A Comparative Critique of Two Articles pertaining to the Kodály Method

Originally written for MUSIC 4V03 – Current Issues in Music Education

Early music education, as with any other form of early education, has long lasting impacts on the student, and a simple mistake made early on can affect the student for years to come. Likewise, given the right attention and appropriate educational method, a student can benefit greatly and advance far beyond what they could have achieved without such help. In the field of music education, there are several “tried-and-true” techniques which hold sway today. Among them are the Kodály and Dalcroze methods, which hail from Hungary and Switzerland, respectively. Both these methods focus on the development of a connection between the aural and kinaesthetic senses, and achieve this goal through a combination of exercises intended to guide the student toward deeper understanding of musical concepts. However, while support for these methods are readily published and available, criticisms from experienced music educators also appear. A primary criticism of the Kodály method originates from Hungary, the country with the highest adoption of said method. However, while criticism can be found for almost all educational models, the Kodály method has maintained a healthy uptake, and quantitative results in Hungary itself show promise compared to the traditional teacher-teachee method.

The Kodály Method was pioneered by Zoltán Kodály in 1938, although its inception can be traced farther back to the 1920s.¹ Percy Young writes of a Kodály in his forties, travelling through the countryside, and happening upon several students of the local Zeneakademia, the highest music school in Hungary at the time.² When he questioned these students, he found that they were to be teaching music. Upon further questioning, he was appalled to find that these students knew nearly nothing of music, could not read or write music, and were intent on using songs of poor quality in their education. Shocked, Kodály pledged to give back to his country what he deemed it had lost in terms of musical quality.

The main source of criticism of the Kodály method comes primarily from music educators in Hungary itself, compiled by Michael Palotai, and published in the Music Educator's Journal in 1978. The bulk of Palotai's work was taken from the literary compilation Vita a zenepadagógiáról, which itself was taken from a panel discussion held in Hungary on November of 1972.³ The first criticism mentioned is the relative complexity of the music education system in Hungary:
“All children receive music education in the elementary grades... but musically gifted children enter one of the 130 special music elementary schools... In these, normal academic courses are taught but for fewer hours... Students in these schools clearly understand that their chances of entering academic colleges and universities are slight because their preparation is is so overwhelmingly devoted to music.”⁴

Palotai notes that because competition for the top music schools are so tough, the students who are not accepted must accept enrolment in lesser music institutions, where they are relegated to teaching the elementary and secondary grades. The next criticism quotes a lack of observable results, namely concert attendance and student interest in music. Palotai equates these figures as comparable to other countries, and challenges the Kodály method's effectiveness as a solution to dwindling musical interest past the age of schooling. Next, the panel criticized the Kodály method's reliance on the drilling of solmization and likens music to “being just another subject with drills, textbooks, and examinations”.⁵ The article goes on to suggest that Orff ensembles may be the key to capturing and maintaining student interest. The use of folk songs is also a debated topic, and rightly so, as Palotai argues that such an approach dulls the students' perception towards “[discrimination] between good and bad art music”, and warns that the connection between folk song and art song may never be established. Lastly, a criticism toward “the teacher” was levelled. It was argued that due to the systematic nature of music education in Hungary, and coupled with the fact that music educators are not well-regarded, the youth of Hungary are often taught by “inept and unprepared”⁶ teachers who themselves are products of the same system. The panel's broad spectrum criticism of the Kodály method was admittedly anecdotal, although its accusations are serious enough to warrant a second, critical look at the methodology. Many of the educators in the panel admitted to viewing the method in too high of a regard, and Palotai concludes that the United States' fractured but diverse group of musical pedagogies was more well suited to music education, as opposed to Hungary's “monolithic” approach.

Denise Bacon published a rebuttal four years later, in the same journal, and defended the implementation and proliferation of the Kodály method in schools across the country.⁷ Bacon begins by stating that Palotai's article holds merit, and that music educators should be “grateful for the opportunity the article gives to discuss misuses of the 'method'”⁸. Bacon argues that the Kodály method is an evolving one, as educators will discover new and better ways of teaching applicable concepts to children. Namely, she compares the collaboration of Orff and Kodály methods in the United States, and reflects that both methodologies are better off because of it. The same can be said of the Dalcroze method, which heavily influenced the content of the Orff approach. To Palotai's argument that the Kodály method is too rigid⁹, Bacon challenges that the complainants are those who look toward the method as a “quick-fix” method. She posits that, like any other educational approach, concessions and adaptations must be made to tailor the material to each and every student.¹⁰ Bacon concedes one point, however, and agrees that many teachers teach the Kodály method verbatim, while that certainly isn't the case for some students. She rounds out her arguments with a similar concluding statement – that the United States is advantageous for its use of multiple systems of music education, but that while Kodály has adopted the Kodály concept readily, it is far from being “monolithic” in nature.

Both Bacon and Palotai have convincing arguments for and against the Kodály method, with the former being a rebuttal to the latter. Palotai, however, incorrectly assumes that the Kodály method is firm and unchanging, which is erroneous given the fact that pedagogy is an ever-changing concept. The teaching strategies of yesteryear are not as applicable today, and it is the responsibility of our future educators to realize such. Likewise, in ten years' time, the Kodály method may become something entirely unlike its predecessor, but while a fierce departure from Kodály's original vision may be unsettling, it is simply the nature of things. Palotai also does not see the big picture – Kodály's other motives in establishing his concept nationwide. Historically, Hungary had not been a politically stable region, and by the time Kodály had entered the field of music education, much of Hungary's best music had already been lost to more contemporary works by German or Viennese composers. By this point, Hungary's folk music had been relegated to performance in local cafés, and Kodály felt that this was only to get worse.¹¹ He deemed the use of foreign music as being inferior, not because of any particular political leaning, but due to his belief that folk music “represented a living art. It was not contrived for pedagogical purposes”.¹² This political worldview represents the Kodály concept as a form of preservation of Hungarian national identity, something that citizens of any country could do with more of. Palotai incessantly disparages the use of folk melodies, but does not reflect on the potential advantages beyond simple accessibility to the teacher and student. As Bacon concludes¹³, we are lucky to have a critical survey of the Kodály system, twenty to thirty years after it was first put into place. As with any methodology, it is important to remain flexible in order to adapt to changing conditions. The steady adoption of the Kodály method in the Americas is proof that the results-based system in place in the past is not performing to standard. However, because America is a proverbial jambalaya of musical pedagogy, it remains to be seen which methodology, approach, or concept triumphs.

References:
1. Choksy, L. (1974). The Kodály Method. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, 4.
2. Young, P. M. (1964). Zoltán Kodály – A Hungarian Musician, Ernest Benn Limited: London, 83.
3. Palotai, M. (1978). Has Hungary Outgrown Kodály?. Music Educator's Journal 64(6), 40.
4. Palotai, 42.
5. ibid.
6. Palotai, 44.
7. Bacon, D. (1978). Hungary will Never Outgrow Kodály. Music Educator's Journal 65(1), 39.
8. Bacon, 40.
9. Palotai, 44.
10. Bacon, 42.
11. Young, 11.
12. Choksy, 4.
13. Bacon, 44.