In dealing with elementary students, there is a limit to how far you can take them with number counting.  Eventually, using a “division format” catches up with them, and they lack the maturity or the “processing ability” to continue further.  My second thought is there are so many counting systems used in elementary schools in many cases, with middle school instrumental and chorus programs, teaching counting is pretty much a “do-over” anyway.  Some rudimentary counting skills are necessary to complete an elementary music curriculum, but what is our real goal?  Is it to master a specific counting system, where a beginning band or orchestral director might later teach an entirely different counting method, or is it the ability to “decode?” The direction I chose to pursue was to expose young students to many different counting approaches, which considered different learning styles and “brain directions” in their processing methods.             

           Many elementary teachers teach Gordon, Orff, Kodaly, Takadimi, and other countless counting systems because their formats are cumulative or basically addition processing.  Well, DUUUUUUUUUGH! that seems rather logical for elementary students, don’t you think?  The problem with middle school bands and orchestras have with using these systems is (and I know I am going to get BLASTED! for this one) that they do not fit my definition of what comprises a true phonetic counting system.  “Us” instrumental teachers in middle school (and beyond) need an approach where every position in our rhythmic timelines (pulse and all subdivisions) each has a different number, word, or sound that is used for it to be identified.  Even with our best efforts and most efficient systems, there still might be some timeline location exceptions, but we want to keep them to a minimum if we cannot eliminate them. 

              I am an unusual “bird” of a “music teacher” in that I taught for approximately 15 years as a high school band director, about 15 years as a middle school music teacher (band and general music), and 15 years teaching music in elementary schools, in that order.  At the elementary level, the closest thing to an actual “phonetic” system that I found (using a cumulative approach) was a “hybrid.” It used “Orff” for all duple meters (with a few minor revisions) and “Gordon” for triple meters (as is).  The beauty of this approach is that it also clearly defines the duple and triple “rhythm universes” with their own set of consonant and vowel combinations.  In a nutshell: “T” and “k” for the duple pulse and subdivision variants, and “D” and “g” for the same in triple meter.  The other “cool” thing was that any duple and triple “timeline” locations that line up with each other also share the same vowel.  For “doublets” and “triplets,” you switch out the “T” and “k” for the “D” and “g,” and the vowel integrity for both rhythm universes remains consistent. 

              All of that being said, the question I would ask myself when writing my elementary school music curriculum was, “how can I best prepare my elementary students for their potential future middle school band and orchestral teachers?  Even though “Orff-don” (as I labeled the “hybrid” I discussed in the last paragraph) seems to cover all of the bases, it is still cumulative.  By late high school, instrumental students should be in full “division” mode using numerical counting.  A lot of my middle and high school curriculum and materials that I have been presenting in “Amplify” are designed to “fill in those gaps” for developing instrumentalists until they have the counting skills, knowledge, and MATURITY! to master all elements of a “division” counting approach.

              As far as “Stomp, Clap, and Kick” (I finally got to it), it was just a game attempting to enhance elementary students decoding and coordination skills.  Motion takes on a large role in this game, and a “sub-goal” is the motion, along with verbalization used to differentiate quarter notes and rest lengths when compared to the velocity of 8th notes.  These “lessons” did not last that long; when students came close to mastering conceptualization of note lengths with their gross motor performance skills, they were ready to move on and (as some say) “time to find another house to flip.” An additional component to the game is that the “stomp” and “clap” aspects also morphed into a high and low-pitch decoding study.  Students would not just perform these exercises with their bodies; at some point, we would transition to instruments.  That is why there are two versions of each “flash card,” the letter abbreviations and the music notation.  I used ANYTHING with a high and low sound I could get my hands on for music class.  Doubling on Orff instruments and “BOOMwhackers,” along with drums and percussion of all varieties, my goal was to get everyone in the class participating and playing something.  When instruments were inserted, the students would then need to “internalize” the motion aspect, replacing the words “high” and “low” with “clap” and “stomp.” The “kick” (or quarter rest) would be performed as internalized silence.

              The first group of flashcards works on some fundamental reading and decoding skills; again, note there are two versions of each card.  I initially started with the “abbreviations” and then had students decode the notation.  I LOVE throwing “curveballs” at my students and would show them the first couple of notation flashcards and ask them, “what do you think this is telling you to do?” Starting with card “5a,” I would give the students a particular pattern in quarter notes, then that same pattern as the 8th notes.  This decoding sequence is how in this I introduced “subdivision.” The second group of flashcards begins with card number seven.  In this group, the quarter rest notation are gradually introduced, and the 8th notes are mixed in randomly.

              Typically, the students would sit on chairs or benches when physically performing these exercises.  However, sometimes I would have the older classes stand up (just for “giggles”).  In this case, “balance” became a factor, and some combinations, especially with the “kick” notation, became a bit of a challenge and, at times, rather amusing.  I would typically finish the unit by allowing students to “compose” their own flashcard for the class.  Many of these young student composers’ initial goal seemed to be to try to “trip up” their friends, so they were asked to write their names on the back.  The rule was that they could compose any combination they wanted, BUT!!!!  each student had to be able to perform their card themselves.  Before I “flashed” the cards to the class, I would look them over.  If any seemed a bit ridiculous, I would call out the “composer” and ask them to “model” their flash card for the class.  I suspect you can imagine how interesting that might have ended up being.

Sincerely,

Rich Moon