First of all, a very happy new year to all who read this blog. It's been a while, it's been busy, but I'm back now and hopefully I can get some more stuff on here this year, and build up a good collection of information. First blog this year after a good few conversations about it I've had: "Musical Qualifications" 

Musical Qualifications is a topic I’m asked about quite a lot and I find myself drawn into recurring discussions about qualifications in music (which extend beyond casual enquiry) so it made sense that I wrote down my thoughts and organised them in this format. I would wish to contextualise the following as my opinion, and not reflective of the views of any institution with which I am associated, or have previously worked for/within.

First of all I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between official and unofficial qualifications; official being ‘on paper’, unofficial being more difficult to quantify because they are relative to experience. ‘Official’ Qualifications (by their nature) are inextricably liked to a ‘system’ and first of all, it is worth exploring this ‘system’ and identifying what it is. This ‘system’ (regardless of its extreme complexity) actually all boils down to a method by which life is organised, managed, and controlled. Without digressing into the potential rights and wrongs of this, a ‘system’ is in place in order that things are organised, managed, and controlled which is deeply embedded into the infrastructure of society. Because unofficial qualifications are so rich and varied, I've not explored them here. They are beyond the scope of a blog, and my blogs tend to be long and complicated enough! 

On the subject of ‘qualifications’, I like to use the following example to illustrate my views: Previous to the Wright brother’s first flight, there were no qualifications to fly because there was no such thing. Whilst this is not at all surprising or unusual in itself, by questioning whether or not the Wright brothers were ‘qualified’ to fly at the point where they actually achieved it, the nature of the ‘system’ becomes apparent, especially where it recognised the achievement by introducing ‘regulation’ of this new discovery. It can be argued that there are safety concerns to be taken into consideration in the example of flight, but essentially the system serves to organise, manage, and control. When it comes to taking a flight, you want to be in a plane with a ‘qualified’ pilot for a very good reason. This is because flight could be dangerous unless it is organised, managed, and controlled. The situation needs to be managed by an organised person who will competently control the plane. You need a ‘qualified’ pilot and this is an unquestionable certainty.

How does this relate to music?

I mention the pilot story because I’m frequently misunderstood when I speak of ‘the system’ within which people are deemed ‘qualified’ to do different things. I’m not against ‘the system’; I just like to take a balanced view of the topic of qualification, whilst at the same time asking how this relates to music. It relates to music because it’s worth considering how much organisation, management and/or control music actually needs?

How dangerous is music if it isn’t organised, managed and/or controlled? In fact, to what extent are there any consequences to music not being organised, managed, and/or controlled? Was Palestrina ‘qualified’ to compose? Was Jimi Hendrix ‘qualified’ to play the guitar? Despite their inestimable influence on the direction of musical development, were these people ‘qualified’?

So what are ‘qualified musicians’ actually qualified to do? Disregarding ‘teaching’ qualifications (which are of quite a different nature to musical qualifications), musical qualifications offer you a level upon which you should be able to expect people to consider and respect what you have to say about music. You’re qualified to talk about it. You’re qualified to have your opinion recognised by a system (which, incidentally, considers that music needs to organised, managed, and controlled).

Musical qualifications can offer you two things; firstly, they can reflect your ability to perform music on the day of your exam by offering ‘official recognition’ of your performance to a standard which is attributable to a grade which has been devised and artificially superimposed upon ‘music’. Secondly they qualify you in an academic sense which offers you the right to speak authoritatively on the subject of music, in this instance however, this right doesn’t extend beyond the boundaries of the system which has offered you whatever qualification you may have.

Is this a good or a bad thing?

I would suggest that it could be good, bad, both at the same time, or neither! This is because there are circumstances where a reflection of your skills in the form of a qualification may be necessary in order that you may achieve what you want to achieve. Unfortunately, there are academic qualifications which imply a lot of knowledge beyond the truth in some cases. To be academically ‘qualified’ offers your opinion a measurable value attributed to it relative to level on which you may be deemed ‘qualified’ within this system.

There are large, significant, and potentially damaging flaws in this situation. The music of which ‘qualified people’ speak within a system was largely created by people who do not have these qualifications. As such it’s worth considering that in this example (and according to the cold mechanics of the system) that the people who provided the music are not as qualified to talk about it as some other people who have taken an exam!

Remember ‘the system’ and its purpose to organise, manage, and control?

How does that work in this example?:

If I were to say I was "grade 6", what would that actually mean in real, practical terms? Would you know what I would be capable of doing and know what it really meant extending beyond a logical assumption that I was better than grade 5 but not good enough to be at grade 7? Even though these grades by different exam boards actually examine different things which they consider to be relevant? It's a question I've asked my friends and colleges, musicians, non-musicians, and teachers. The answers were most interesting, and widely varied."

I'm sometimes asked "Are you qualified?”. I am, but I almost always answer with the same response, "What qualifications would you recognise?”. Would they even know what my qualifications meant that I was supposed to be able to do beyond cold and speculative assumption? BA (hons), QTS, PGCE and other general qualifications are quite well known but regarding music, if I threw out the letters LRAM, what would they mean to you? They mean Licentiate to the Royal Academy of Music, but how many people know what even that means once we've established what the acronym stood for?

Deeper than the surface implication of specific musical qualifications, they all qualify people to organise, manage, and control. Sometimes necessary, but it's worth being aware that with music it's actually necessary that it isn't always organised, managed, or controlled in order that it may have a prosperous future!