Music Educators Perspectives on Composition Pedagogy

Interest among music teachers and researchers in composition pedagogy emerged as early as 1922 with the writings of Satis Coleman (1922). Coleman’s ground-breaking work as documented in part by Volk (1996) is worth a careful read. Coleman’s work is also noted by Dallman (1970), who wrote one of the very first dissertations on creativity and music composition in schools, predated by several music education studies on the subject during the 1960s. Reviews of these and other historical work by music educators can be found in Running (2008).

Creativity and music education (Sullivan & Willingham, 2002) includes these words in the Foreword by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Lori Custodero for this volume of edited chapters:

Teaching with creativity as a goal changes the nature of instruction in music classrooms. The editors and contributors of this important book have created a mandate for such change through their collective vision of a new musicianship. Multiple voices, spanning the roles of research, teacher, teacher/educator, and composer/improviser, tell convincing stories regarding how and why music education might be best practiced. (p. xv)

In a similar vein, the chapter by Cohen is notable for its thoughts on musical creativity and teacher training and an early contribution by Wiggins on the importance of children’s meaningful music thinking foreshadowed her later work. The book also included a more refined version of Webster’s model of creative thinking in music. The Webster model attempted to place divergent and convergent thinking at the core of processes often cited in the creativity literature. Influences of both enabling skills and conditions and product intention and resultant products were stressed. Webster placed the model in context with a more practical twist in a special issue of the Music Educators Journal⁸ (Webster, 1990) years earlier.

Another collection of important contributions that serve as exemplars for music composition pedagogy can be found in an edited volume by Odena (2012). This collection featured well known contemporary scholars from the United Kingdom including Burnard, M. Barrett, Welch, Seddon, and Odena himself. Included in this collection is a case study (Webster, 2012) focused on teacher-guided revision by of a middle school student working to revise a composition with the aid of a adult composer who specializes in the teaching of composition to children. Here is a portion of the interview with this composer/teacher who in working from an informed pedagogy:

On the subject of revision specifically, my first approach with young students (and many older ones) tends to be leading them through a process of discovery: what details about the music are they hearing mentally, or playing for me, that have not yet made it onto the page? Do they need more dynamics, articulations, etc. to make the page match what they hear? By posing revision first as the process of realizing their ideas more fully on paper, of making the work more individuated and more “theirs," students realize that revision does not threaten the initial creation. From there I often ask students to imagine, play or sing various possible ways of changing certain elements of the piece. The process is playful and improvisatory rather than corrective. I always let the student be the final judge of which version they like best, but I find that by leading them through this exploratory process and posing multiple suggestions, they usually arrive at a revision that demonstrates greater musical sophistication and are able to articulate good reasons for their choices. Once a student is comfortable with this sort of process, I feel I can begin to use diagnostic language to identify possible weaknesses in their work or question larger assumptions about music that their work demonstrates. (Webster, 2012, pp. 107-108)

A major contribution by Burnard in the same year (2012) extended focus beyond the traditional school settings to the “creativies” that mark music-making in our society in a variety of contexts. This book established a convincing argument that creativeness and its understanding is deeply influenced by social and cultural contexts—a theme echoed in much of the writings by creativity scholars from history and today (see Sawyer, 2012). Burnard’s own words in the book’s introduction made this clear:

I put forward a framework for understanding multiple musical creativities and the development of socially responsive teaching and learning practices. It explores how the field of music in education might relate a little closer to industry experience, at least in awareness of how musicians create in real world practices. Ways for operationalizing an expanded concept of musical creativity in the world of the Internet, e-learning, and virtual fields are discussed. (p. 4)

One might begin their reading of Burnard by considering an earlier chapter in another publication (Burnard, 2011) in which she exposes the richness of children’s meaning making as composers with descriptions of four case studies of children’s conception of what composing is. Such study of the voices of people engaged in the doing and teaching of composition adds greatly to our pedagogical understanding.

Teacher/Composer Voice. Reflecting on his time as a student of famed composition pedagogue Nadia Boulanger⁹, Ward-Steinman, reinforced the importance of craft/technique in composition (Ward- Steinman, 2011).¹⁰ He noted that counterpoint was deeply valued by Boulanger as was inner hearing and melodic development. But also valued in the mind of Ward-Steinman, as he reflected on his own experience as a composition teacher, was the student’s “flame” and “creative spark”:

Is craft something separate from the art of composing? Are counterpoint and theory the tools of craft? These tools can indeed by taught, but they are only kindling material—the flame must come from within the student. . . . The teacher’s job is to help the student express him- or herself musically and nurture whatever artistic spark or talent may be present. (p. 9)

Ward-Steinman also stressed Boulanger’s concern for revision and self-criticism of one’s work, which was also noted by Williams (2010). Ward-Steinman reflected on time at San Diego State University and his engagement with the famed Comprehensive Musicianship Project (Mark & Madura, pp. 25-28) that encouraged, among other things, group composition classes to supplement individual instruction. In this context, Ward-Steinman wrote:

Why shouldn’t all musicians compose, not just the composition majors? I think they should. There are really only three things to be done with music: compose it, play it, or listen to it. Everything else we do in music is a spin-off from this triangle of fundamental activities. It follows, then, that a musicians training should emphasize equally all three activities, which is the underlying philosophy of comprehensive musicianship. [italics added, p. 17]

Content analysis studies of student and teacher interactions in music composition study are remarkably rare. M. Barrett (2006) used a case study approach to investigate composition instruction between an eminent teacher/composer and a student composer. Video recordings were captured for a series of lessons and interviews conducted to probe the findings. Twelve teaching strategies were identified (pp. 201-202) wherein the teacher:

1. extended thinking, provided possibilities
2. referenced work to and beyond the tradition (signposting)
3. set parameters for identity as a composer
4. provoked the student to describe and explain

5. questioned purpose, probed intention
6. shifted back and forth between micro and macro levels
7. provided multiple alternatives from analysis of student work
8. prompted the student to engage in self-analysis
9. encouraged goal-setting and task identification

10. engaged in joint problem finding and problem solving
11. provided reassurance
12. gave license to change

The article included detailed transcriptions of interviews between teacher and student and themes were identified—all helpful for developing a perspective on pedagogy. M. Barrett and Gromko (2007) published a similar case study the following year.

A Socratic dialogue between Katherine Strand and Libby Larsen on music, musical experience in American culture, and music education was particularly meaningful (Strand & Larsen, 2011). This dialog revealed important aspects of music education from the vantage point of a noted composer, including the meaningful epigraph that starts this chapter. Strand is a music education professor and Larsen a professional composer with a strong interest in music education. Among the many topics covered were Larsen’s views on the mismatch between music and its teaching in schools, the scope of reach to all students, and culturally relevant teaching approaches.

I firmly believe we are at a crossroads in music and we have got to take a close look at how we prepare future music teachers. We use methodologies for codifying/notating rhythmic motion that were developed in another time. . . . We have built our ideas about theory, composition, and music education on the parameters derived from a narrow band of Western classical music. Now we must rethink our theoretical systems based on how we truly hear each other if we wish to regain our relevance. (pp. 58-59)

Preparing teachers to help children think creatively in sound was another topic.

I was offered a commission to compose a work for a high school band program. In talking with the director of the ensemble, I asked if every kid in the band could be part of the process and compose along with me. He was intrigued to build a process that was both open and structured at the same time—a project in which his kids could practice their creativity within the sphere of their technical abilities. So I borrowed a culturally known form of an egg carton (because we all know what cartons are) along with poetry and imagery about the moon. I created a musical work in this structure, with nine sections mine and eight sections blank. The band members had to re-organize themselves into small groups to fill in the empty sections with their own music, working through the basic elements of music: pitch, motion, architecture, and emotional impact, in whatever way they chose. They simply had to invent a piece that flowed in the carton structure. The only direction I gave them was that they had to be able to explain their choices for pitch, motion, architecture, and emotional impact. It worked really well. (pp. 63-64)