Music Technology in the Community - part 2
Théberge notes that communities based around music and technology shows a predominantly male, hobbyist orientation (Théberge 1997:152). Elsewhere, the different approaches of boys and girls to music technology in the classroom is observed: for girls, the goal is aesthetic and the technology a tool, while boys treat the technology as an end in itself (Hodges 2001: 176).
While it could be argued that the girls’ use of technology is more creative and therefore more valid within the aims of music education in a co-educational environment, girls may lack confidence (ibid). Parallels can be drawn between computer-produced music and the male dominance within rock culture (electric guitar playing, for example). Many theories have been put forward as to why this should be, and there is not space to discuss them here. However, it does appear that previous patterns of male dominance within certain musical sectors (including some areas of classical music) seem to be established within music technology.
Yet technology has huge potential for increasing access. Through switches, sensory pads attached to PCs, or systems such as Soundbeam, where sounds are triggered by movement sensed by infrared beams, people with disabilities are able to participate in musical activities and ensembles. Computers enable individuals to create and perform pieces of music that they would not be able to play if using conventional instruments. Technology opens up active music-making for groups previously precluded.
Issues in Education
Schools are an area of the community in which music technology has wide-ranging potential, yet bureaucratic restrictions present challenges for teachers in delivering music technology lessons.
The current National Curriculum was developed in the 1990s, but the music curriculum is particularly influenced by theories of education developed in the 1970s. Swanwick’s A Basis for Music Education (originally published in 1979) argued for combining performance, listening and composition. In the context of earlier music education practices, which focused heavily on passive listening and a small element of performance (mostly singing), this more participatory focus was revolutionary, but presents problems when applied in the current environment.
Technology blurs the boundaries between performance, listening and composition and teachers face the dilemma of how to assess work that no longer fits the framework. For example, Ejay Rave, Hiphop and Dance software enables the pupil to meet the requirement to ‘compose in different styles’, yet the content of the software particularly banks of samples and effects and the ease with which an idiomatic drum loop can be created means that the user needs little stylistic understanding to produce an authentic-sounding piece of contemporary pop (Cain 2004: 218). Additionally, the most practical way for pupils to work is in small groups or pairs, again raising questions about assessment of the individual in the context of a team project.
There is also an element of ethnocentrism present in music education and the National Curriculum, despite advances in areas such as ethnomusicology. Hodges questions how teachers should approach assessment when a pupil’s composition is aurally very effective but a score printout of the work shows a very limited knowledge of staff notation (Hodges 2001: 177). Yet it could be argued that, unless the pupil is composing a work in the classical tradition, use of notation shows the imposition of a cultural practice on a style to which it is not relevant. Conventional notation struggles with transcription of a range of rock techniques such as bending notes, or use of delays and feedback. Any score printout of a work in an aural tradition may be a compromise. Even a classical score demands performance using the unwritten conventions of phrase-shaping, dynamic subtleties and rubato.
Cain also argues that the decreasing autonomy of teachers in devising their own curriculum is affecting their confidence in delivering music education (Cain 2004: 219). Rather than tackling the issues of how to assess, or how to bring innovation to music technology teaching, the teacher may prefer to keep to the minimum necessary level of ICT use in music classes: the National Curriculum needs to see change if it is not to stifle the use of technology.
The practicalities of teaching a music technology lesson in a music room while the computer suites are elsewhere in the school, and in demand for other subjects, is also a challenge for many teachers: the ideal situation would be to have far more computers in the music room so that creative potential is maximised through using acoustic and electronic instruments with each other. There are still areas for software development, particularly to upload podcasts to the internet or intranet (O’Hear 2005), which is currently a challenging operation for teachers and pupils.
Cain notes that ICT does not feature in the National Curriculum for Music for Key Stage 1 (5-8 year olds), and questions on what basis this decision has been made (Cain 2004: 220). Many primary school teachers who are expected to deliver the National Curriculum for Music have limited musical knowledge. Technology has helped improve the situation through e.g. CD recordings of backing tracks for when a piano or pianist are not available. Yet away from this kind of technology, designed for the non-expert, is it realistic to expect non-specialist primary school teachers to assimilate skills to teach music technology when more general music skills are challenging for many of them?
Issues in Music Therapy
Widespread use of music therapy within the community is still a relatively recent phenomenon.
In the last 10 years, a number of training courses have been developed. These are postgraduate, usually demanding a first degree in music, and access depending on successful audition and interview. Successful candidates have therefore been those with a solid ‘conventional’ music training i.e. in the western classical tradition, with no demands made for competency in music technology or other styles.
Yet it is argued that it is critical for the therapist to use musical materials that will be culturally meaningful (Gfeller 1990: 66). Popular styles are more ‘culturally meaningful’ to large sections of the population, particularly among young people. Music therapy has acquired status in the education sector, with most therapists in schools working with children with serious learning difficulties or behavioural issues, and the ability to work within a range of styles is an advantage. Competence with technology such as Soundbeam is beneficial if working with groups such as those without the ability to use conventional instruments individuals with co-ordination or movement difficulties, for example. This has been recognised, and there is now a steady increase in musicians from non-classical traditions entering the profession (Bunt 2003: 190), hopefully including those with knowledge of music technology.
Conclusion
Although the technology’s impact on community music-making is largely positive, there are still issues regarding accessibility. Certain sections of the community have far less access to music technology than others. Much of the activity focuses on certain music genres, particularly urban music, which has a broader appeal among young people, especially males, than with other demographics. Subcultural issues of authenticity rule that to ‘keep it real’, this music should be produced by disadvantaged, inner city social groups, and it hence becomes more culturally meaningful for a specific minority.
Many projects are aimed at enabling young people or the disabled to access musical activities using technology. Community activities for older people appear to be focused on traditional music-making choirs, for example, are widespread and may be the only option for the mature person wanting to participate in shared musical activity.
In conclusion, it appears that music technology has much to offer both in an educational sense and also for leisure, yet cultural conventions and the inflexibility of institutions to respond to changes in technology at the rate they are happening are hindering the uptake of music technology. The way forward is therefore to develop further technology to help accessibility, as this is an area of success and potential, yet, simultaneously, structures such as the National Curriculum and funding organisations need to have the flexibility to embrace changes in order that they remain relevant to communities.
Bibliography
Adams P (2001) Resources and Activities Beyond the School in Issues in Music Teaching Ed. Philpott C and Plummeridge C (RoutledgeFalmer, London) pp182-193
Bunt L (2003) Music Therapy with Children: a complementary service to music education? in British Journal of Music Education 2003 20:2 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp179-195
Cain T (2004) Theory, Technology and the Music Curriculum in British Journal of Music Education 2004 21:2 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp215-221
Cope D (2001) Virtual Music: Computer Synthesis of Musical Style (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts)
Eales A (2003) Teamwork in Music Teacher Ed. Jenkins L August 2003 (Rhinegold, London) pp18-19
Gfeller K (1990) Cultural Context As It Relates to Music Therapy in Music Therapy in the Treatment of Adults with Mental Disorders Ed. Unkefer R (Schirmer, New York) pp 63-69
Hodges R (2001) Using ICT in Music Teaching in Issues in Music Teaching Ed. Philpott C and Plummeridge C (RoutledgeFalmer, London) pp170-181
Hugill A (2005) Internet Music: An Introduction in Contemporary Music Review Vol 24/6 December 2005 (Routledge, London) pp.429-437
O’Hear S (2005) Podcasts offer the audience pupils crave in Education Guardian, October 4, 2005
Reese S (1996) MIDI-assisted composing in your classroom in Teaching Music ed. Sprucer G (Open University/Routledge)
Stevens C (2003) Foundation Course centrespread in Music Teacher Ed. Jenkins L August 2001 (Rhinegold, London)
Taylor T (2001) Strange Sounds: Music, Technology and Culture (Routledge, London)
Théberge P (1997) Any Sound You Can Imagine (Wesleyan University Press, New England)
Tyler H (2000) The Music Therapy Profession in Modern Britain in Music as Medicine Ed. Horden P (Ashgate, Hampshire) pp375-393
Tags: community, education, music, technology
