Ok, first of all, the spit valve controversy: I think the point of that moment was not that the trumpeter shouldn't have emptied the valve but that he shouldn't have emptied it on a fellow student's shoe. It's not that hard to aim, and, having spent many years in the brass section, dumping that on someone else is uncouth.
Next, to the comments about how hitting a kid with a helmet would get you fired... Maybe. But that's not the point. The point is rather that he was being innovative and engaging the student in order to teach him. I think one of the biggest problems with the ranks of mediocre teachers in America is that they worry about getting fired and so are afraid to actually teach for fear they might offend a principal or a parent or their union. Every teacher who ever inspired me could have very likely been fired many times over, but they weren't because their kids understood why they didn't tiptoe political correctness, etc. and didn't rat them out.
Third, the "play the sunset" thing.... As a longtime music student who's also done some teaching, I firmly agree with those educators who believe music is a precise, technical science which must be mastered, and not approached from a feel-good, everyone's-a-winner perspective. However, although perhaps "play the sunset" is an asinine way of expressing it, I believe that understanding to play between the notes is just as important. And I don't think there needs to be an either-or situation here: technical proficiency and emotional proficiency go hand in hand. One complements the other for a player to achieve true mastery over a piece. Part of the difficulty of being a musician, or any kind of artist for that matter, is the mental block once you can read the notes and play them until you can really concentrate and feel the sense of the piece. Granted, the manner in which this is presented takes some liberty with the process, but I think what the scene means is pretty clear.
Fourth, obviously there are "technical errors." So what? This is not a documentary- it is a movie. It's even conceivable that the writers had some musical background and intentionally chose to alter some factual elements about music and music education to make a more aesthetically-satisfying film. If this were an "accurate" picture, we'd receive a two-hour lecture on the various modes, the circle of fifths, etc. Accurate lawyer shows would spend a full hour with a lawyer looking stuff up in a library and typing it up. War films would spend their time showing the soldiers twiddling their thumbs for hours on end waiting for action. Etc. This movie uses music as a plot device, just like other teacher movies use other subjects- math, Latin, etc., without really being about those subjects. As long as its message about music is positive, why get so worked up about the details? Certainly, there are far worse "music" movies out there- like the atrocious "Ray." For other good music movies from recent years, I also recommend "Brassed Off" and "Shine."
Fifth, to the person who wondered at the "symphony" at the end and how unrealistic that was, I disagree. I've actually participated in two farewell concerts conducted by outgoing band directors with complicated pieces without any real rehearsal, aside from a quick readthrough before the performance, off-stage by another one of the music teachers. Something similar might've happened here; the musicians may have additionally been sent the pieces in advance.... Anyway, it is a movie, and not supposed to be "real."
Last, some of you really overdo the all-caps thing. It's annoying.
reply
share