for playing and improvisation reading skills are probably not so important. ** probably not. Yes, I agree. Don't you think that to compose you need to develop excellent reading and writing skills too? ** Usually, yes. Perhaps in classical music, those folks had to have it all, back then. I think you and I are on the same page. I appreciate your comments.

Thanks, Marek. I agree. Art Tatum comes to mind. Obviously, he was blind and couldn't read. Garner never had the inclination. Monk played and composed but people argue which was better. Both were out of the mainstream. Gordon didn't care as much for Jarrett as others. I was surprised when I heard him say as much. Oscar Peterson may have been more to his liking—standards interpreted traditionally. He certainly was more old school. Bill Evans tickles me no matter how many times I hear his Vanguard recordings. Jarrett with Peacock and Jack DeJohnette was my cup of tea for a long time. I think I'll go back to hear that again with my ears of today. Best to you, Eric

1. You said you always ask children individually to sing for you certain beat functions. Is it possible at all to do it with such young children? Do they keep steady beat motion or it doesn't matter at this stage? I teach children from 7 yo up and many of them can't keep staedy beat movements. But I guess you ask only to repeat singing without the proper movement coordination… **It's more than possible. It's necessary. Chant simple two beat patterns to the unborn. They're absorbing. Never too early. They don't have to respond at all. I just give them a chance. I have 1 year olds imitating on occasion. I'm not looking for assimilation or audiation, or I am, but it's never expected. You are looking at this through the eyes of formal instruction. Informal guidance and instruction do not necessarily have any expectations on the children. They can do what they want. They are always perfect in preparatory audiation. 2. You didn't mention divisions/elongations patterns in your list. Do you sing them too? **Not when there's a possibility of them imitating. The divisions and elongations make it next to impossible for them to imitate. Those more difficult patterns forces them into absorption. 3. Gordon said that an up-beat function is the most difficult. You said that the rest funtion is the most difficult. Why do you think so? **I disagree with Gordon. My students in imitation or assimilation often speed up over rest patterns. They won't audiate a full macro beat or longer without speeding up. On the other hand, I have 2 year olds that will do pickup patterns. Certainly by 3 or 4, but I've seen it earlier. 4. Do you have any video examples of your mevement exercises you do with youn children? **Yes. I'll send a link. There's expressive movement and then there's rhythmic coordination. This is rhythmic coordination, but mostly just trying to get them to create patterns on their own in PreK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiC1zg4mv3U&index=29&list=PL227DDC0E472E518E First time doing RPs individually. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dY0hh9dQi8&index=30&list=PL227DDC0E472E518E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kfqSOKVqhY&list=PL227DDC0E472E518E&index=31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nTmPXQPMUo&list=PL227DDC0E472E518E&index=32 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqRY2jtZbuE&list=PL227DDC0E472E518E&index=33 Leads to reading like this by 2nd grade: https://youtu.be/XOq48z0p7uk 5. I like your idea of acculturating children to such variety of styles in rhythm. Do you use CD recordings to do it? If yes, what kind? Could you give me some examples of the good rhythmic recordings you use with children of this age? **My Spotify playlists: http://bit.ly/DrEric1 DrEric2, 3, 4, 5 These are for expressive movement. https://youtu.be/m8em1F4RU7w https://youtu.be/toekwmEYARk **My Spotify playlists: http://bit.ly/DrEric1 http://bit.ly/DrEric2 http://bit.ly/DrEric3 http://bit.ly/DrEric4 http://bit.ly/DrEric5 Enjoy!

Nice paper! Kudos! It's great to use both qualitative and quantitative methods of measurement (assessment). One requires lots of preparation out front (quaNtitative) and the other on the back end (quaLitative). That is, if they are to be done properly. I used both extensively in my PhD dissertation related to music aptitude and achievement. Music literacy, to me, infers reading and writing, much like language literacy. You usually don't say a 3 year old if very literate, though they think and can speak eloquently at times. Music literacy should be built upon a large foundation of listening, and performing skills, PRIOR to introducing literacy skills—reading and writing. If the foundation is not in place, learning will be haphazard for most of the children. Rating scales for performance achievement are key is determining objective progress in the child's ability to understand the tonal, rhythmic and expressive dimensions of music. Technical skills can be measured as well this way. Creative and improvisation skills can also be measured though most have difficulty developing appropriate measures and providing the children with the readiness to be successful at these "tougher nuts to crack." The key point you make is valid: for whom, why, and how do you do the assessment? For me, I believe strongly that measurement is for one overriding purpose—for me to improve my instruction. For the child, a test should be something from which to learn, not just a marker of progress. All would do well to read Edwin Gordon's chapter on Measurement and Evaluation in Music Learning Sequences. giamusic.com The reliability of our measures needs to be high enough to trust. Otherwise, you're judging on a subjective basis and this, by its very nature, cannot be reliable. Anything unreliable cannot be valid. This is the science of statistics. Say I got a 34% on a test. What grade should I get? The number of items correct on the test is measurement—a ruler, albeit a bit stretchy in most cases. The grade I should get is a subjective determination which should be based on both normative (within the group I'm being measured against) and idiographic (me being rated against myself [my aptitude, for instance]) factors. Sorry for the bad sentence. What if 34% was the highest score of all on a test written for 12th graders and I was in 4th grade. That's more than an A in my book. What if 34% were questions on a True-False quiz. A monkey should have done better, right? Fail for sure. This is evaluation. A child with high music aptitude should be held to an objectively higher standard than his peers. A child with low aptitude should be nurtured along while the high achieving student can be asked to keep stretching himself further and faster. We are not all equal in our abilities to learn music. This is a no-brainer. And yet, we teachers tend to treat each child similarly, as if they were a homogeneous group. Think about it for a minute. It's tough to confront, but I would be willing to bet my house that almost all of use don't know or understand the objective tonal and rhythmic music aptitudes of our students. How do you know who to push and who to nurture? A teacher who goes on prior performance instead of a valid aptitude measure is likely at cause in the moderate to severe underachievement of 40-50% of his children. This is harsh, but it's borne out in the research. When most of our children come close to reaching their potentials, it will be a big day for music education. Typically, only a handful overcome the obstacle of traditional music education to learn to read, write, improvise, and create music with competence. We teachers persevered through the system because we were both smart and had high aptitude. Most of our students are NOT LIKE US at all. Some are smart, some have high music aptitude, some just love music and practice a lot, and some struggle and drop out. In fact, the dropout rate is 80+% over just a few years. Hopefully, el sistema inspired programs will make a huge difference because of the passion (and hours) we bring to the party. Kids are doing extraordinary things. I just know that we're just scratching the surface when it comes to music achievement based on the above paper and our reluctance to "test" to measure the achievement of our students. It's unconscionable to teach without measuring what the students are learning. It's the BEST way to improve our instruction. For them, it's the BEST way for them to get an objective marker from which they can assess their progress and continue to improve. There's more to say, but let's leave it there for now. I appreciate you taking the time to read this. Let me know what you think. Some of my work is controversial given the status of higher level music education and it's relatively entrenched ways. Still, el sistema is forging new territory and bringing a new passion to music education. Further, our true el sistema mission is about social change. I think good change will happen as children get hooked into something they are extraordinarily successful at and continue to pass on the passion through several generations of a new breed of musicians that we are helping to create. Hooray for what we do!

Hi Julie, I appreciate your thought and it made me think about what you were saying. Still, I come back to this: Theory is usually absent in the "thing" itself. It's a theory. It's an abstraction from the thing you're trying to understand. For example, in music, there is no perfect 5th that actually has any meaning. Even if there were a perfect 5th in a piece, which one is it? C to G? Even that's insufficient information. C to G in D dorian means something quite different than C to G in C major. Theory is imposed to try to make order out of something that isn't already there. Rules are broken all the time. Bach broke voice leading "rules." Analyzing this response (in language) theoretically won't help you understand what I'm trying to communicate. Neither will breaking apart a symphony, or even a song, into its component parts to help you understand what is actually there: the music. Only what hits your ears and makes "musical sense" in your brain—audiation. Looking forward to rebuttals or more thoughts. Thanks!

To YUNiversity: For guitar, a typical age is usually around 7 or 8. Some start very early but there are dangers with starting too early if it's not anything by completely enjoyable for the child. It needs to be "play" even up until 5 or 6 years old. After that, there can be 15-30 minutes of day of practice and some formal instruction from a kid-friendly and professional teacher. Some early guitar programs start at 5 or 6 years old and are based on Suzuki-style instruction. Play by ear and play by modeling. No note reading. This is key at the earliest ages that you avoid note reading. The less information, the better. The more playing and enjoying music better—whether that's with or without the guitar. I would strongly recommend buying a ukulele (or actually two, so you can play together) and play melodies for him. Then he can pluck and you can finger it. Show him by demonstrating. Start simple. When he's done, you're done. No pushing for anything extra. Also, play great music for him. I recommend Julian Bream for classical, also Ana Vidovic is tremendous. For jazz, no less than Django Reinhardt (early jazz). He's a pure genius. I'm sure there are plenty of other greats: John McLaughlin (with Shakti, especially "Natural Elements[great Indian fusion]), Charlie Christian (40's jazz) and Al DiMeola (70's jazz). Find and share YouTube videos with him. Ask a great guitar teacher what he should do while he's growing what I call "instrumental babble." This stage can last a few years, so you have to be patient about it. Let him lead the way. Listen to him and his needs. To be clear, NO formal instruction at this age. Maybe by 5 years old, but starting early does not necessarily breed long-term success. There is NO hurry. Just enjoy. Hope this helps. Feel free to ask questions. Best, Eric