As we all know, feminists like to find inconsequential things and take it upon themselves to be offended. They thought it meant 'Hey bitch go make me a sandwhich and build a kitchen for yourself while you're at it.' not knowing it actually meant slave boy. Old people are also funny to trip.
And there you go - an explanation of the word bubs that is sexually, racially and ethically offensive.
haha, so not funny...
look, you dont seem to get my point either. You say that if someone's been playing an instrument for 10 years they dont need to do much work and will do really well, right? well, sure, in the performance aspect, they MIGHT, but that aside. Music isnt just about the performance (whether that's right or not), there is a written component, which is worth 40%, and is then weighed up against your performance and internal assessment marks to then create your HSC mark, which means that if you get 90% in your performance but only 50% in your written exam, chances are your HSC mark will only be 75%.
And with that in mind, if someone spent hours learning and loving physics and physics textbooks since they were ten, then it would probably come naturally to them aswell... which further proves my point... People dont read physics textbooks, etc from the age of 8, because it's not that bigger part of growing up. Music is, thus shouldnt it be more highly valued? It's a part of our lives from a very young age, and it always will be.
Last edited by Apathetic; 19 Oct 2004 at 1:25 AM.
excuse me, not only do I know that, but you should move into the present, because whether the word originated from there or not is not the issue. He meant it the way I interpreted it, end of discussion.
I'm glad we agree on something. This goes back to what i was saying originally about why the aural aspect is important, and that a purely performance-based course wouldn't work for those reasons. Having the aural section there balances it out a lot i know, and that is partially what i was trying to get across. I still think the reason why they scale it so low is because of what i was saying before, but atleast the aural makes the subject somewhat redeemable and worthy to compete with the others.
worthy? you're so wrong! Why should subjects be scaled differently at all? The hSC is bullshit!
Hmmm, i agree with the whole scaling thing. What i think is utterly stupid is the way they deal with internal assessments. Teachers marking students assignments can vary so much it's not even funny. Someone from my school borrowed a friends isp whom got 20/20, yet he only got 60/100 ... just goes to show how innacurate internal assessments are. I know they try to make it right by rankings and comparing it to hsc scores and whatnots, but i think they should just have standardised exams all throughout the year. More efficient. And makes sure kids work all year too.
HAHHAHAHHAHAH!!! Women once again display their stupidity.
Funnily enough, the word bub didn't arrise from the slave trade. It's roots are actually from the English colloquialism meaning 'fellow'. In fact bub has nothing to do with black slaves.
'Look at me, I'm so against women's traditional roles as women. My ex boyfriend knocked me out with a brick one day and built a kitchen around me. For years I was making sandwiches until I escaped. Promptly after I became a feminazi. Equality this equality that. Fuck men. Women should have more rights in society anyway."
Unfortunatelly, if you remember correctly, Charles Darwin, the father of evolution once said in I think his second report: "Women are a mystery of nature to me. I don't understand why the evolved legs. It seems a hassle pleasuring a men. One must go down on her knees".
Originally Posted by Apathetic
Wow...not only are feminists self righteous...they are really really dumb.
great idea gruvis!
as for you, "1Time4thePpl", how dare you! I happen to think that men and women are equally important in contemporary society, and that women are in revolt of men and need to accept that if they keep going the way they are then men will never treat them equally because they then will revolt against women, who are attempting to "pay men back" for the mistakes of their fathers and grandfathers.
But some comments however, are blatantly sexist and just plain rude!
I feel sorry for you, I guess no girl will ever go down on her knees for you; it must be tough!
As for you apathy, I find it interesting how you follow a paradigm that you know nothing about. When faced with a tidbit of new information criticising your 'revolt' you pretend that you had in fact known this fact, thus showing your extreme stupidity.
No girl has to go down on their knees for me. I just tend to saw off their legs to save them the bother. Oh furthermore its called a blowjob, in case you can't pronounce the word. Or is that politically inorrect and sexist too? Because women shouldn't really do any blowing. 'Oral stimulation' perhaps?
It's because of people like you there are world famines!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)