Mark Oppenheimer laments the persistence of parents forcing their children to learn a musical instrument, finding it to be the remnant of an earlier age:
Before the twentieth century, there was a good reason for anyone to study music: If you couldn’t make the music yourself, then you would rarely hear it. Before the radio and the phonograph, any music in the house was produced by the family itself. So it made sense to play fiddle, piano, jug, whatever. And before urbanization and the automobile, most people did not have easy, regular access to concerts. Of course, small-town people could come together for occasional concerts, to play together or to hear local troupes or traveling bands. Growing up in the sticks, you still might see Shakespeare performed, and a touring opera company could bring you Mozart. But very infrequently. If music was to be a part of your daily life, it had to be homemade.
How he thinks we should approach the issue today:
We can probably all agree that it’s worthwhile for children (as well as their parents) to try new activities, and that there is virtue in mastering difficult disciplines. So what challenges should we be tackling, if not ballet and classical music? How about auto repair? At least one Oppenheimer should be able to change the oil, and it isn’t me. It may as well be one of my daughters. Sewing would be good. And if it has to be an instrument, I’d say bass or guitar. The adults I know who can play guitar can actually be seen playing their guitars. And as any rock guitarist will tell you, there is a shortage of bassists.
But I do not believe that all artistic pursuits, or all disciplines that one studies, should be judged for their usefulness. The sublimity of art is tied, after all, to its uselessness (cf. Dazed and Confused). More than anything, I want children to find pursuits, whether useful or not, that they can take with them into adulthood.
Paul Berman is unpersuaded:
Those childhood violin studies of mine have shaped my adult ear and brain, and, when I listen to Mendelssohn or to any of the greats, I naturally respond in ways that are encouraged by the grand tradition. I do not know what it is to be a person without access to that tradition, and I can only picture a lack of access as a kind of poverty.
Oppenheimer replies:
Many music teachers, and parents, believe that there is something special, better, about the classical and art-music tradition. Several wrote to tell me how offended they were by the comparison of violin to ukulele: The former is so much more difficult, and its repertoire, so much richer. They may be right, but they have touched on a debate worth having, one we do not have enough. Given how relatively easy it is to get a little bit competent on, say, guitar, enough to lead a camp sing-along, why do we start so many children on harder instruments, and ones bound to seem less relevant to their lives? I was trying to make the case for pointless pastimes, things we do just for the fun of it, whatever instrument or hobby pleases us—and Berman replies with reasons we might favor the classical instruments. That’s great. It’s all great, so long as it’s not parents buying music lessons as part of some upper-middle-class acculturation plan.
The Dish 