Thank you, hotdog

If a course is to have any value at all, then some rudimentary knowledge of the nuts and bolts is surely necessary. If the course is entitled "Music" rather than "Musical Appreciation", then I'd consider a basic understanding of notation obligatory.

Although I voted "yes", I would like to see notation included that was rather more than merely "rudimentary".

Out of interest, besides the neumatic notation used to record the chants of the Eastern Church - what other notation systems are there,  besides "Western" notation?   Surely there is, in fact, only one notation?  It's time the self-loathing hogwash - that other cultures have had an "alien" notation forced upon them - was hung out to dry.   Is there any corpus of music in the world - to which anyone of GCSE age in Britain might conceivably have access or allegiance - which is not notated on five-line staves that indicate fixed pitches and note-durations?

George: yes.

Firstly, this shouldn't have to turn into an argument about the relative merits of the "classical tradition" of music.

Notation doesn't convey what's played in jazz, but then in a similar sense it doesn't really "convey" what's played in baroque and earlier music in the "classical" tradition, or indeed (at least rhythmically) in much 19th century music, ie. what most would think of as the "central repertoire" of that tradition. The idea that notation is an exhaustive description of "exactly what happens" or "should happen" in a performance has never borne very close scrutiny. There's always a background of tradition and unwritten rules against which it operates, and (like the pronunciation of the spoken language, giving rise to many rhymes in Shakespeare no longer being rhymes, for example), the rules change over historical time. (One reason a lot of contemporary music is notated in what seems like an unnecessarily complex way is that, having moved on in various directions from traditional approaches to composition, composers need to write these otherwise unwritten rules into their scores.)

So notation is a way for composers to communicate to performers, as well as tangentially being an object for study in its own right as Baz mentioned on the other thread. It's a language, like any other language it's not always precise or unambiguous, and like any other language it can be used in a functional or in a poetic way. A notated piece of music allows the reader to gain an overview of the music so to speak "outside time" which is an obvious aid to an understanding of its structure. A transcription of a jazz solo or a raga might not be precise, though it's massively more precise than verbal or any other kind of description would be!

The idea of using a written method for communicating music is a powerful, useful and fascinating one, I think we can agree. A number of systems for doing this have arisen over the centuries, of which the Western method, originally conceived in order to make possible what became polyphony in the Middle Ages, is the most widely used and the one behind the majority of the music we see and hear, in one way or another and to some extent or another. So if music notation of any kind is to be taught, it probably goes without saying that Western notation should be given priority over that used for Japanese gagaku, interesting though the latter is. So, at GCSE level, where students ought to be able to gain access to (many kinds of) music for the purpose of study, understanding, performance, inspiration etc. I see no case at all for not making musical notation a central part of the syllabus. It isn't perfect or perfectly generalisable, but it is the best and most general thing we have for its purpose.

That in a nutshell is the case for the defence as I see it.

Exacctly and jazz musicans interpret notation in a "jazz" way.

I can only vote Yes to the poll question as it has been asked, but (partly for the sort of reasons George outlines) I think it's not quite the right question.

If you had asked me to vote on George's question:I would have ummed and ahhed (sp?!) a bit but I think I still end up in the Aye division.

If on the other hand you'd asked me whether I thought the effects of making Western classical notation so central were entirely positive, I would have said Definitely Not. The reason for still voting Yes to George's question is that the only solution I can see that isn't likely merely to circumscribe students' skills is a solution that would somehow seek to teach them Western classical notation while making them aware of the historical circumstances in which it arose, the way it interacts differently with different repertoires, etc. This I think is very necessary, and the only way to proceed in good faith, but it may be a bit advanced for GCSE level.

What are the possible negative effects, then, of the centrality given to this specific kind of notation? Well, it leads to an assumption that the diatonic/chromatic pitch palette of steps and half-steps is basic to all music. It hinders the understanding of musical traditions with richer pitch palettes, such as the Persian (and other Arabic) and Indian classical traditions. It also colours the understanding of musical traditions with fewer discrete pitch identities - for example, it leads to an understanding of pentatonic repertories (some Chinese, Indonesian, and other folk traditions) as simply having 'some notes missing'; in the case of musical traditions with vastly more attenuated pitch content - those which focus on timbre or on rhythm, ranging from Australian Aboriginal didjeridu playing to the highly complex pulsation-based musical languages of many African tribes, e.g. the Aka pygmies or the Zimbabwean mbira players - it leads to a failure to appreciate the definitive and sometimes very sophisticated and precise ways in which those musics are shaped by factors which viewed through the lens of Western notation would look fairly peripheral.

All of these things - as Richard suggests - can be explained in such a way that notation still serves its function as a useful tool, but they do need explaining, and the question is at what point do you start telling students that the tool they're being shown, like other tools, is more fit for certain purposes than for others, and that whatever purpose you use it for, and even if it's the only tool available, the work you do with it is never going to be uninflected by your choice of tool.

The five-line staff method of notation also needs to be understood in relation to other Western options, e.g. medieval neumes notation for chant, Renaissance tablature and its modern cousins both in complex 'contemporary classical' music and also most jazz, pop and rock music. Whether we want to introduce GCSE students to the classical repertoire or not - and I think the arguments for doing so are stronger than those for not doing so - it's still rather misleading to teach them 'notation', unqualified, as if it was also the only (or even the best) way of conveying in symbols what's going on in the other music they're likely to encounter in their everyday lives, never mind what goes on in other parts of the world (which one would hope those of them who progress to 'A'-level and degree level might study as part of an ethnomusicology module or two).

Yes it should, but only when we sort out the problems earlier on.  The requirements prior to GCSE at the moment, which too often aren't fulfilled, are that:

Key Stage 2 (7-11): "Pupils should be taught:...how music is produced in different ways [for example, through the use of different resources, including ICT] and described through relevant established and invented notations."

Key Stage 3 (11-14): "The study of music should include:...staff notation and other relevant notations in a range of musical styles, genres and traditions."

(Taken straight from www.curriculum.qca.org.uk)

Until this is routinely taught correctly, rather than being done well in some schools and not at all in others, complaining about the GCSE curriculum is a discussion about whether to close the stable door.

I'm assuming that Music GCSE is just the basic standard. Obviously it's to be hoped that those with any specialised interests would proceed from there, but if it is the basic standard, then basic rudiments are surely the very least that should be expected.

Scottish schools have a different exam system, with differing syllabus priorities, but I've found this from a couple of years back, on the subject of a projected change in requirements here. ('Highers' are approximately the equivalent of Emglish/Welsh 'A' Levels, btw.)